Monday, January 30, 2012

Sincere Question of the Day

Why is a loyal, active, youthful supporter base a problem when it comes to Ron Paul?

That's what got Obama in office.

He's the only candidate that I see as posing a real threat to Obama's reelection, and it's almost comical how clearly you can see behind the curtain that the Republican establishment will not let that happen. I don't understand why. If they embraced him, he'd have the Republican base who will Vote Republican even if Judas himself was the nominee (note: I'm not certain he hasn't been already), and on top of that, you'd have a real grab for the swing, independent voters that really do decide an election (assuming it's not just pre-programmed into the Diebold machines). I think it's because they* don't have their hooks in him and they know it. He'd be a loose cannon, too risky.



* lobbyists & the money elite they work for: bankers, large corporations, investment firms, defense contractors, oil companies, Koch brothers. in other words, the establishment as we know it. can't go messing with the status quo!

Friday, January 27, 2012

This is what gives me hope




From the Guarduan: 

"Russian police don't take kindly to opposition protesters – even if they're 5cm high and made of plastic.

Police in the Siberian city of Barnaul have asked prosecutors to investigate the legality of a recent protest that saw dozens of small dolls – teddy bears, Lego men, South Park figurines – arranged to mimic a protest, complete with signs reading: "I'm for clean elections" and "A thief should sit in jail, not in the Kremlin".

"Political opposition forces are using new technologies to carry out public events – using toys with placards at mini-protests," Andrei Mulintsev, the city's deputy police chief, said at a press conference this week, according to local media. "In our opinion, this is still an unsanctioned public event."

Activists set up the display after authorities repeatedly rejected their request to hold a sanctioned demonstration of the kind held in Moscow to protest disputed parliamentary elections results and Vladimir Putin's expected return to the presidency in a March vote."

continue reading.



It's sad because it takes a cutesy photo like this, one that is complete internet blog bait, to get some international attention. Again, my new enemy NPR, I remember about 2 months ago driving to get my sister after work and NPR was doing nothing but gossiping about Republican candidates, so I switched around finally to see what other talk radio stations were out there. I found one other news talk station that was airing a very loose call in show that was featuring a long phone conversation with an American journalist in Russia. She explained why people were upset and what it took to get them so mad to protest in such a major and historic way. This conversation was at least 15 minutes long, not a 4 minute and forget it style piece a la NoPointRadio. That really woke me up to how much were missing out on. (And let me add, I get "woken up" all the time. I find it has to be a continual process because it starts to fade and you slip back into complacency.)



All that aside, what can we do to help these people? This doll protest is one of the greatest, funniest things ever. I love that the human spirit can turn desperate times into not only desperate, but creative and funny measures.  Here's another example: a Banksy supported art collective painted this giant phallus on a draw bridge that faced the local FSB headquarters (aka the successor to the KGB).





lol's.

Tuesday, January 24, 2012

What You Don't Know Is Hurting You. And Me. And Everyone Else On This Planet.



I’m currently reading “Vulture’s Picnic” by Greg Palast (long, gushing review to come in the near future). I googled Exxon last night, and this is the latest news headline, dated January 19, 2012.

Exxon to pay $1.6M penalty for Yellowstone River spill

What I’ve learned from his book so far, is that to oil companies, it’s cheaper to Pay the Victims than to Prevent the Crime. (made this jpg to illustrate. do i have to put some sort of "supposedly" disclaimer so I don't get the hounds sicked on me? I hate that it's dangerous to have an opinion in this country today). In other words, if they took all the measures necessary (and very often times legally required but un-enforced) it is much cheaper to just pay for the cleanup and buy off the local victims. Preventative measures like P.I.G.S to examine the pipeline structure, valid cleanup plans and actually equipment built and ready along with personnel trained and prepared to react when the inevitable happen, all that is just money spent on “what if” when they could spend half that on a lazy “oh shit” response should the time come.

AND THE TIME ALWAYS COMES.

Yellowstone. Prince William Sound, Alaska. The entire Gulf Coast. These are areas that are just ruined now. There’s no going back. Irreplaceable habitats, and the local economies inextricably linked to these areas devastated. Lives ruined. Futures lost. History lost.

