What are we thinking?

Come people, why are we focusing on the legality of her breaking the non disclosure agreement? Isn't the point the the one occupying the Whitehouse had an affair with a woman (regardless of her profession) right after his third wife had a baby?

What the HELL???

      I am a Patriot. I severed in the military and  did whatever was asked of me. I still will.
     
      But when the person who occupies the Oval Office attacks the Mayor of London because he did not comprehend, or intentionally misrepresents a simple statement, I question his real intentions.


      ...Especially considering the many scandals emmininating from his "administration"...
I Say this...my name is Neil M. Turner, Also known as "OLC."

My View

     I saw someplace on Facebook some one saying something like, "You will never change a person's mind by posting on Facebook." Truer words may never have been said, or typed. Yet, we persist on posting all of our political views here. What is even worse, is some of the advertising, all of it political in nature, is taking over my feed! I cannot seem to find anything but, "Vote for me" on my feed any more. Where are the friend updates, and cute puppy videos, and silly fools doing stupid stuff? I joined FB to meet and be with friends, not be steered into a narrow political dogma!

     OK so as many of you have seen, I will repost politically relevant memes and even comment on them. Yep, I even embark in a conversation or two. One of my friends, we go way back to the bad-ol'-days, in particular will challenge me. It is stimulating and, sometimes I even question my beliefs --- a little.

     Our dialogs are enjoyable, yet I feel like I have not really made my point as well as I could. I know how I feel when I make my arguments. I also know that my opinions are based on facts. If I had time to, I could post links and articles substantiating the assertions. When someone puts up an obviously bogus statement, I ask for some kind of validation, and I should do no less.

     More importantly though, I just do not like donald trump. It is a visceral feeling which may, or may not be backed up by fact. The truth is, my opinion can never be changed by any amount of "facts" that could be "trumped-up" and put in front of me.

• I believe donald trump is a liar.
• I believe donald trump is a dishonest person.
• I believe donald trump is a dishonest business man.
• I believe donald trump will say anything he needs to in order to fulfill his need for power.
• I believe donald trump will make decisions that will only hurt our already  Great Country.

• I do not believe donald trump will be a good, much less great, President.
• I do not believe donald trump has the background, or ability to run our already Great Country.
• I do not believe donald trump is a good business man. (Honestly, if he was such a great business man, why can't he prove it by revealing his taxes?)
• I DO believe his businesses, which represent his profesional practices and personal beliefs cheat, discriminate against and rip-off people. People who trusted him with their money and in many cases their very life's savings are victims of his vicious methods.

     Most of these statements can be backed up with a quick internet search; try a simple keyword search like, "Trump credibility."

     My friend says that some of the sources are not credible. My reply is, "You may not like what they say, but that does not mean they are not accurate." The other statements are emotional but are grown from credible FACTS.

olc

Some call it Sacrifice

I had arrived at work about 15 minutes early as usual hoping to to make a pot of coffee and get settled in before the work day ahead. Usually the bookkeeper, now owner, was there to unlock the door for us. Today however, she was late. Sometimes this happens because she had to do a deposit and it takes time. Though it was a miner annoyance, we thought nothing of it until she was about ten minutes late. Now we were getting a little annoyed, my kitchen manager and I. Not only was our caffeine intake being inhibited, but minutes were being sacrificed to her tardiness.

Finally we got a call. It was Ellen telling us that she was gonna be a bit late. Dean said she was late because our country was under attack and every one close to a T.V. was glued to it.

We finally got into the kitchen and started our routine, but Dean went someplace and found a T.V. for us to monitor the news cast. I remember watching the first tower going down and after a little while seeing the same thing from a different angle, only it was the second tower imploding.

Dobbins Air Base was within site of Doc's and we had gotten used to the thunder of jets flying over head, but today, and many days after, the sky was silent. Lunch that day of tragedy was subdued, though there were lots of people in the bar talking about what had happened.

