Sunday, November 20, 2016

Just eggs.

Eggs are a staple food that is consumed around the world. I grew up on our family a farm in Germany and we had chicken for the meat and the eggs. All we knew about eggs then was that they were good for us. However, with the event of the Internet, we have a library of information at our fingertips by asking questions and pressing a button on the keyboard.

Not so long ago (1961, to be exact), the Powers That Be had it that eating egg yolks was risky business because they could lead to high cholesterol, heart disease and even diabetes. But that edict has been lifted. Researchers are now saying that not only can you benefit from eating the whole egg, but your body absorbs more of the nutrients from other foods when you do. Source, Dr. Mercola.

Following is an “Eggcelent” article that will tell you a thing or two about this healthy food that is part of our food chain; you may not have known before. – Werner

What came first—the kitchen or the egg? There are few things more common to find in the
typical household than a carton of eggs. The staple of quick morning breakfasts and lavish weekend brunches, and an essential ingredient in baked goods, eggs are everywhere from quiches to cakes, omelettes to pizzettes. But which types of eggs are worth buying—are they all healthy for you, and are brown eggs really better than white eggs?

Eggs have been the focus of numerous studies and opinion pieces over the years, since they are a food that nutrition experts have constantly changed their minds about over time. In 1961, eggs were said to be bad for you, allegedly a culprit for delivering a huge amount of cholesterol, which is seen to have a negative impact on heart health.

An article published by Time Magazine in 1984, went a step further, all but declaring eggs as a food terrible for the human body. But in the years since, research has been unanimous that this former “egg panic” was far from justified, with nutritionists admitting that eggs are actually incredibly good for health and nutrition. Eating even just a single egg provides a huge range of nutrients including: B vitamins, including B2, B5, and B12—all of which are responsible for converting food to energy and boosting metabolism. Phosphorus, needed for the growth, maintenance, and repair of all tissues and cells and the production of DNA.

Selenium, which keeps the thyroid gland running on all cylinders and helps with reproductive systems. Folate, a must for pregnant women since it contributes to the health of developing fetuses and cuts down on the risk of birth defects. Vitamin A, an essential vitamin known to keep eye health strong and reduces the risk of developing cataracts and macular degeneration later in life. Eggs also have two antioxidants, lutein and zeaxanthin, that can help to strengthen the retina. Vitamin D, which helps regulate the immune system and neuromuscular system, as well as increasing the rate at which the body absorbs calcium. Zinc, presenting a huge boost to the immune system. Calcium, to build healthy bones and teeth and prevent breaks and the development of osteoporosis as the body ages. Vitamin E, an antioxidant that moisturizes the skin and reduces visible signs of aging. Vitamin K, to keep blood flow regular within the body and prevent blood clots. Omega-3 fatty acids, or the good kind of fats, that can reduce amounts of triglycerides in the bloodstream and lead to better heart health. However, not all eggs contain high levels of omega-3’s—rather, only those that are produced by hens raised with enriched feed. You’ll see it noted on egg carton labels. Choline, a compound that’s vital for building stronger cellular membranes and can influence the functionality of the brain, which means it plays a major role in the development of unborn babies. Eggs are a key source, containing more than 100 milligrams. Protein, the building block of human life. The body uses protein to create molecules and tissues, strengthen muscles, and fuel bodily functions. A single egg provides six grams of protein, including all of the essential amino acids that the body can’t produce on its own.

And when it comes to the cholesterol issue, it’s important to know that, today, cholesterol content in eggs is much lower than it was just ten years ago. The reason is that the hen feed has been modified to be healthier than older formulas, and results in a much healthier egg. Nowadays, a medium-sized egg contains about 100 milligrams of cholesterol, roughly a third of the daily recommended allowance.


Does colour really make that much of a difference? Sometimes, yes. Over the last several years, there has been a growing belief that brown eggs are better, which is probably partially related to the fact that other brown foods actually are a better option—brown sugar is better than white refined sugar, brown-tinged whole wheat bread is better than white bread, etc.

