bootsykowan's Blog

Fellow-Countrymen: 
  AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.   1

  On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came. 2

  One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 3

  With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Today I would call it OR YHWH
Help us improve Wikipedia by supporting it financially.Or HashemFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia  (Redirected from Or Adonai)Or Hashem, ("Or Adonai"), The Light of the Lord, is the primary work of Rabbi Hasdai Crescas (c. 1340 - 1410/1411), a Jewish philosopher. As Adonai is one of the names of God in Judaism, the book is usually called Or Hashem ('??? ?) in verbal usage to avoid mentioning God's name directly.

[edit]Purpose of the work
In the early medieval era there had been a tendency for some Jewish religious rationalists to reinterpret classical Jewish theology in the light of the then modern day philosophy, specifically neo-Aristotelian rationalism. This was the program of Jewish rationalist philosophers such as Saadia Gaon, Maimonides (who was influenced by Ibn Sina aka Avicenna)[citation needed], and Gersonides (who was influenced by Ibn Roshd, aka Averroes). In the view of Crescas, this point of view often led to mistaken conclusions, and threatened to blur the distinctness of the Jewish faith. He felt that this program reduced the doctrinal contents of Judaism to a surrogate of Aristotelian concepts.Crescas makes no concealment of his purpose to vindicate classical Jewish thinking against the rationalism of Maimonides and Gersonides. Of these two the former especially had endeavored to harmonize revelation and faith with philosophy. While, in those instances where this harmony could not be established, Maimonides refused to follow Aristotle to the exclusion of Moses, his successors seemed bent upon the opposite course. For them philosophical rationalism was superior to classical religious thinking.

Crescas met the medieval rationalists as a philosopher who recognized the right of philosophical speculation. He did not agree with those Christian and Muslim theologians who in their speculations were advocates of a twofold truth, one for the theologian and the other for the philosopher, the former not cognizable by natural man, because supernatural and irrational, the latter open to the intelligence of natural man.

Crescas attempted to show that Aristotelian rationalism was far from infallible. In this, he is a precursor of Baruch Spinoza. Crescas deplores the fact that Maimonides, whose scholarship and honesty he otherwise admires, seemed to make Greek philosophy the basis for Jewish doctrine.

After attempting to show the untenability of the Aristotelian propositions, Crescas attempted to "establish the roots and the cornerstones upon which the Torah (i.e. Jewish religion) is propped, and the pivots upon which it turns" (from the preface.)

Crescas does not denounce heretics, but rather exposes the weakness of the ground on which those views he considers to be heterodox rest. He desires to set forth the contents of Judaism and the limitations in respect to them of the scope of philosophy.His book comprises four main divisions ("ma'amar"), subdivided into "kelalim" and chapters ("perakim"): the first treating of the foundation of all belief—the existence of God; the second, of the fundamental doctrines of the faith; the third, of other doctrines which, though not fundamental, are binding on every adherent of Judaism; the fourth, of doctrines which, though traditional, are without obligatory character, and which are open to philosophical construction.

[edit]The First Cause
The first main division opens with a thorough criticism of the twenty-five (or twenty-six) Aristotelian propositions ("hakdamot") which Maimonides accepts as axiomatic and out of which he constructs his idea of God.In the first section he presents all the demonstrations for these theorems, especially those adduced by Tabrizi; in the second, he shows the inadequacy of many of these ontological and physical propositions, and thus demolishes Maimonides' proofs for his God-concept. Crescas, admitting that the existence of a first cause is susceptible of philosophic proof, but only by contingence (he rejects the Aristotelian assumption that an endless chain of causes is unthinkable; i.e., the first cause of all that is must be regarded as existent), holds philosophy to be incompetent to prove God's absolute unity, as does Ghazzali.

The first cause may be philosophically construed to be simple, for if it were composite another would have to be assumed for the compounding. Still, this would not necessitate the positing of God's unity. Other deities might with other functions still be in existence, even if our God were thought to be omnipotent. Therefore revelation alone is competent to establish God's unity. Without the creed of Shema Yisrael ("Hear, O Israel") philosophy fails to be a trusty guide.