Of course we made lunch for lots of people, but I think they needed to be around each other more than stuffing their faces with food and booze.

Every year we hear about this time, we talk about the sacrifice made by those who were murdered by insane terrorists.

I will argue this is not the correct term to use here. Sacrifice implies knowledge of the deed by the victim and their trusted  confidants. When a virgin was slaughtered, she may have been terrified, her family may have rebelled against it, but they knew, or thought they knew, that it was best for their community. In war, a general may offer up some troops to sacrifice for the greater good. Even when pagans sacrificed a lamb, offering it to the gods, the people knew why it was being done. In all cases those being killed were offered not taken.

On September 11th, 2001, no one offered to be killed for the greater good they were MURDERED for. Murdered by zealots. I understand how some need to feel that all of those deaths served a purpose. They want all those deaths to have a meaning; one which some how meant the deaths of those innocents  served a cause that was engineered  to make our country, our way of life---better, more meaningful. I wish it were true.

The truth, in my humble opinion; those plaines were sent out to end our society as we know it to create one that, in their delusional view, fit into an extremists vision.

We may be talking about perspective here, but remember---we did not start this war. So maybe we need to look at it from their point of view and attack their logic, their ideology, with ours---one with a more equal outlook, one which uses our  Constitution, not  ideology, as a guide post to a moral and fulfilling way of life.

Those unfortunate souls who were murdered on September  11th, 2001, were not a sacrifice. There was nothing noble in their death. They were victims of extremists trying to make a religious point.

(Do you see any parallel here? (election 2016))

So now we get down to  an interesting point. Should we allow religion to govern our lives? Maybe we need to understand basic human morals and fight for them using our Constitution as a guide post.

olc

Time to start thinkin' 'bout the Election

       Let me start by saying the perpetual election cycle we live in is making me dizzy. It seems to me that as soon as the last election was over, both parties started to position themselves for the next one, not the mid-term, but the presidential election four years later. Not only is this American war-weary, but I'm election-weary. 

It seems to me there should be some kind of rule/moratorium/law that limits, or defines the dates prior to elections that candidates can run. After all, we did elect them to run our country, not for reelection, didn't we?

Our elected officials, at least on a national level, seem to be interested in preserving their jobs and not working to make our way of life better. The right wing is pandering to their corporate leash-holders. While the left moans and groans about how unfair it is that they don't get the support they need.

The right criticizes and demonizes our President and anyone who does not whole-heartedly endorse their point of view, while not finding any alternatives. They just say what is wrong and do not suggest better alternatives. And the left just continues to shoot themselves in the foot instead of using this time to build a plan to win.

olc

P.S. It is funny how these things work. When I started this post, I planned on writing about something completely different...What was that? Oh a new shiny object to distract me, maybe a squirrel, or a cute kitten... 

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

IMHO

So I have been giving this whole situation some thought lately. It is  a really frustrating and confusing one. The question is how can otherwise intelligent and well adjusted people be deluded into following, adhering to and even propagating the salacious lies that are being pumped out by the extreme right wing?

I listen to lots of talk radio, mostly left leaning, but I also dip my ear into more conservative talk shows. Most of my credible news comes from NPR. Though many conservatives may consider NPR to be left leaning, it does attempt to keep as neutral as possible; when a reporter/journalist expresses their own opinion, the listener knows. I also listen to the right a little. Rush Limbaugh is an entertaining entertainer who is a loud mouth piece for the right wing.

I feel that if I am to make well informed decisions on important topics, I need to be informed on BOTH sides of an issue.

There seem to be two formats coming out of talk radio, when listening to the extreme left or right media. The left, or more liberal will give information as they see it. Sometimes, a talking head will give his or her opinion, shoving it down the listeners’ throat, if you will. They Talk, talk and talk about the subject, giving suggestions on how to consider the subject, they will even explain the logic of their reasoning. Yet rarely will they tell their listeners WHAT to think. The listener is supposed to think and come to their own opinion.