But when it comes to eggs, colour doesn’t mean much—in fact, the only thing that impacts the colour of an egg is the breed of hen that lays it: A white feathered hen with white earlobes will generally lay white eggs. A reddish or brown feathered hen with red earlobes will lay brown eggs.That’s really the big difference between the two. Nutritional values are the same, shells are the same thickness, and even taste will be similar (though brown eggs may end up costing more). One of the key reasons that brown eggs have a better reputation is that the small farmers and organic farms that are seen as producing better quality overall also usually raise the types of female chickens that produce brown eggs.

While brown eggs and white eggs may not have much of a difference, there are several types of eggs that do have significant components. Here are some of the most common: Cage-free. This type of egg comes from a hen that doesn’t live in a cage. Rather, they’re allowed to roam freely. This can impact the quality and taste of the egg in a positive way because the animal is considered to be happier and won’t produce the stress hormones or have the same amount of illness as other types of more herded chickens.

Organic eggs refer to those that come from hens that are fed a diet free from fertilizers, herbicides, and fungicides. This doesn’t impact the way that the hen was raised, which is why many choose a cage-free organic option. But the important thing to understand is that organic eggs are exposed to fewer chemicals, which can impact taste and health benefits.

Pasture-raised.This takes the idea of “cage-free” a step further. Pasture-raised hens are allowed to live a pretty free life on the farm, roaming as they see fit. These female chickens also eat a variety of foods that they may not obtain in a cage, since they are able to forage throughout the day, which results in eggs that taste better and are better for you.

Omega-3-enriched.Hens that are fed foods rich in omega-3 fatty acids (such as flaxseeds) will lay eggs that also have increased levels of omega-3’s, which benefit human health, too. The amount can vary, but you can look for these specific labels at the store.

Regardless of what color or type of egg you choose to purchase and cook with, eggs can be a versatile component of many recipes. While they taste great in fried egg sandwiches or with a side of bacon, there’s also some more inventive ways to use them.

Coconut Crème Brulee.Eggs make the fluffy custard that is iconic in this classic dessert, which is finished with a flame-basted sugary layer. This recipe keeps things Paleo-friendly by using coconut cream rather than traditional milk and coconut sugar instead of refined white sugar crystals. Secure a set of ramekins and a pastry torch, and you can enjoy this treat again and again.

Breakfast Pizza.
 Breakfast would be nothing without eggs, but you don’t always have to go for scrambled. Try this tasty breakfast pizza with a Paleo-friendly, gluten-free crust made from coconut flour, coconut milk, and some savory seasonings; it’s topped with sunny-side-up eggs, bacon, spinach, mushrooms, and tomatoes for some real slices of heaven.

Tahini Egg Salad.Egg salad can be a filling lunch, but egg salad doused in mayo—not so much. Scrap that in favour of this recipe that uses tahini instead. Made from sesame seeds, its nutty flavour pairs great with eggs without being overbearing. Complement the mix with some fresh radishes, Roma tomatoes, and avocados for extra flavour and texture.

Coconut-Creamed Spinach with Eggs.
Have a little extra time in the morning? Try baking your eggs for the perfect texture and consistency. The result is runny golden yolks with firm whites. This recipe wraps them up in a bed of warm spinach that’s been doused in coconut milk. You’ll also need coconut oil, garlic, Dijon mustard, nutritional yeast, and cayenne pepper to make this pan just right.

Eggs in Purgatory.Nothing about this one-pot meal disappoints. Here, eggs are poached in a rich tomato sauce along with honey, balsamic vinegar, bell pepper, savory spices, and a pinch of feta cheese for a bit of creamy tartness. This dish is so good you might want to save it for dinner, too!

Baked Eggs in Tomato Cups. Here’s an easier, less messy way to make poached eggs. Roasted tomatoes provide the perfect vessel and imbue the yolk with some flavour during the cooking process. To make these breakfast boats, you’ll also need some fresh thyme, salt and pepper, and olive oil.
My thought for today. Werner
The fool wonders, the wise man asks. - Benjamin Disraeli

Sunday, November 6, 2016

Inside the Invisible Government: War, Propaganda, Clinton and Trump.