Instead of the bare minimum payments for cleanup costs, why don’t we demand a portion of the enormous profits that are being made off of these operations? They’ve taken a resource that belongs to no one except whoever successfully called “dibs” last, and they’ve recklessly extracted and transported it through highly sensitive areas. The bare minimum is not good enough. They do not deserve to make such ridiculous profit off of this at the expense of humanity itself. *

And if we’re not going to demand more money – seemingly the only value these type of people hold – can we at least get some lawmakers with guts and follow through to hold them to tighter scrutiny? Safety and prevention. Clear cut demands on what a total “clean up” would be defined as. That’d all be “nice.”

AND FINALLY. My rant the other day on NPR. This story is CASE IN POINT on what is being missed by supposedly mainstream “liberal” media. I checked nytimes.com, huffingtonpost.com and NPR for coverage. NY Times had (seriously, not an exaggeration) – 1 paragraph. 1 lousy paragraph, and that was on a “green blog” with a title “On our Radar” and was followed by a few other miscellaneous things. I really think framing things like this as a “green” issue, as if it’s a cozy cuddly, that’d be nice to do type thing, instead of a five-alarm crime against our heritage and future well-being, is just, well, sad.

Huffington Post and NPR just posted an Associated Press piece about it. (I didn’t see anything on NPR that it actually made it to the airwaves). And – surprise, surprise – it’s the blandest collection of words you could ever imagine. Emotionless robots write for the AP. There isn’t a pulse to be found in those letters. It makes it sound as dry as the meeting notes from a local PTA gathering. Instead it’s belying the fact that YELLOWSTONE NATIONAL PARK, pretty much the face of this country, was defiled by corporate negligence.

Here’s my favorite, infuriating bits of info from the AP article:

The same day the settlement was announced:
“Also Thursday, Exxon increased its estimate of how much crude spilled into the river during the July 1 accident near Laurel to 1,509 barrels, or more than 63,000 gallons.”

Here’s some money. Oh, by the way, it’s a lot worse than we admitted. Bye-now!
“It contains provisions to shield the company against any future lawsuits from state agencies.”

And what have they done so far?
“Only about 10 barrels of crude were recovered by cleanup crews. That's less than 1 percent of the total spilled, federal officials have said.”

“There were hundreds and hundreds of acres of land affected and it was a major oil spill.”


Yep, here ya go! 1.6 million should cover it, right boys? [carelessly shakes a bit of change out from the bottom of his pockets] Pleasure doing business with ya. See you next time!

Is there no justice in this world?**





* [Sidenote: I’m not a socialist, so go boink yourself if you want to say that. When it comes to LIMITED, ESSENTIAL RESOURCES of which no one person or company can say they created, why does the public get skinned for that? Go build a widget factory, and I won’t give a crap what you do with your profit. As long as you don’t shit on your neighbor in the process. There needs to be rights and oversights to entities that endanger the public good. STOP REPEATING small minded & loaded terminology to protect your own greed and fear based ideology. IT’S DO OR DIE TIME – stop defending the purveyors of our own demise.]

** [Trick question. There’s not. Greg Palast has proven that to me beyond a doubt.]

Monday, January 23, 2012

Seen on the Streets



Saw this Sunday morning - someone must have hacked the bus stop ad. Love it. Really love it.

Saturday, January 21, 2012

I'm Grateful for the Women Who Came Before Me

Roe vs. Wade turns 39 today.

Can someone explain to me: why do otherwise rational, leave politics out of it libertarians like Ron Paul, also support pro-life movements? And at the same time, don't support welfare and programs that actually help kids who are here and need support. I really, really (really) don't get it.





Let's leave headlines like this to the Onion.


Supreme Court Overturns 'Right v. Wrong'

WASHINGTON—Striking down the judicial precedent that established the legal supremacy of right over wrong more than two centuries ago, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday overturned Right v. Wrong.

The landmark reversal—a bitterly contested 5-4 decision that has been widely praised by murderers, rapists, bigots, usurers, and pro-wrong advocates nationwide—nullifies all previously lawful forms of right and makes it very difficult for Americans to make ethical decisions or be generally decent human beings without facing criminal charges.

"It is the opinion of this court that the Constitution was crafted in such a manner as to uphold and encourage practices that are not right and, ideally, are very wrong," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority, which also in­cluded Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and John Roberts. "Despite the compelling case for goodness, truth, and justice made by our predecessors in the case of Right v. Wrong, we firmly believe that malice, dishonesty, and injustice were the framers' original intent."