Crescas introduces a new element into his idea of God. His predecessors contended that God's highest happiness, the divine essence, was God's own knowledge. Crescas rejects this as inadequate, and posits instead God's love, always intent upon communicating itself and doing good. He argues against Maimonides for the admissibility of divine attributes. From the human subjective point of view, attributes may appear to posit differences in God; but this does not mean that they do so in God objectively. In God, in the Absolutely Good, they merge as identical unity; predicates, especially of only logical or conceptual significance, are incompetent to cause real multiplicity or composition.[edit]Six fundamental doctrines
In the second division Crescas enumerates six fundamental doctrines as presupposed by revealed faith, without which he believes Judaism would fall: God's omniscience, providence, and omnipotence; the belief in prophecy, Free will, and that the world was created for a purpose.

God's omniscience embraces all the innumerable individual beings; God has knowledge of what is as yet not in existence; God knows what of all possibilities will happen, though thereby the nature of the possible is not altered. God's knowledge is different from that of man: inferences from one to the other are not valid. (Here he sides with Maimonides against Gersonides.)

God's providence embraces directly and indirectly all species and individuals. It rewards and punishes, especially in the hereafter. Crescas rejects the theories of Maimonides and Gersonides on this point. Love, not knowledge (intellectual), is the bond between God and man. From God's love proceeds only what is good, and punishment is also inherently good. God's omnipotence is not merely infinite in time, but also in intensity.

Revelation, and it alone ("creatio ex nihilo"), makes it clear. Natural law is no limitation for God, but whatever is irrational proves neither God's omnipotence nor His lack of power; that is, God acts reasonably.Prophecy is the highest degree of human mentality. Maimonides makes it dependent upon certain conditions. While Crescas admits this, he differs from Maimonides in that he will not admit the refusal of the prophetic gift when these conditions are fulfilled. Connection and communion with God are not brought about by knowledge, but by love and reverence, leading us to God if we keep His commandments.

Very extensive is Crescas's presentation of the freedom of the will. He inclines toward its rejection; at all events, to its limitation. The law of causality is so all-pervasive that human conduct can not withdraw itself from its operations. Moreover, God's omniscience anticipates our resolutions. But the Torah teaches the freedom of choice and presupposes our self-determination. Thus he concludes that the human will is free in certain respects, but determined in others. Will operates as a free agent when considered alone, but when regarded in relation to the remote cause, it acts by necessity; or, will operates in freedom, both per se and in regard to the provoking cause, but is bound if analyzed with reference to the divine omniscience. Man feels himself free; therefore he is responsible and must be rewarded or punished. The accompanying sentiment (readiness or disinclination to act) makes the deed our own

.[edit]The Purpose of the World

Maimonides rejected as futile and unwarranted all inquiry into the ultimate purpose of the world. Crescas posits such an ultimate purpose and assumes it to be the happiness of the soul. In this life the soul is intently striving after union with the divine; the laws of the Torah help to realize this, the soul's, never quiescent yearning. After death, the soul will enter upon greater possibilities of love, in the higher existence. Former thinkers made immortality depend on knowledge. This is contrary to the teachings of religion, and also utterly unreasonable. Love brings about the soul's happiness of eternal duration in the hereafter and the communion with God thereupon ensuing. "The soul is the form and essence of man, a subtle spiritual substance, capacitated for knowledge, but in its substance not yet cognizant."By this definition Crescas attempts to establishes the soul's independence of knowledge. Knowledge does not produce the soul. Man's highest perfection is not attained through knowledge, but principally through love, the tendency to, and longing for, the fountainhead of all good. Man's last purpose, his highest good, is love, manifested in obedience to God's laws. God's highest purpose is to make man participate in the eternal bliss to come.

The third main division devotes much attention to the theories concerning Creation. Whatever theory, however, be accepted, the belief in miracles and revelation is not affected. Religious tradition is so preponderatingly in favor of the assumption that the world and matter are created, and Gersonides' counter-reasoning is so inconclusive, that Crescas regards the denial of creation as heterodox. Immortality, punishment, reward, resurrection (a miracle, but not irrational), the irrevocability and eternal obligation of the Law, the belief in urim and thummim and Messianic redemption, are the other tenets treated as doctrines which should be accepted, but which are not strictly speaking, basic.

In the fourth division thirteen opinions are enumerated as open to speculative decision, among them the questions concerning the dissolution of the world. (Crescas holds the earth will pass away while the heavens will endure.) Have there been other worlds besides our own? Are the heavenly bodies endowed with soul and reason? Have amulets and incantations any significance? What are the "Shedim"? What about metempsychosis?