We can no longer trust the mainstream media to report the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Their corporate ties mean their reporting tends to be slanted at best, and completely false at worst - often with a hidden agenda.
True investigative journalism is almost non-existent in today's mainstream media - and on the rare occasions it appears, the journalists responsible are likely to suffer a backlash.
Even supposedly trustworthy sources like the ABC aren't immune. A recent example is when Dr Maryanne Demasi did a report about cholesterol and statin drugs on Catalyst, and in a later episode about the connection between WiFi and brain tumours. Both programs were removed from the internet, and Dr Demasi was suspended - simply because corporate interests didn't like the truth being reported.

Thankfully good investigative journalists do still exist,
but to find them we have to look to alternative news sources. John Pilger is one such journalist, and his newsletters are well worth subscribing to if you are interested in getting to the truth about world affairs. The following insightful article is a good example.

(BTW Edward Bernays, mentioned in Pilger's article,  played a part in promoting the water fluoridation scam. In an interview by Christopher Bryson, author of "The Fluoride Deception," Bernays said that selling fluoridation was child's play because of people's inclination to trust doctors and believe what they were told by them). – Sonja (This introduction was written by my eldest daughter, Sonja Hardy)

PS: - It doesn't cost anything to subscribe to Pilger's newsletter, and they only come out occasionally. You might find it worthwhile to subscribe.
Here is John Pilger’s very insightful article to the blog title. Pilger is a real
investigative journalist, a rare breed.

The American journalist, Edward Bernays, is often described as the man who invented modern propaganda.The nephew of Sigmund Freud, the pioneer of psycho-analysis, it was Bernays who coined the term "public relations" as a euphemism for spin and its deceptions. In 1929, he persuaded feminists to promote cigarettes for women by smoking in the New York Easter Parade - behaviour then considered outlandish. One feminist, Ruth Booth, declared, "Women! Light another torch of freedom! Fight another sex taboo!"

Bernays' influence extended far beyond advertising.
His greatest success was his role in convincing the American public to join the slaughter of the First World War.  The secret, he said, was "engineering the consent" of people in order to "control and regiment [them] according to our will without their knowing about it". He described this as "the true ruling power in our society" and called it an "invisible government".

 In my career as a journalist and film-maker, I have never known propaganda to insinuate our lives and as it does now and to go unchallenged.Imagine two cities. Both are under siege by the forces of the government of that country. Both cities are occupied by fanatics, who commit terrible atrocities, such as beheading people. But there is a vital difference. In one siege, the government soldiers are described as liberators by Western reporters embedded with them, who enthusiastically report their battles and air strikes. There are front page pictures of these heroic soldiers giving a V-sign for victory. There is scant mention of civilian casualties.

In the second city - in another country nearby - almost exactly the same is happening. Government forces are laying siege to a city controlled by the same breed of fanatics.The difference is that these fanatics are supported, supplied and armed by "us" - by the United States and Britain. They even have a media centre that is funded by Britain and America.
Another difference is that the government soldiers laying siege to this city are the bad guys, condemned for assaulting and bombing the city - which is exactly what the good soldiers do in the first city.

Confusing? Not really. Such is the basic double standard that is the essence of propaganda. I am referring, of course, to the current siege of the city of Mosul by the government forces of Iraq, who are backed by the United States and Britain and to the siege of Aleppo by the government forces of Syria, backed by Russia. One is good; the other is bad.

What is seldom reported is that both cities would not be occupied by fanatics and ravaged by war if Britain and the United States had not invaded Iraq in 2003. That criminal enterprise was launched on lies strikingly similar to the propaganda that now distorts our understanding of the civil war in Syria. Without this drumbeat of propaganda dressed up as news, the monstrous ISIS and Al-Qaida and al-Nusra and the rest of the jihadist gang might not exist, and the people of Syria might not be fighting for their lives today.

Some may remember in 2003 a succession of BBC reporters turning to the camera and telling us that Blair was "vindicated" for what turned out to be the crime of the century. The US television networks produced the same validation for George W. Bush. Fox News brought on Henry Kissinger to effuse over Colin Powell's fabrications.

The same year, soon after the invasion, I filmed an interview in Washington with Charles Lewis, the renowned American investigative journalist. I asked him, "What would have happened if the freest media in the world had seriously challenged what turned out to be crude propaganda?"

He replied that if journalists had done their job, "there is a very, very good chance we would not have gone to war in Iraq". It was a shocking statement, and one supported by other famous journalists to whom I put the same question -- Dan Rather of CBS, David Rose of the Observer and journalists and producers in the BBC, who wished to remain anonymous.