(p.s. the main headline link is to a really intense article in Mother Jones entitled "The Way It Was")

Thursday, January 19, 2012

All Things Consider (and by "All" we just mean bland, distracting fluff pieces with an occasional foreign affairs story)

On the way home from the grocery store this evening, about a 7 minute drive, I heard on NPR not once, not twice, but three separate mentions of Rick Perry dropping out of the race. IN SEVEN MINUTES.

This is EXACTLY why I have no faith in our future. The supposed voice of the people and the "fair and balanced" gives 90% of their broadcast each evening to this sideshow circus. WHY?

It's distracting minor leagues bullshit. Mention it once and move on. OUR SOCIETY IS ON THE BRINK OF COLLAPSE. I really don't care about has beens and never be's. TELL ME ABOUT THE 'IS HAPPENINGS' AND THE 'OH SHIT' type stuff. ENOUGH ALREADY!

It's sad because I have a friend who, in trying to proclaim their breadth of news analysis, said they listen to both Fox News and NPR. OK, you have the far right and the just right of center. Trust me. TRUST ME! There is a whole other range of news in the spectrum that those two don't come remotely close to touching.

For example, everyone who is either cheering me on right now or raising their nose in disgust and disbelief should read the latest book by Greg Palast's "Vulture's Picnic." That shows you what real reporting can do.

In the meantime, I'll just continue doing what I usually do: swing between cowering in fear beneath my covers, forging plans for total self-sustainability, and trying to stab and poke at the big beast with things like this blog.

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Monday, January 16, 2012

MLK Day: many footsteps, many paths to follow

I am an avid and devoted listener of WTF with Marc Maron. It’s an intersection of a lot of things I really love: I really (really) love funny people, I really love learning about other people’s lives, I really love learning about successful people’s lives, I really love creative people who have the courage to take the path less traveled, and I really love Marc Maron and his sensitive intellectualism.

This morning’s interview was particularly interesting and powerful, and I wanted to take a moment to reflect and promote it on my corner of the internet. It’s an extremely intelligent, honest & passionate conversation with Todd Glass, a successful comedian, who comes out of the closet as a forty-something year old man.

Why was he in the closet for so long? He’s not religious, his family is supportive of who he is, it seems that he just really feared judgment and being defined by his sexuality.

Why did he come out of the closet at long last? Kids are dying because of the persistent homophobia in society and what it can be internalized as, and he knew his conscious would no longer allow him to stay behind that safe curtain of compassionate neutrality. And also, as Marc puts it, holding a secret becomes something that you contract and grow around, and after awhile, your emotional health and personal evolution becomes hinged on acknowledging and releasing that secret.

My summarizing will never do this justice, so I encourage people to take a moment and listen. It’s so worth it, I swear! He really made clear, and opened my mind (which I previously held as being wide open already) to a lot of things.


But, to that conversation, my addendum is this graphic I’ve been wanting to put together for awhile (since watching a documentary on William Burroughs). “Gay” has been an adjective my generation in particular has held onto as a word not associated with sexuality necessarily, but just a descriptor for something being stupid, uncool, etc. And what Todd really opened my eyes to, is the way that simply hurts people on a deep and personal level. And it’s not right.

Not only is it not right to perpetuate that hurt and shame, but it’s just not right because being gay is NOT stupid and uncool. In fact, it’s quite the opposite! Being bold enough to be gay often times means you’re also bold enough to breakdown other standards, to make breakthroughs in a number of disciplines because you have elevated yourself beyond the dimensions of societal boundaries. It’s fucking rock n roll! It’s the best any of us can hope to be! If there’s any goal any one person can hope for or should strive towards achieving in this life, it’s to come to terms with who you truly are, and as such, live a life in pursuit of your true passions and as your true self. That’s the hero’s journey.

And that’s hard! That’s really hard for anyone. And I want to do my best to not only achieve that for myself, but to help make it an easier world for all of us to do the same. Thanks to Todd Glass and Marc Maron for paving the way!




“Within the typical secondary school curriculum, homosexuals do not exist. They are 'nonpersons' in the finest Stalinist sense. They have fought no battles, held no offices, explored nowhere, written no literature, built nothing, invented nothing and solved no equations. The lesson to the heterosexual student is abundantly clear: homosexuals do nothing of consequence. To the homosexual student, the message has even greater power: no one who has ever felt as you do has done anything worth mentioning.” - Gerald Unks, editor, The Gay Teen

Historical figures referenced were found at http://www.lambda.org/famous.htm.





addendum: (here is a link to Todd's own very funny podcast, where this week he has what I'd call a post WTF wrap up, where he just sorta gets some other things off his chest in a loose way, and with the support of his BFF, the fabulous Sarah Silverman. I don't know why I liked this whole to-do so much, I just did.)