On the other hand, the conservative spectrum has its own way of disseminating its opinion. The talking head will define the issue and explain it several times in as many different ways as possible and in doing so will explain why theirs is the only opinion that matters. Then he will use the most extreme consequence, sometimes the most outrageous outcome to make his point, usually a mere hypothisis. After he, or she, has pounded into the heads of their listeners the problem, telling every one how dire the situation is, the talking head will then TELL his listeners how to think and what to do about the issue.

Now I am not saying one party is more smarter than the other. Honestly, I think it has to do with ones outlook. One party presents the information and lets the consumer digest it and come to their own conclusions, while the other smashes info into their listeners heads and demands they think as they should.

So which is the smarter party, the liberals for letting its constituents think for themselves, yet allowing them to have varied opinions? Perhaps the conservatives for lording over their constituents telling them what and how to think?

Unfortunately, right the now the conservatives seem to be winning the race for popular opinion. It seems to me that the vast majority of people want to be told what to think and how to react to the many important issues assailing us.

What do you think about what I have said here? Please let me know.

olc

Joey the Libertarian or NC's version of Joe the Plumber Part 1

I have this friend, colleague, acquaintance, who is a Libertarian---yeah I know, but he is OK. We have some interesting conversations about politics. It turns out many of his views are similar to mine. I know, kinda scary right? We'll talk about Ron Paul and some of his opinions. I'll express mine about his suspected racism, and Joey will down play it. I'll try to make the point that though Paul's ability to define a problem is very good, his solutions need some work, archaic even.

We'll go back and forth on different subjects and generally have a lively discussion, yet we do not ever get to the level of name calling and back stabbing the national talking heads seem to lower themselves to. Joey will make his point, and sometimes he is very passionate about it, and then I'll like mine. Many times our opinions very dramatically, but we don't yell at each other.  

I try to keep an open mind on all things though I have a liberal bend. When Joey and I talk, I wonder how he can stick so close to his thoughts. Basically, he believes in self-reliance and the ability to "take care of his own." He wants to have less government intervention in our lives. He wants to allow business to govern it self.

If everything were equal and business could be trusted to be more socially aware, as well as environmentally conscious, then I think less government is a good thing. Unfortunately, reality is not what we want. The outcome is what matters to most businessmen. Back in the day when resources were "unlimited" the attitude of taking without regard to anything but the bottom-line was profitable in a long term way.  

I have only taken a couple of classes in business, but it seems to me that businessmen need to think about future profits and not just today or tomorrow or a 5 year plan. 

This is where my view differs from a libertarians' most drastically. If the business man cannot look into the future and only conducts his business with no regard for the future; meaning the environment or even those who facilitate his business, then the government needs to step up and legislate/regulate the short sighted businessman.

“Hey, you Independent dude!”

“Don't insult me that way, you lame a$$ Liberal!”

“You gone fishin’ lately, you dinosaur thinker?”

“Naw, the river was closed ‘cause of some kinda toxic pollution. Damn gov’ment tellin’ what we can’t do!”

“Hey wasn’t there some kinda paper plant close to you, you stinkin’ Libertarian?”

“Yeah, it closed a bit ago. Thing was leakin’ poison last I heard. Kids getting cancer and can’t breath so good. Why?”

“Just saying, is all. That place you fish at--- its pretty far from that plant, right?”

“Not even close. Down stream a aways. What your point?”

“Just askin’ is all…”

olc

Who Is Dr. Sowell, or is he even relevant?

A friend CCed this article by Thomas Sowell, to me. The article had a picture of an actor whose name I cannot remember, but he has a sever, yet wise face. For the most part the articles Ted sends to me are feel good ones, if you are a conservative, blasting the current administration. I look at them and wonder what they may be thinking, but realize we are all entitled to our opinion.