In other words, had journalists done their job, had they challenged and investigated the propaganda instead of amplifying it, hundreds of thousands of men, women and children would be alive today, and there would be no ISIS and no siege of Aleppo or Mosul.

There would have been no atrocity on the London Underground on 7th July 2005.
  There would have been no flight of millions of refugees; there would be no miserable camps.When the terrorist atrocity happened in Paris last November, President Francoise Hollande immediately sent planes to bomb Syria - and more terrorism followed, predictably, the product of Hollande's bombast about France being "at war" and "showing no mercy". That state violence and jihadist violence feed off each other is the truth that no national leader has the courage to speak.

"When the truth is replaced by silence," said the Soviet dissident Yevtushenko, "the silence is a lie."The attack on Iraq, the attack on Libya, the attack on Syria happened because the leader in each of these countries was not a puppet of the West. The human rights record of a Saddam or a Gaddafi was irrelevant. They did not obey orders and surrender control of their country. The same fate awaited Slobodan Milosevic once he had refused to sign an "agreement" that demanded the occupation of Serbia and its conversion to a market economy. His people were bombed, and he was prosecuted in The Hague. Independence of this kind is intolerable.

As WikLeaks has revealed, it was only when the Syrian leader Bashar al-Assad in 2009 rejected an oil pipeline, running through his country from Qatar to Europe, that he was attacked. From that moment, the CIA planned to destroy the government of Syria with jihadist fanatics - the same fanatics currently holding the people of Mosul and eastern Aleppo hostage.

Why is this not news? The former British Foreign Office official Carne Ross, who was responsible for operating sanctions against Iraq, told me: "We would feed journalists factoids of sanitised intelligence, or we would freeze them out. That is how it worked."The West's medieval client, Saudi Arabia - to which the US and Britain sell billions of dollars' worth of arms - is at present destroying Yemen, a country so poor that in the best of times, half the children are malnourished.

Look on YouTube and you will see the kind of massive bombs - "our" bombs - that the Saudis use against dirt-poor villages, and against weddings, and funerals.The explosions look like small atomic bombs. The bomb aimers in Saudi Arabia work side-by-side with British officers. This fact is not on the evening news. Propaganda is most effective when our consent is engineered by those with a fine education - Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard, Columbia -- and with careers on the BBC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post. These organizations are known as the liberal media. They present themselves as enlightened, progressive tribunes of the moral zeitgeist. They are anti-racist, pro-feminist and pro-LGBT. And they love war.

While they speak up for feminism, they support rapacious wars that deny the rights of countless women, including the right to life. In 2011, Libya, then a modern state, was destroyed on the pretext that Muammar Gaddafi was about to commit genocide on his own people.  That was the incessant news; and there was no evidence. It was a lie.

In fact, Britain, Europe and the United States wanted what they like to call "regime change" in Libya, the biggest oil producer in Africa. Gaddafi's influence in the continent and, above all, his independence were intolerable.So he was murdered with a knife in his rear by fanatics, backed by America, Britain and France.  Hillary Clinton cheered his gruesome death for the camera, declaring, "We came, we saw, he died!"

The destruction of Libya was a media triumph
. As the war drums were beaten, Jonathan Freedland wrote in the Guardian: "Though the risks are very real, the case for intervention remains strong." Intervention - what a polite, benign, Guardian word, whose real meaning, for Libya, was death and destruction. According to its own records, Nato launched 9,700 "strike sorties" against Libya, of which more than a third were aimed at civilian targets. They included missiles with uranium warheads. Look at the photographs of the rubble of Misurata and Sirte, and the mass graves identified by the Red Cross. The Unicef report on the children killed says, "most [of them] under the age of ten".

As a direct consequence
, Sirte became the capital of ISIS. Ukraine is another media triumph. Respectable liberal newspapers such as the New York Times, the Washington Post and the Guardian, and mainstream broadcasters such as the BBC, NBC, CBS, CNN have played a critical role in conditioning their viewers to accept a new and dangerous cold war. All have misrepresented events in Ukraine as a malign act by Russia when, in fact, the coup in Ukraine in 2014 was the work of the United States, aided by Germany and Nato.