Sunday, January 15, 2012

The Truth is Out There (We Just Choose Not to Find It)

Unbelievably believable. The NY Times Editor recently asked the question: "I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

It's funny how, at the end of this article covering the consequence of this question on the UK's Guardian (again, not surprised), it says that in order to maintain a reputation of neutrality amongst politicians and advertisers, it means newspapers cannot fact-check & debunk a lot of things politicians say. So being "neutral" means ignoring or being unconcerned with the actual truth.

FAIL.

Fail, fail, fail. Thank God for the new age of the internet and independent bloggers. (and on that note, a reminder to protest SOPA please). What a complete dark age we'd be in if the gatekeepers of information were only these old dinosaurs, concerned not with their readers and their duty as the 4th estate, but with playing nice.



The New York Times public editor's very public utterance


from the Guardian:

Thursday, Arthur Brisbane, the public editor of the New York Times, went to his readers with a question:

"I'm looking for reader input on whether and when New York Times news reporters should challenge 'facts' that are asserted by newsmakers they write about."

Brisbane (who, as public editor, speaks only for himself, not the Times) referred to two recent stories: the claim that Clarence Thomas had "misunderstood" a financial reporting form when he left out key information, and Mitt Romney's assertion that President Obama gives speeches "apologising" for America. Brisbane asked whether news reporters should have the freedom to investigate and respond to those comments.

The reaction from readers was swift, voluminous, negative and incredulous.

"Is this a joke? THIS IS YOUR JOB."

"If the purpose of the NYT is to be an inoffensive container for ad copy, then by all means continue to do nothing more than paraphrase those press releases."

"I hope you can help me, Mr Brisbane, because I'm an editor, currently unemployed: is fecklessness now a job requirement?"

Brisbane had clearly not been expecting this excoriating and one-sided a reaction. Brisbane has since tried to clarify his views twice. The first was on the media blog JimRomenesko.com:

"What I was trying to ask was whether reporters should always rebut dubious facts in the body of the stories they are writing. I was hoping for diverse and even nuanced responses to what I think is a difficult question."

The second was on the NY Times site:

"My inquiry related to whether the Times, in the text of news columns, should more aggressively rebut 'facts' that are offered by newsmakers when those 'facts' are in question. I consider this a difficult question, not an obvious one."

This only added fuel to the fire.

Now, it's worth noting that Brisbane's question makes perfect sense, considered from the newsroom's perspective. Romney's claim that Obama makes speeches "apologising" for America isn't readily amenable to fact-checking. Instead, Romney relied on what are sometimes called "weasel words", in which an allegation is alluded to, without being made head-on. (Romney, for instance, never quotes any of the president's speeches when making this assertion.) For Brisbane, the open question was whether a hard news reporter should be calling out those kinds of statements, or should simply quote the source accurately.

Continue Reading

Tuesday, January 10, 2012

Is this the twilight of blues music?


I came across this article just now. How? How does anyone find anything on this interwebs: I stumbled into it.

Let me retrace. I googled "John Lee Hooker lessons." Why? Because I want to learn some John Lee Hooker songs on my guitar. That's why. And on the blues website with a video lesson, to the side it had a repost of a tweet that said "97-year old blues artist wins a grammy." So I clicked on that to see - was that Honeyboy? I couldn't remember how old he was when he died, but maybe they just awarded him something and I didn't know about it. But nope - it was another old boy I have a sweet spot for - Hubert Sumlin. Hubert! And from that article, I finally came to this final destination: a link to a piece entitled "Is this the twilight of blues music?"

Oh, boy. I don't like hearing that. I really don't. But this author makes a good point - we lost a lot of good people in 2011, certainly last of their generations. So Happy to say that I've seen all three name checked in this article: Honeyboy Edwards, Hubert Sumlin and Pinetop Perkins. I even had a conversation with Honeyboy! One of those great little moments I'll always be glad I went for, as I stood at the Hideout waiting for him to go on, and noticed, hey, he's just sitting at the back of the room enjoying a beer. Should I go over there? Should I? This mid-twenties little white girl, who hides an old soul and a love of the blues inside? I did. I went for it, and he seemed grateful for the company. Anyway, that's not my point, to brag on that.

