The FDA Announces New Nutrition Label Requirements - Are They Effective?

The (FDA) Food & Drug Administration announced changes to the nutrition labels on food products today, proving that the FDA does indeed function - people work there and they clock in and they make graphic changes to the food labels for a purpose.

I can't quite discern the purpose. There is an emphasis on updating serving sizes to be more realistic, which is indeed a good thing, but mainly the emphasis is on emphasizing the calories. So the serving sizes may increase slightly, and the calories will be printed larger and more dominantly, but what is this all suppose to prove again?

I guess these are good changes all in all, I just have very little doubt that this will effect most American's decision making when it comes to reducing intake. People who are concerned with nutrition labels are already making smarter choices, it's a lack of caring that affects most Americans.

Here is a breakdown of the changes that will be featured in the new nutrition label as mandated by the (FDA) Food & Drug Administration:

• The redesign would change how serving sizes are calculated and displayed.
• Percent daily values would shift to the left, making them easier to read. Some package sizes would be required to show both "per serving" and "per package" calorie and nutrition counts.
• Vitamin D and potassium counts would be required. Vitamins A and C would be optional.
• Calorie counts would be more prominent, and the existing "Calories from Fat" line would be removed.
• The new design would require information about added sugars.

Why the Arizona Gay Law Makes Me Think Overpopulation

The Arizona "gay law" clearly goes beyond gay people as it basically is asking the question, "as a business owner, do I have the right to discriminate my business to anyone based on my personal principles?"

The answer may very well be "yes" which is neither all good nor all bad - but plenty bad. I understand that people do not want to be told how to conduct their businesses that they built with their blood, sweat, and tears - and I get that - but I also do not understand why so many people are obsessing about who they get to oppress.

Why are we so afraid to love our neighbor? Is his skin color really so different that it causes hatred? Is his god so vastly different that his mere existence is a threat to us?

It is certain, according to the infallible law of sustainability, that earth's population can only grow so large before a) there are not enough resources to sustain the populace and b) the "organism" of the populace as a whole is too large to sustain itself and function correctly.

Admittedly, part a is the more commonly accepted theory whereas part b is more of my footnote of an observation.

However, with this theory in mind, I cannot help but wonder if this "gay law" in Arizona, possibly to be followed by Georgia and other states, is not a sign that our populace is indeed too large and that nature is starting to throw some curve balls. Basically, is it possible that there are so many people that our collective energy is trying to eradicate parts of itself so that that rest of the organism can continue to thrive?

I have a similar question / hypothesis regarding homosexuality as a natural, biological response to overpopulation.

What other reason do we have to keep hating and fighting our neighbors after all of this time, even when the deity that we fight for clearly commands us to love our neighbors?

2012 Elections Yield More Victories for Gay American Rights

The fight for Gay American Rights continues and the 2012 Elections yield major victories in the ongoing battle.

Maine and Maryland both approved gay marriage as the first two states to approve the notions by popular vote. Main and Maryland are now the seventh and eight states that allow same sex marriage in the United States.

The state of Washington also voted on gay marriage, but results are not immediately determined.

Minnesota defeated a proposed constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage in their state.

As this is still a fight, opposition is always around the counter. "At the end of the day, we're still at 32 victories," says Brian Brown of the National Organization for Marriage. "Just because two extreme blue states vote for gay marriage doesn't mean the Supreme Court will create a constitutional right for it out of thin air."