This inversion of reality is so pervasive that Washington's military intimidation of Russia is not news; it is suppressed behind a smear and scare campaign of the kind I grew up with during the first cold war.
Once again, the Ruskies are coming to get us, led by another Stalin, whom The Economist depicts as the devil.The suppression of the truth about Ukraine is one of the most complete news blackouts I can remember. The fascists who engineered the coup in Kiev are the same breed that backed the Nazi invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Of all the scares about the rise of fascist anti-Semitism in Europe, no leader ever mentions the fascists in Ukraine - except Vladimir Putin, but he does not count.

Many in the Western media
have worked hard to present the ethnic Russian-speaking population of Ukraine as outsiders in their own country, as agents of Moscow, almost never as Ukrainians seeking a federation within Ukraine and as Ukrainian citizens resisting a foreign-orchestrated coup against their elected government.

There is almost the joie d'esprit of a class reunion of warmongers. The drum-beaters of the Washington Post inciting war with Russia are the very same editorial writers who published the lie that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction.To most of us, the American presidential campaign is a media freak show, in which Donald Trump is the arch villain. But Trump is loathed by those with power in the United States for reasons that have little to do with his obnoxious behaviour and opinions. To the invisible government in Washington, the unpredictable Trump is an obstacle to America's design for the 21st century. This is to maintain the dominance of the United States and to subjugate Russia, and, if possible, China.To the militarists in Washington, the real problem with Trump is that, in his lucid moments, he seems not to want a war with Russia; he wants to talk with the Russian president, not fight him; he says he wants to talk with the president of China.

In the first debate with Hillary Clinton,
Trump promised not to be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into a conflict. He said, "I would certainly not do first strike. Once the nuclear alternative happens, it's over." That was not news. Did he really mean it? Who knows? He often contradicts himself. But what is clear is that Trump is considered a serious threat to the status quo maintained by the vast national security machine that runs the United States, regardless of who is in the White House.

The CIA wants him beaten.
The Pentagon wants him beaten. The media wants him beaten. Even his own party wants him beaten. He is a threat to the rulers of the world - unlike Clinton who has left no doubt she is prepared to go to war with nuclear-armed Russia and China. Clinton has the form, as she often boasts. Indeed, her record is proven. As a senator, she backed the bloodbath in Iraq.  When she ran against Obama in 2008, she threatened to "totally obliterate" Iran. As Secretary of State, she colluded in the destruction of governments in Libya and Honduras and set in train the baiting of China.

She has now pledged to support a No Fly Zone in Syria - a direct provocation for war with Russia. Clinton may well become the most dangerous president of the United States in my lifetime - a distinction for which the competition is fierce. Without a shred of evidence, she has accused Russia of supporting Trump and hacking her emails. Released by WikiLeaks, these emails tell us that what Clinton says in private, in speeches to the rich and powerful, is the opposite of what she says in public.

That is why silencing and threatening Julian Assange is so important. As the editor of WikiLeaks, Assange knows the truth. And let me assure those who are concerned, he is well, and WikiLeaks is operating on all cylinders.

Today, the greatest build-up of American-led forces since World War Two is under way - in the Caucasus and eastern Europe, on the border with Russia, and in Asia and the Pacific, where China is the target.

Keep that in mind when the presidential election circus reaches its finale on November 8th,  If the winner is Clinton, a Greek chorus of witless commentators will celebrate her coronation as a great step forward for women. None will mention Clinton's victims: the women of Syria, the women of Iraq, the women of Libya. None will mention the civil defence drills being conducted in Russia.  None will recall Edward Bernays' "torches of freedom". George Bush's press spokesman once called the media "complicit enablers".

Coming from a senior official in an administration whose lies, enabled by the media, caused such suffering, that description is a warning from history.
In 1946, the Nuremberg Tribunal prosecutor said of the German media: "Before every major aggression, they initiated a press campaign calculated to weaken their victims and to prepare the German people psychologically for the attack. In the propaganda system, it was the daily press and the radio that were the most important weapons." John Pilger. 27 October 2016
My thought for today. – Werner
Nothing turns out to be so oppressive and unjust as a feeble government. Edmund Burke