An opponent of Maimonides on philosophical grounds, Crescas was also dissatisfied with the method of Maimonides law code, the Mishneh Torah,. This was due to its absence of indications of the sources, the rare mention of divergent opinions, and the lack of provision to meet new cases, owing to its neglect to establish general principles of universal application ("Or Adonai," Preface).

If among Jews he exercised for a long time only through Albo any perceptible influence, though he was studied, for instance, by Don Isaac Abravanel, who controverts especially his Messianic theories, and by Abram Shalom in his Neveh Shalom, Crescas' work was of prime and fundamental importance through the part it had in the shaping of Baruch Spinoza's system. Spinoza's distinction between attributes and properties is identical with Crescas' distinction between attributes subjectively ascribed and their objective reality in God. The connection between Spinoza's views on creation and free will, on love of God and of others, and those of Crescas has been established by Joël in his "Zur Genesis der Lehre Spinoza's" (Breslau, 1871).Categories: Jewish philosophical and ethical textsarticle discussion edit this page historyLog in / create accountnavigationMain PageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleinteractionAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact WikipediaDonate to WikipediaHelpsearch    toolboxWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPrintable versionPermanent linkCite this page


This page was last modified on 6 January 2008, at 10:19. All text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details.) Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a U.S. registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity.Privacy policy About Wikipedia Disclaimers

Have questions? Find out how to ask questions and get answers.Hasdai CrescasFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaHasdai ben Abraham Crescas (Hebrew: ????? ?????) (born in Barcelona, Catalonia c. 1340 – 1410/1411) was a Jewish philosopher and a renowned halakhist (teacher of Jewish law). Along with Rambam, Ralbag, and Albo, he is known as one of the major practitioners of the rationalist approach to Jewish philosophy, and his positions on issues of natural law and free will in Or Hashem can be seen as precursors to those of Spinoza.Contents 
[show][edit]Biography
Hasdai Crescas came from a family of scholars; he was a disciple of the Talmudist and philosopher Nissim ben Reuben, known as The RaN. Following in the footsteps of his teacher he became a Talmudic authority and a philosopher of great originality. He is considered important in the history of modern thought for his deep influence on Baruch Spinoza.While Crescas did not occupy an official position as rabbi, he seems to have been active as a teacher. Among his fellow students and friends, Isaac ben Sheshet (known as the RIBaSH), famous for his responsa, takes precedence. Joseph Albo is the best known of his pupils, but at least two others have won recognition, Rabbi Mattathias of Saragossa, and Rabbi Zechariah ha-Levi.

Crescas was a man of means. As such he was appointed sole executor of the will of his uncle Vitalis Azday by the King of Aragon in 1393. Still, though enjoying the high esteem even of prominent non-Jews, he did not escape the common fate of his coreligionists. Imprisoned upon a false accusation in 1378, he suffered personal indignities because he was a Jew. His only son died in 1391, a martyr for his faith, during the anti-Semitic persecutions of that period. Nevertheless he kept his faith.

Notwithstanding this bereavement, his mental powers were unbroken; for the works that have made him immortal were written after that terrible year. Another episode of his life worthy of note is connected with the appearance of the pseudo-Messiah of Cisneros, one of whose adherents he became. In 1401-02 he visited Joseph Orabuena at Pamplona at the request of the King of Navarre, who paid the expenses of his journey to various Navarrese towns (Jacobs, l.c. Nos. 1570, 1574). He was at that time described as "Rav of Saragossa."

[edit]His works
His works on Jewish law, if indeed ever committed to writing – have not reached us. But his concise philosophical work Or Adonai, The Light of the Lord became a classical Jewish refutation of medieval Aristotelianism, and a harbinger of the scientific revolution in the 16th century.

Three of his writings have been preserved:His letter to the congregations of Avignon, published as an appendix to Wiener's edition of "Shevet Yehudah" (see above), in which he relates the incidents of the persecution of 1391.

An exposition and refutation of the main doctrines of Christianity. This "tratado" was written in Catalan in 1398. The Catalan original is no longer extant; but a Hebrew translation by Joseph ibn Shem-Tov, with the title ("Refutation of the Cardinal Principles of the Christians"), has been preserved. The work was composed at the solicitation of Spanish noblemen. Crescas' object in writing what is virtually an apologetic treatise on Judaism was to present the reasons which held the Jews fast to their ancestral faith.

