It's interesting and timely that you mentioned trashy food. I have a 3 year old son who started pre-school this year. I met the parents of the other kids in the class once and honestly, I felt like crying when they all started talking about how much they love "Uncrustables" and "Lunchables" and other "food products" which are so full of salt and fat and sugar and preservatives that they can hardly be called food. They talked about all these fast food places their kids love and I truly felt sad for those children. Their parents are feeding them junk and the kids will never know any better. Now, I will be the first to admit I'm *not* a good cook. I need a recipe to make ice. My husband, thankfully, does know how to cook. Every morning, we take about 3-5 minutes to prepare our son's lunch. Some whole grain bread, light mayo, low fat meat and cheese. Yogurt and a piece of fruit on the side. (drinks are provided at his after school daycare) Sometimes he has leftovers (like rice and veggies with grilled chicken or similar). The point is, we spend very little time making his lunch but we make sure he eats a lunch that isn't pre-packaged junk.
Last year, my husband found out his blood pressure was high. He now has to cook just about everything from scratch because there's so much salt in prepared food. As for myself, I have to watch fat/cholesterol intake. Makes for a lot of challenges when trying to find something to eat.
Going out to eat gets to be impossible with overly huge portions and the SALT... (sorry, salt isn't a good friend of mine right now; please forgive)
But this was supposed to be about politics... I guess, like Elvis, third parties are seemingly dead in our system. The people with the most money have several key businesses in their back pockets: Oil companies, tobacco companies, major media sources, and a few other industries (like energy corporations or maybe large technology firms). But especially oil and tobacco. Many candidates will support the idea of developing alternative fuel sources but, like NCLB, funding tends to be scarce when it's time to actually *do* something.
To bring this back to the original topic, and to tie it to others, what controls the public more than anything else is fear. Fear that the Democratic party will lose if they do not unite behind a single candidate. This sets up Clinton to be the scapegoat if Obama loses the election. The harsh media critics will blame Obama losing on her diverting funds and attention from the general election. This makes me think of the Olympic judges determining the winners before the contest. Why is it so important to them to have a candidate selected so the convention is a mere formality? This, in my mind, causes the primaries to become a borderline farce. Going through the motions because the winner is already selected and funding, etc. goes to that person before anything has actually happened.
I could go on for a long time about the problem presented by non-affiliated voters being unable to vote in the primaries. They are literally barred from having any say in who the candidates are. In that case, why even have the primary elections? Can't everybody sort it out in a single election and the candidate with the most votes wins? That's how elections were done back in my school days. We often had 4-5 candidates for class president. Yes, this is a bigger scale but why must it be just two?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-03-31 01:11 am (UTC)Last year, my husband found out his blood pressure was high. He now has to cook just about everything from scratch because there's so much salt in prepared food. As for myself, I have to watch fat/cholesterol intake. Makes for a lot of challenges when trying to find something to eat.
Going out to eat gets to be impossible with overly huge portions and the SALT... (sorry, salt isn't a good friend of mine right now; please forgive)
But this was supposed to be about politics... I guess, like Elvis, third parties are seemingly dead in our system. The people with the most money have several key businesses in their back pockets: Oil companies, tobacco companies, major media sources, and a few other industries (like energy corporations or maybe large technology firms). But especially oil and tobacco. Many candidates will support the idea of developing alternative fuel sources but, like NCLB, funding tends to be scarce when it's time to actually *do* something.
To bring this back to the original topic, and to tie it to others, what controls the public more than anything else is fear. Fear that the Democratic party will lose if they do not unite behind a single candidate. This sets up Clinton to be the scapegoat if Obama loses the election. The harsh media critics will blame Obama losing on her diverting funds and attention from the general election. This makes me think of the Olympic judges determining the winners before the contest. Why is it so important to them to have a candidate selected so the convention is a mere formality? This, in my mind, causes the primaries to become a borderline farce. Going through the motions because the winner is already selected and funding, etc. goes to that person before anything has actually happened.
I could go on for a long time about the problem presented by non-affiliated voters being unable to vote in the primaries. They are literally barred from having any say in who the candidates are. In that case, why even have the primary elections? Can't everybody sort it out in a single election and the candidate with the most votes wins? That's how elections were done back in my school days. We often had 4-5 candidates for class president. Yes, this is a bigger scale but why must it be just two?
Curiouser and curiouser...