This article however, was so over the top that I just had to reply. Briefly Dr. Sowell is trying to compare the Occupy Wall Street movement with every negative cliche he can come up with. In 339 words he has not only equated the Occupy movement but the President, with bad hygiene, communism, socialism, public sex, the 1%, Black Panthers Unions, destroying the American way of life, racism, class warfare, the degradation of the Family and the loss of personal liberties as well as bad hygiene I want to take a writing class from this guy for a number of reasons. Here are a couple; his ability to draw emotions is pretty good, and the way he uses fiction to slant the truths he is misleading us with is truly a work of art!

Here are the most salient points I want to discuss.

Dr. Sowell says the America being fostered is lawless, unaccomplished, ignorant and incompetent in rule. The Occupiers have stayed on Public land, well within the laws of local municipalities. They have moved several times when local restrictions have been enacted trying to“clean”up their area. In fact, in Asheville alone, the protestors have moved at least 4 times because of local changes in regulations.

He says these kids are unaccomplished and ignorant. Considering they are still in college or just graduated, we can understand their lack of success - but ignorant? Come on Dr. Sowell, these protestors, for the most part are going to school to beat their lack of education! As far as having incompetent rule, they don't really have a direction to the movement, but their protest has gone on for almost six months and it takes a certain amount of skill and leadership to keep a movement together for so long. However, it seems that the good Doctor may be referring to the President on this matter. All I can do is ask what has President Obama done so far? Answer: gotten us out of a costly and misdirected war, brought the unemployment rate down to 8.5% (the lowest in how may years?), gotten the auto industry working again and now I hear that high tech ordering is up to a ten year high!

Dr. Sowell says the Occupiers are pillaging those who have scarified greatly while giving nothing of themselves. They are giving themselves to the very cause of democracy equality. They are giving and sacrificing their time and energy, and career prospects voluntarily, to the betterment of their country and ideals. They are giving time and energy trying to make others aware of the inequality that is perpetrated by the vaunted 1%, while sacrificing their time and career building for the better good of their country. This may not be a shooting war, yet there is a battle for the rights of the people going on.

In another paragraph he says they are promoting class warfare, racism, hatred, violence and murder. What is he thinking? One wonders if he is projecting is own feelings upon the protester. Yes, these negative aspects of our society may be in evidence at Occupy camps, but they are not being promoted. In any microcosm or subculture we will see aberrant behavior and in many cases these behaviors will be amplified. Most of the lawlessness that occurs in the camps, however are from infiltrators or those taking advantage of an established camp, not the Occupy protestors.

He attacks the way they Occupiers live on public land. He makes a good point. The cities where the Occupiers are have allowed them to use the public land. The problem with hygiene was taken care of by using portable johns. In an effort to“clean”up the parks though, the portable johns have been removed. So whose fault is it?

Dr. Sowell says the basic tenets of society are being rejected. Huh? He says free press, family values, faith and individual rights are being rejected:

1. Free press is also freedom of speech. The occupiers are talking freely trying to get their message out. Those in power are trying to repress their message.
2. Families are out in the camps teaching their kids the meaning of freedom and our democratic way of life.
3. He says faith is under attack. The protesters are the embodiment of faith in the democratic system. They show faith in themselves and their leaders and even those who do not understand what the fight is all about.
4. He says individual rights are being slighted by the Occupiers. It is their right to protest.
   In his letter, Dr. Sowell tries to equate President Obama, Michelle Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Joe Biden, with the Black Panthers and other anti-American entities. Last time I checked, the Black Panthers did not exist any more. Even when they were active their influence was minimal and short lived.

Dr. Sowell's last bomb throw in this eloquent though misguided letter is to accuse President Obama of being a communist who is using the Occupiers as a tool to annihilate America. That is just plain stupid. It is true the recovery has taken longer than anyone wants it in getting our economy rolling again, but that can be attributed to an ineffectual Congress. To imply President Obama is trying to annihilate America as we know it, is blatantly wrong.