His primary work, Or Adonai (book), The Light of the Lord. A separate article exists on this topic.A commentary on the Talmudic tractate Gittin, historically attributed to the 13th century Rabbi Yom Tov Asevilli (Ritva), has been more recently attributed by many scholars to Hasdai Crescas[citation needed].

[edit]Works
The Light of the Lord (Hebrew: Or Hashem or Or Adonai)The Refutation of the Christian Principles (polemics and some philosophy)Passover Sermon (religious philosophy and some halakha)[edit]Important studies
Harry Austryn Wolfson, Crescas' Critique of Aristotle. Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1929.

http://www.catholicculture.org/library/view.cfm?recnum
=6040
The subsequent history of the larger collection is briefly told. The National Government had purchased Jefferson's papers and had published an edition of his writings. Public interest was expressed particularly in the "Bible of Thomas Jefferson" after it came into the possession of the United States National Museum, and it was in consequence of this interest that the Fifty-seventh Congress in its first session passed the following resolution:

That there be printed and bound, by photo-lithographic process, with an introduction of not to exceed twenty-five pages, to be prepared by Dr. Cyrus Adler, Librarian of the Smithsonian Institution, for the use of Congress, 9,000 copies of Thomas Jefferson's Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, as the same appears in the National Museum; 3,000 copies for the use of the Senate and 6,000 copies for the use of the House.17
=======================
Publication dates:
umber Of Pages: 103Publisher: Applewood BooksAuthor: Thomas JeffersonPublication Date: 2006-08-01Dewey Decimal Number: 220ISBN: 1557091846EAN: 9781557091840

=======================

Won't you help me download for free from the Oriental Institute of Chicago U., an InterLinear Qur'an: Arabic2Hebrew and an InterLinear Khoomash: Hebrew2Arabic?

You are responsible for me deciding to see if you were telling me your truth about Jefferson's brain.  While you were talking I discovered in early  2007 that there was such a thing as Jefferson explaining himself and it was finally available to me for purchase.  It was a miracle find for me.  Maybe you can make more miracles and help the Global Universities?  Also help linguistics?  It would be almost as great as the Rosetta Stone.

10 USC 311 - Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes10 USC - U.S. Code - Title 10: Armed Forces (January 2004)
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/19222290 
Id. vLex: VLEX-19222290Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
    Exact phraseDocument options
Printable pageE-mail thisDownload thisText:  (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are - (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Historical And Revision Notes1956 ACT
Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at section Large)
311(a) 32:1 (less last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 57, 39 Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162, Sec. 7 (as applicable to Sec. 57 of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch. 134), 61 Stat. 192. 311(b) 32:1 (last 19 words).
In subsection (a), the words "who have made a declaration of intention" are substituted for the words "who have or shall have declared their intention". The words "at least 17 years of age and * * * under 45 years of age" are substituted for the words "who shall be more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five years of age". The words "except as provided in section 313 of title 32" are substituted for the words "except as hereinafter provided", to make explicit the exception as to maximum age. In subsection (b), the words "The organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia" are substituted for the words "the National Guard, the Naval Militia", since the National Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia. 1958 ACT
Revised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at section Large)
311(a) 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, Sec. 1, 70 Stat. 729.
The words "appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title" are omitted as surplusage.
AMENDMENTS 1993 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted "members" for "commissioned officers". 1958 - Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of the United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.