My point is: that this article makes some good points. Especially about the lack of support for Chicago blues clubs, and those clubs who are stuck in a routine, afraid to shake things up. I'll certainly agree with that. As for his analogy to blues being like Gregorian chant, I must say: whoa dude, back that train up. Apples to oranges, apples to oranges my friend.

The blues exists and thrives in all shapes and forms. It will not be some dusty thing on the shelf. It's just not - it's influence is too wide and too deep. There's too many musicphiles that go right to that source. Look at Keith Richards or Jack White. Ask them if they're Gregorian chant revivalists or true blue channelers of a primal art form. Ask them.

Anyway, no offense, but this article itself had that familiar Tribune flavor of all polish, no soul. Maybe it's his editor, the way he's conditioned after years of employment, or maybe he's kinda stiff himself and that's why he can't see the many threads modern blues continues to weave. Of course they don't play it on the radio. Does anything good come from commercial channels of any sort? No. I dare say no.

But things do leak through. Maybe someday, that thing will be the blues again.


From ChicagoTribune.com:

"They buried Hubert Sumlin two weeks ago at Washington Memory Gardens Cemetery in Homewood, laying to rest the man whose ferocious guitar riffs galvanized Howlin' Wolf's classic recordings of the 1950s and '60s.

Just before Sumlin's casket was lowered into the ground, young Chicago blues artist Shemekia Copeland stood at his graveside and sang "Life's a Rainbow," her arms outstretched to the coffin. Barely 30 people showed up at the funeral — which was paid for by Sumlin admirers Mick Jagger and Keith Richards — bidding silent farewell to a bluesman who left Chicago years ago, dying in New Jersey at age 80.

As the wind blew across the cemetery grounds, Chicago blues musician Todd Park Mohr stepped near the casket and chanted a song of his own. It honored a man who helped define Chicago blues a couple generations ago, at long-forgotten clubs such as Silvio's, on the West Side:

Fly away from here, Mr. Sumlin.

The ground in New Jersey has gone cold. ...

When you ever gonna learn,

Chicago always gonna be your home.

Drive away from this evil world, Mr. Sumlin.

Drive that old car back to Silvio's.

"

Continue reading.

Saturday, January 07, 2012

You do not have to wait for the future distopia to arrive. It is here. You are it's maker.



If you own a Mac product and do not listen to this radio piece, you will not get into heaven.


Wait. Wait, this just in. That goes for anyone who owns ANY piece of electronic equipment made in China. Sorry, God said.

Monday, January 02, 2012

Wheat Belly.









Dear People in My Life,

Preface: You may realize by now that I am a curious person. I question things. I don’t just take it at face value. I want to know the whole story. I love fringe and outsider thinking. And this leads me into some very off-the-beaten-path territories sometimes. But I love trying on new thought and belief systems in search of greater truths. To me, it’s fun. But to others, I can see that it clearly threatens them in some deep way, making them defensive, dismissive, or most often, just generally uncomfortable – “can we talk about pop culture and the minutia of our day now?” Yes, I guess so.

Doesn’t stop me!

So the latest path that I’ve been following can be generally filed under the label of “nutrition.” It’s a natural extension from my love of food, which led to a love of cooking, which led to interest in farming and thinking about food sources, and now, I’ve just been thinking about what is the best for the human body. What is the fuel that makes a healthy mind and body, and what is the crap that turns us into sloven miscreants? I don’t know about you, but I want to be the best possible version of myself.

It’s amazing to me how much there is to know, and how so much of it is just not obvious. We eat 3 times a day, every day! It’s something we cannot avoid!! And yet, I’d wager most people just don’t put too much thought into it. They eat what’s available and easy.

So my latest guide down this path has been a podcast called “Gnostic Media” hosted by Jan Irvin. He’s had a series of interviews with doctors and nutritionists to discuss a variety of whole health applications. For the past few weeks, I’ve been obsessed with the idea that one such individual advocated – that the modern diet has excluded a slew of essential minerals and anti-oxidants, and that a large percentage of modern diseases have been the result.

But it’s not like our ancestors took vitamins, you nay-sayers might be thinking. Well, this doctor explains that we used to cook with wood ash, and it would get in our food. And that wood ash would be spread into the vegetable gardens as well, and that this was the source of essential minerals that we have been missing out on when we switch to electrical, stove-top cooking. This Doctor claims to have cured everything from type 2 diabetes to alzheimers’s by introducing the missing minerals en masse to patients. I can’t go into this any further, or I’ll lose track of my main point. If you are interested, listen here to the podcast on minerals.

