This beginners view of how I understand the Conservative view

I was watching Netflix's House of Cards and I had a kind of epiphany. 

During the pre-show credits there is a montage of Washington, D.C. views, some of which show a positive outlook while others show the underbelly of the city. Two times during the opening, the image of the Lions at the memorial for U.S. Grant are shown. These are proud beasts on their posts of honor, with heads held high. More than any other part of the program these images seem to personify the power of American pride (see what I did there?   ;-O).

I have been struggling lately trying to understand how those on the right can be so obtuse. I just cannot understand how a large segment of our society can work against a segment of their very own society. I have been trying to bend my brain into excepting the thought that they just don't care about those not as fortunate, or lucky or forceful.

As I understand it, Conservatives and Libertarians, among other things, pride themselves on their independence and self-sufficiency. They picture themselves as the lone wolf (or lion, as the case may be)...the leaders who need no support, only they can do it right.

Now lets remember, I am not a part of this political movement, so what I am saying here is my interpretation, or observation.

The Conservative right wing of the Republican Party seems to think that a smaller government will be the best thing for our country as a whole. There is no doubt that a smaller less regulated society would be better for, in the short run at any rate, many members of our society. Business 101 says that a business needs to do whatever it takes to create a better bottom line. This is a sound business practice that has worked for a long, long time (long before the Earth has gotten as populated as it is, with its resources becoming scarce as they are now).

This thinking does not take into account the environment, or the socio-economic world we live today, it only rewards the making of money equalling success. Nor does it, in my opinion, take into account the ability to keep making money while growing a powerful base for the future.

I have a whole lot more to say on the subject, most of it is progressive in nature. What I have to say looks out for the future of our world and society. So lets get a conversation going and see what we can do for the future of our kids!

As in the opening credits of House of Cards, lets understand that we have a beautiful and powerful country, but there is an underbelly of corruption and filth that we, as citizens of our great country, need to purify!

olc

Is Bugs Bunny a good dietetic planner?

She sits there watching TV after finishing her homework. The squeals and shouts of some show on Nick flashing across the screen, her eyes glazed over. Silence and then it starts again as a commercial for a sugary sweet breakfast food with a loud tiger yelling at us, “How GREAT!” his cereal is. Next is a cute baby giggling about something. Finally a fast-food chain comes up with a healthy alternative to their high sodium, fatty and sugary kid’s meal. Then back to loud frenetic hijinks of the show.


So what are we talking about here: TV causing short attention spans, or marketing and advertising poor quality foods to our kids? Both are relevant to parents. The government, led by our First Mamma Obama (hmm kinda like that) is trying to set up guide-lines for the packaging and marketing of food for our kids. Some say our government is trying to intrude its’ way into our kitchens and on our dining tables. They are concerned this is a gateway into controlling what we eat. Rep Fred Upton, republican from Michigan, said, "This appears to be a first step toward Uncle Sam planning our family meals." They forget however, that these recommendations are VOLUNTARY guide lines. Maybe a totally authoritarian government would try to do control our meal time---thus showing where his mind may be.


The commission, a Congressional panel consisting marketing experts from the CDC and FDA, US Department of Agriculture and the Federal Trade Commission personnel, made some fairly easy labeling standard recommendations for advertising to children. Among other things, the commission wanted to tone down on the use of iconic cartoon figures to attract youthful consumers. Of course this is assumes that parents let their children force them into buying what the kids want, and we all know that never happens. Right?


I propose something a little different (I am not the first, but it was hard to easily find available information supporting my idea). Instead of telling marketers they cannot use Tony the Tiger, or Toucan Sam or even Capt’n Crunch, let’s try using the fantastic strength of marketing and cartoon figures to educate and market to kids and parents healthy and sustainable eating habits? Some of the reluctance of major food producers to suspend the use of their animated idols is recognizability. We grew up watching and learning our eating habits from these icons. They might have done a better job---there seems like an epidemic of obesity and type II diabetes over taking our bodies. 


Yet we have an opportunity that should not be wasted. There seems to be a favorable environment for change, or maybe refinement is a better word. Instead of using all the market research and techniques gathered during the past years to sell not-so-healthy foods, why not use it to sell products that will feed us in a more nutritious and sustainable way? We have seen that advertising works and that using kid identifiable cartoons influence the desires of kids, thus forming habits used later in life. This way of advertising has worked to sell food items that are unhealthy, why not use the same method to influence our buying energy toward healthy foods? A governmental agency called Interagency Working Group asks the same question (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141258532) 
Further, Herb Weisbaum, (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44878241/ns/business-consumer_news/#.TpX3hHPN5l1 ) from MCNBC, asked, “Why is the food industry so afraid of a little advise?” I wonder if there may be a profit motiv involved. Is it easier(read less expensive) to make foods with salt, sugar and high fat content?