© Copyright 2008, vLex. All Rights Reserved. - Terms of Use - About us - Contact us - Tags - Publishers CenterLogin | Help Center | language:  AccountAlertsTagsSearch HistoryList of sources  Home   / United States   / U.S. Code  10 USC 312 - Sec. 312. Militia duty: exemptions10 USC - U.S. Code - Title 10: Armed Forces (January 2004)
Permanent Link: http://vlex.com/vid/19222277 
Id. vLex: VLEX-19222277Click here to download this article in graphic format (Acrobat Reader)
Search in this document
    Exact phraseDocument options
Printable pageE-mail thisDownload thisText:  (a) The following persons are exempt from militia duty: (1) The Vice President. (2) The judicial and executive officers of the United States, the several States and Territories, and Puerto Rico. (3) Members of the armed forces, except members who are not on active duty. (4) Customhouse clerks. (5) Persons employed by the United States in the transmission of mail. (6) Workmen employed in armories, arsenals, and naval shipyards of the United States. (7) Pilots on navigable waters. (8) Mariners in the sea service of a citizen of, or a merchant in, the United States. (b) A person who claims exemption because of religious belief is exempt from militia duty in a combatant capacity, if the conscientious holding of that belief is established under such regulations as the President may prescribe.
However, such a person is not exempt from militia duty that the President determines to be noncombatant.
Historical And Revision NotesRevised Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at section Large)
312(a) 32:3 (less last 67 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 59, 39 Stat. 197. 312(b) 32:3 (last 67 words).
In subsection (a), the words "Members of the armed forces" are substituted for the words "persons in the military or naval service". The words "except members who are not on active duty" are inserted to reflect an opinion of the Judge Advocate General of the Army (JAGA 1952/4374, 9 July 1952). The word "artificers" is omitted as covered by the word "workmen". The words "naval shipyards" are substituted for the words "navy yards" to reflect modern terminology.
The words "on navigable waters" are inserted to preserve the original coverage of the word "pilots". The words "actually" and "without regard to age" are omitted as surplusage.
AMENDMENTS 1988 - Subsec. (a)(2). Pub. L. 100-456 substituted "and Puerto Rico" for "Puerto Rico, and the Canal Zone".



© Copyright 2008, vLex. All Rights Reserved. - Terms of Use - About us - Contact us - Tags - Publishers CenterLogin | Help Center | language:  AccountAlertsTagsSearch HistoryList of sources  Home   / United States   / U.S. Code  

That's so poor people can have an equal chance for gun ownership to rob the rich kids for their property rights.  Let the Supreme Court practice what they preach.  Duel for the right to be heard  just like Alexander Hamilton did.  I'd love to watch that.  
Extend public school education another two years via Universal Military Training. No exceptions.  Everyone one is a genius in the 21st century nano tek.  
Next step for the Surpreme Court:  Is Universal Military Training for public education Constitutional?   

11:4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth. 
11:5 And YHWH came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 
11:6 And YHWH said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. 
11:8 So YHWH scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city. 
11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because YHWH did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did YHWH scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth. 

When does "kindness" become "cunning"?  Is community  about "kindness" or "cunning"?  If there was a subject here on MyFox[city]/Blog  about the Science of Apartment Living, would the Commander-In-Chief have "hard work" finding terrorists?  

Right now my experience in apartment living is all about people being cunning with each other instead of being kind with each other.  We have the tools because of ethernet to be individually "kind" to each other, but instead we form gangs against each other.  We try to outdo each other with "cunning" instead of "kindness".  I must say it does keep the brain active.  That is a benefit.  

Let's take my landlord, AIMCO.  If you go to their site, it's a plain as the nose on your face that the Landlord is "kind".  They provide a Website for each apartment complex to participate as a community.  It's part of the  rent.  However, they don't expect their local management to fully implement this form of communication.  That's where "cunning" comes in.  This is the exactly my experience with the Managerial Grid as implemented by the University of Texas for Corporate America.  They used "cunning" to implement synergy which is supposed to represent "kindness".

The Federalist Papers is a creation of Alexander Hamilton who never was President of the USA.   He was killed by Aaron Burr in a political duel by firearms.  So I say let's first let the White House show us how they can use guns against each other first.  :)

It appears to me that France is trying to ban everyone from finding out.  They won't allow sucralose to say it's made from sugar.  Seems there's a fight between sugar and sugar. It all started when the diabetes discussion group listened to an endocrinologist and he called Splenda an artificial sweetener.  I thought I'd always been told it was manipulated sugar cane.  So I called Splenda up and they do buy cane sugar fields.  Recently I've seen lots of litigation about all this.  In fact, France now bans you from telling anything about sugar in sucralose.  
Can anyone find out about who owns the cane sugar fields in the world?  You know, in addition to oil, and downsizing packaging, litigation on patents manufacturing food products also is making the products more costly.  I think the FDA and NIH and NIMH should all get together and have a focus on sugar cane fields.  I can't find anything about it.  
I'm now wondering if they are thinking about chloriated grape products in France and that's why the brouhaha.
Seems to fit the French profile:Israel Jewish News: Sarkozy says "Move Jews Out of Judea and ... They want their homeland, but France and Spain won’t give them an inch. ... division of Jerusalem and for the expulsion of the Jews from Judea and Samaria. ...
israeljewishnews.blogspot.com/2008/06/sarkozy-says-move
-jews-out-of-judea-and.html - 77k - 10 hours ago - Cached - Similar pages