What I really wanted to share is today’s interview on……Wheat Belly!

He says wheat creates that gross fat that wraps around your organs and causes a distended belly. And that by just eliminating wheat, you can take inches off your waistline, as well as correcting a lot of other health problems from IBS to skin problems. Again, if you want the details, listen to the interview here. Or read testimonials on Dr. Davis’ website.


Now. If you want to be on the same page as me, of course, first listen to those podcasts. And then, please join me in a wheat free diet! I’m avoiding wheat at all costs, starting immediately. And come New Years, that is my #1 resolution. I am going to go at least 4 wks completely wheat free, and will report back on any changes I notice. And hopefully, I’ll keep it going from there, but I’m giving it at least that much time to figure out for myself what the benefits might be.

I think it will be hard, but not impossible. Biggest pitfalls are obviously beer, pizza, pasta and bread. But it’s not a resolution if it’s not a challenge. Wish me luck!

And people in my life whom I love and want to live long, happy, disease-free lives: please join me in taking nothing for granted when it comes to what we consume. I swear – it will be fun! (and for another day, get me started on water.)




From a Macleans interview with Dr. Davis:


"William Davis, a preventive cardiologist who practices in Milwaukee, Wis., argues in his new book Wheat Belly that wheat is bad for your health—so bad that it should carry a surgeon general’s warning.

Q: You say the crux of the problem with wheat is that the stuff we eat today has been genetically altered. How is it different than the wheat our grandparents ate?
A: First of all, it looks different. If you held up a conventional wheat plant from 50 years ago against a modern, high-yield dwarf wheat plant, you would see that today’s plant is about 2½ feet shorter. It’s stockier, so it can support a much heavier seedbed, and it grows much faster. The great irony here is that the term “genetic modification” refers to the actual insertion or deletion of a gene, and that’s not what’s happened with wheat. Instead, the plant has been hybridized and crossbred to make it resistant to drought and fungi, and to vastly increase yield per acre. Agricultural geneticists have shown that wheat proteins undergo structural change with hybridization, and that the hybrid contains proteins that are found in neither parent plant. Now, it shouldn’t be the case that every single new agricultural hybrid has to be checked and tested, that would be absurd. But we’ve created thousands of what I call Frankengrains over the past 50 years, using pretty extreme techniques, and their safety for human consumption has never been tested or even questioned.

Q: How does wheat make us fat, exactly?
A: It contains amylopectin A, which is more efficiently converted to blood sugar than just about any other carbohydrate, including table sugar. In fact, two slices of whole wheat bread increase blood sugar to a higher level than a candy bar does. And then, after about two hours, your blood sugar plunges and you get shaky, your brain feels foggy, you’re hungry. So let’s say you have an English muffin for breakfast. Two hours later you’re starving, so you have a handful of crackers, and then some potato chips, and your blood sugar rises again. That cycle of highs and lows just keeps going throughout the day, so you’re constantly feeling hungry and constantly eating. Dieticians have responded to this by advising that we graze throughout the day, which is just nonsense. If you eliminate wheat from your diet, you’re no longer hungry between meals because you’ve stopped that cycle. You’ve cut out the appetite stimulant, and consequently you lose weight very quickly. I’ve seen this with thousands of patients.

Q: You seem to be saying that aside from anything else, wheat is essentially the single cause of the obesity epidemic.
A: I wouldn’t go so far as to say that all obesity is due to wheat. There are kids, of course, who drink Coca-Cola and sit in front of video games for many hours a day. But I’m speaking to the relatively health-minded people who think they’re doing the right thing by limiting fat consumption and eating more whole grains, and there’s a clear subset of people who are doing that and gaining weight and don’t understand why. It causes tremendous heartache. They come into my office and say, “I exercise five times a week, I’ve cut my fat intake, I watch portion size and eat my whole grains—but I’ve gone up three dress sizes.”
"


Examples of Wheat:
Bran
Bread
Breading, coating mixes
Communion wafers
Couscous
Croutons
Granola
Farina
Flour or cereal products
Pasta
Pastry and pies
Pizza
Semolina
Soy sauce
Spelt
Teriyaki sauce
Wheat breakfast cereals