This is the way I see it. Over the past 50 years, maybe longer, marketers and advertisers have developed data and strategies for marketing to kids crappy food. Now we can use the same force of data and information to start educating younger consumers and their parents healthy foods. Find cartoon icons that exhibit positive models of eating. Use the same screeching and excitement to get kids enthusiastic about apples. Make it look like a treat to have a pomegranate. Sour cream with that baked white potato, how about a pink cuddly character talking about the tastiness of a sweat potato with cheese on it, or a squirrel with its nose twitching having fun chasing green peas around plate and popping them into its mouth? 


I suggest we influence marketers and food purveyors to sell healthy foods with the same methods they used to sell sugary and unhealthy food. Instead of saying they cannot sell “bad” food to kids, encourage them to market more wholesome food. When we show a positive way of doing something, instead of saying, “NO!”, we make it easier, I hope, to change the paradigm and maybe influence the next generation to eat healthier foods.


What do you think? Am I making a sound point here? Let’s talk about it!


On another matter, I did some research on this post, but had difficulty finding information that supported my idea; positive advertising could be used in conjunction with the strategies used with a healthier diet. I used search terms like, “Food marketing for kids,” “packaging for kids” and other variants. All that come up were articles decrying the negatives involved with sugary foods. I was looking for information that supported my idea of using methods for pushing healthier food. Until I found this one article from webmd.com: http://www.webmd.com/parenting/news/20110307/cartoon-characters-influence-kids-food-choices, I came up with nothing. Any one out there have any tips for internet searches that can help pinpoint specific data? Let me know!!!


OLC

Simple Solutions to Difficult Problems

I keep hearing about theses one step solutions to very difficult situations both politic and economic. I am not versed in economics, I have no formal education in it, about the best I can say is I love to spend money---when I have it. Though I do not have any real formal background in Political Science, I do try to keep up with issues that are current. As an American Citizen, I feel I have a responsibility to keep informed. So why is it that I can understand the need to look at a very difficult problem from more than one point of view. There are so many examples of this limited point of view:

• The leader of Afghanistan saying that he needs to talk with Pakistan to make peace though out the region
• The republicans saying top down economic will solve all of our problems
• The democrats say bottom up will do it
• Israelis saying they don’t care what the Palestinians want
• Palestinians saying they need complete autonomy to have peace and freedom

Need I go on? There is the issue of climate change verses man made environmental manipulation. Does Greece have the ability to take down the world economy? Nukes in the former Soviet Union. Pollution in China---well let’s just make sure they stop driving! While we are talking about China, how about software piracy. I heard the other day that there are millions of unlicensed copies of Windows running around causing an epidemic of botnets.

After the politicians or media talking-heads have defined the problem, we the masses, are given a simple one step solution that is the magic panacea that cures all of our woes. Would that all, or even some, of the issues that complicate the easy flow of living, be solved so easily!

This brings a few of questions to mind. The first being can our issues be solved so easily? Well, Albert Einstein said, “It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer.” The modesty of the man is well known, however once again we see the profound wisdom he gave us. What can we take form his simple statement? One simple thing (sic): we need to consider more than one way to solve a problem. In other words, simply put :-0, look for more than a simple way of dealing with a challenge. In other words, elegant solutions to complicated dilemmas do not come in simple sound bites that make us feel better.

Another question that comes to mind goes something like this: Do the talking heads that control the flow of information really think that the info consumer is so simple as to really think that a one step solution to something like global warming is really feasible? This brings to mind two more questions. Is the solution really so simple? Or, do they think the populace is so simple? Both of those questions bother the hell out of me.

All issues, from seemingly simple things like what will the kids have for lunch at school, to issues of global importance like what will we be eating in fifty years and where will it come from, can be looked at from many different angles. Having said that, we need to understand that we live in an age where the average person wants to have everything made simple and easily digestible in 30 second sound bites. We want to understand a complicated problem while read doing one’s business in the restroom.

Simply put, we need to take more time to digest issues, understand them and finally realize that complicated issues cannot be unraveled in simple one step solutions. But more important than that, our information brokers need to stop dumbing down issues of the day and twisting them to their own agenda.