Dr. Sowell is trying to start a fight making statements that are wrong and in some cases malicious to the point of open lying to make Occupiers look evil. He is trying to say that the Occupiers are being sponsored by the current administration. Where is your evidence, Dr. Sowell? More importantly, where is your logic: What is the President's motivation? Why would someone lie to get their agenda in the public view? Please have a look at some of Dr. Sowell's rants and see what kind of bomb thrower he is. It looks like he wants to stir trouble without finding, or offering solutions. His conservative agenda seems to be feed paranoia and bigotry, while serving his need to be relevant.

OLC

A Lousy Pretzel Shaped Sausage.

  I have been listening to some of the rhetoric coming from the talking heads on both the right and left side of the political spectrum. One of my biggest questions about the marketing of the various views being pushed on us is why does the Republican side of the aisle get their message out to the people so much more effectively then the Democratic?

  The democratic, or progressive, message seems to be more in line with the ethical and moral leanings of most of the people I know and interact with. Even the more militant conservatives understand that we need to take care of our own to make a safe and secure future for the our kids. 

However, the more conservative members of our society keep yelling that we need to do it their way, while the Progressives whine and mule about social injustice.

      Back when George Bush was The Decider and he accomplished something, he would get up on a podium and decry his victory, then others in his cabinet would do the same. The massage would be trumpeted all the way down the political line. Now that we have a Democrat in the Big Office, we do not hear anything even close to the same rhetoric from his side of the aisle. When a goal has been attained by the current administration, all we get is a subdued announcement from the left and then a cavalcade of criticism form the right, “He did not go in with enough force,” “he used too much force,” “the announcement was  made in the wrong room,” “I would have done it this way.” While the  Democrats just sit back and take the “high ground” acting too confidant to need to toot their own horn letting the positive message, and credit flounder away.

  When I was growing up, I was taught that we should not bellow and shout and boast. It was thought as egotistical. I have seen, as I get older, that the ones who get ahead let others know their outstanding deeds, or have others do it for them. The strength of the Republican party seems to be their ability to get the message out to the public. Though each person has a different set of words, they all get the message out there for the public to hear: “We are the right way to go, and we know how to do it!” doing it over and over until it just feels like the truth. While their message may be debatable, it is very powerful way to go about it!

  In our world of multiple multimedia sources of information and so many political, social and economic issues to follow, not to mention the world of sports, fashion, reality TV and just what is Kim doing today, the average person who is merely trying to get by and keep up with his or her family, the average dude or dudette may only hear the loudest, or most unique shout, the one that stands out. Remember when Representative Boehner was talking about his past and tears welled up? With his emotional out bursts so powerful, people listen to him because he has built a bond of sorts. What is more important though, is the way he did it. Inside of a month, Mr. Boehner was caught tearing up several times. Have you noticed that we have not seen him tear up for at least a couple of months. I conjecture that is because he made his point and has moved on. My point is not only did Mr. Boehner create an issue, but others touted it for him. If the media and other talking heads had not made such a big deal of it then there would not be such empathy for the man. He used others to make him into a sympathetic figure.

      When a democrat accomplishes something of significance it makes a splash and then, after a few days, no one seems to follow through. Nancy Pelocy, the Democratic minority leader in the House, does not do anything. we hear nothing from her, or her staff or the Democratic side of the aisle. Harry Reed --- well, I have heard even less from him. These are the leaders of the Democratic party, why are they not leading? because of this lack of leadership, the we do not get the coverage of, nor accolades to keep the momentum of positive accomplishments growing.

  Here is an example of what I am talking about. When Muammar Gaddafi was slain, the Republican party went ballistic. They praised the French and English for a job well done. They praised the local people for standing up for themselves. They gave a nod to our troops for a job well done. Was President Obama’s name mentioned? Yep it was, --- in a disparaging way. He did not do it right, or he did this wrong: that kind of thing.  John McCain, Senator from Arizona  even flip-flopped his opinion of the whole operation when the deed was done!

       
      Did we hear anything of substance for the left?---Uhhhh, Silence.

   
      This is only one instance of the failings in messaging that is being perpetrated by the democrats. It is true that Obama should not toot his own horn, BUT SOMEONE HAS TOO! OK so there is a Facebook presence and I get emails from the Administration, and I am sure there is some kind of Twitter feed for the President, but where is the media coverage? Why don’t the talking heads do more to carry the torch of their leader, Barack Obama? Why are we not hearing about the accomplishments of this Administrations? I listen to the radio all day long and I hear only from Stephanie Miller and Ed Schulz and Bill Press. Where are the politicians, the people who count, in this? They need to get in the fray and let their constituents know about the positive things they and the President have done. 

      Instead, they sit quietly by wondering why all the good work they have done gets overruled, or worse twisted in a lousy pretzel shaped sausage.

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. 

Why are the People of the United States of America being insulted by our elected leaders, Part 1

I am not a blind follower of anything. I have a Mac Book as my main laptop, yet use the Sony for some accounting matters and I have an Android for my phone. I swore by Honda as the best motorcycle in the world until my last one cost me an internship, job and other hardships, including leaving me and my daughter stranded on a dangerous mountain road. My spiritual life is similar, there is no proof and we only have our feelings about the matter, oops the right word is faith. This way of thinking goes for my politics too---go figure. I lean to the left, though I do have some strongly conservative feelings.

I think that our President is the best person for the job dispute the constant harassment and down right belligerent attitude he has been dealing with on a daily basis. The choices for republican side a couple of years ago were very poor, though sexy. Economics is not my forte, but I do understand that to get this mess cleaned up the people, “masses” if you will, need to have money to buy things. It is very obvious that the “job creators” are indeed creating jobs. Unfortunately, those jobs are in other countries or, as in Rich Perry's case, are minimum wage jobs are and not sustainable. 

Of course the whole minimum wage debate is interesting too.

1. Get the slobs working
2. But don’t pay hem enough to live without government assistance 
3. Then call them lazy and good for nothing.

That is a topic for another time.

This post is about our President. I understand, to a limited degree, some of the obstacles he has had to hurtle, yet it seems that at very turn to get anything passed for the people, the bills get watered down to a faded reflection of the original intent. The President has capitulated and been walked over in so many ways it is insulting to the people of this great country. Some say that he is playing chess while others are playing checkers. The implication being there is so much going on behind the scenes and we just don’t know all the moves being made.  However what if the game really is checkers and not the more nuanced chess? Perhaps the game has been defined as checkers and President Obama is still playing chess. 

To continue the analogy further, the game of chess is thought out and never done from an emotional base, at least if the game is to be successful, while checkers is faster and less considered. This simile works even further, look at our recent past. One side throws out insults, jabs and slights and takes piece after piece, while the other considers and plans. One side bates the other, letting it collapse on itself.

This is a game of ego. Consider last weeks latest insult to the Office of the President. We all know it; the President wants to speak to Congress discussing the high unemployment rate. It is a routine matter to request time with the Congress and has NEVER been denied. The flimsy excuse given was that there was a debate going on for the Republican Presidential nominee (I did not hear about before this BS situation came along) and there were concerns about one side upstaging the other. We are talking about the Office of the President of the United States of America compared to someone who cannot get her history facts straight, a religious zealot, a political chameleon and some guy who is trying to create a political dynasty over the backs of the people he says he serves.

How many insults will it take before President Obama says that is enough? He has an incredibly important message to give the people of this country generally and Congress in particular and is getting bounced for a political reality show of NO real meaning.

Is it time to start considering another Democrat for President? Has President Obama been so thoroughly targeted as to become ineffectual? What is up with this battle of wills between Boehner and Obama? Could this brinksmanship be the downfall of our great nation?

These are some questions we need to look into and answer before we really do go over the edge of insanity.

OLC