The elections are over, and apparently not much has changed. Once again America has opted for a status quo of inaction followed by crisis. We’ll probably never learn, but maybe that’s because of who we let teach us.
The bright spot in our after-election picture is that we are no longer inundated by the political attack ads that ran endlessly here in swing state hell, Ohio. Not to worry though, the non-stop Christmas advertisements have stepped smartly up to fill the void. Thank goodness for the DVR and its ability to skim past the commercials. On election night I heard one of the talking heads on TV saying that $3 or $4 billion were spent on political ads this year. He speculated how far along we would be on curing whatever disease we would have chosen to spend that money on instead. Noble thought, but man’s lust for power has always overshadowed his benevolence, and likely always will.
On my way out the door yesterday, I caught a few minutes of the Dr. Oz show on TV. He was talking about cancer, and offered some insight on the cause of deadly pancreatic cancer. Now I don’t know the sources of this guy’s research, but I understand that he is a fairly brilliant cardiothoracic surgeon. So you might be right to maintain a healthy skepticism with regard to his advice in the area of oncology, since cancer isn’t his specialty. However, Dr. Oz has always struck me as a well-meaning person, as well as someone who does his homework, so I listened.
Oz said that as little as two 12-ounce cans of soda pop a week leads to an excess of insulin production, which is a major factor leading to cancer of the pancreas. Drinking two cans of pop doubles your chance of getting pancreatic cancer. That’s twenty-four ounces of soda. I know lots of people that drink that much in a day, if not more. Now if you’re feeling pretty smug because the soda that you gulp daily is diet soda, you probably shouldn’t be feeling so swell either. I read something recently that said diet soda (as well as lots of other products containing artificial sweeteners) leads to excess belly fat and a host of other health problems. Seems that it triggers a desire for more food and more sugar in our bodies, and the processed foods that we rely on in our diets are full of sugars.
Now I’ve been a skeptic most of my life, and I don’t always fall for statistics that sound meaningful, but really aren’t that important. But when you combine all of the “expert research” that we’re subjected to with the observations available from the life (and death) that surrounds us, much of this stuff makes sense. The other day, I ran into an old friend from high school days that I hadn’t seen for years. At one point in our conversation, she ran down a list of people from our class who have already died (we’re still almost two decades shy of our average life expectancy). It was quite a list. Personally, both of my brothers are already dead, although both of my parents are still alive. My oldest brother was killed in a traffic accident when he was a teenager, so I certainly can't put that down to his diet, but my other brother succumbed to cancer.
For our parents’ generation (here I’m speaking of people born in the late-1920’s through early-1940’s), soda pop was a rare treat. Coke came in 6 ½ ounce bottles, and most other soda pops weren’t much larger. Pepsi made a big impact when it introduced a 12-ounce bottle in 1936. Most of the food consumed was made from scratch, not prepackaged and over-processed. Maybe that’s why my generation is dying-off while my parents’ generation lingers on.
Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of New York City, has proposed a ban in the city for selling soda pop in sizes larger than 16-ounces. It’s probably a good idea for the health of the citizens, but most people think it’s a little crazy. It probably won’t even help much. I’m sure there’s one group of New Yorkers that aren’t pleased: the folks on Madison Avenue that dominate our advertising industry. I know that advertising has spread far beyond the confines of a single street in New York, but “Madison Avenue” still invokes the advertising industry, and is still instantly recognizable (think of TV’s “MadMen” a show about advertising in the late-50’s and early-60’s). These people have been influencing our decisions all of my life.
There lies our greatest problem. Our “education” is based on information provided by people who just want us to buy something. Once you buy it, they want you to buy more of it. If you don’t, they go out of business. Think about who it is that advertises most in this country. They’re the people who have the most to gain: makers of simple, low-cost products with high profit margins. Soft drink makers sell sugar-flavored carbonated water (either cane sugar-now rare, high-fructose corn syrup-the vast majority, or artificially sweetened) which is pretty cheap to make. The packaging and advertising cost more than the product itself. So we have to have more. Originally, Coca-Cola contained a pretty significant amount of cocaine, but now it uses “spent” coca leaves for its flavoring, as well as caffeine from the kola nut, also an addictive substance. One of the “benefits” of drinking Coke brought out in its early advertisements was its ability to “cure” morphine addiction. I’ll bet it’s pretty easy to “cure” alcohol or nicotine addiction with a switch to heroin, too. Probably not a good health choice though.
We succumb to advertising claims on a daily basis and not always to our benefit. Phosphate in our detergents made our washing machines more effective in removing stains from our clothes. But then we found out that it stayed in our wastewater and did severe damage to our lakes and streams. They had to change the formula (President Nixon signed the bill into law that banned phosphates, and launched the EPA), but they still need advertising to tell you that there is a major difference between different formulations of soap and water, and get you to favor their brand above all others.
In recent years we have seen a significant rise in advertising for prescription medicine. We see and hear claims for products that will cure a wide range of problems, including those that we didn’t even know were problems, like “restless leg syndrome”. The list of potential side effects is usually frightening, but they speed through those in a hushed voice at the end of the commercial, so how important can they be? Pharmaceuticals have extensive costs associated with their development, but once you have the formula, they’re usually pretty cheap to make. The companies also have to reap the benefits while they are protected under patent laws, because when that expires, a flood of generic brands usually takes over the market. It’s easier for doctors to acquiesce to their patients’ desire for a particular medicine in order to “cure” the symptoms that the TV ad told them they had, than it is to try to get the patients to make healthier choices to begin with. It’s much, much easier if the doctor also has an investment portfolio that includes big blocks of stock in large pharmaceutical companies.
The biggest problem is that our nation continues a slide into lazy stupidity. How many issues were on the ballot in your area that would have increased tax funding for schools? How many of them were successful? The majority in my area failed. People don’t want to pay more taxes, and who can blame them? That’s fine with the folks in power (and I don’t mean our political leaders exclusively). The people that really call the shots in this country (and other countries as well) have very good educations, usually at exclusive private schools. If we enhanced public education, the entire population might become a bit more skeptical and less inclined to believe those authoritative voices on TV ads (we’re much too busy to read these days so we must get information from simpler sources). Those voices of authority tell us that buying more of their product will enhance our lives. Instead, we might be more inclined to follow the advice of those thoughtful people who only make money giving advice, instead of selling some mass-produced consumer good (yes, I know, consumer ads keep TV shows like Dr. Oz on the air).
If you are tired, try taking a nap instead of a stimulant, or just get more sleep at night. If you are thirsty, have some water (don’t worry, Coke and Pepsi bottle that stuff, too. They won’t go out of business) instead of soda pop. Try steaming broccoli, or making macaroni and cheese from real ingredients instead of a box. Seriously, learn a few simple recipes because you are killing your children with processed foods. It is much easier for parents to give-in to whining children screaming for candy at the store, but try another approach. I’ve witnessed the results first hand: harried mothers quickly buckling to the demands of their out-of-control kids to have some candy. The kids looked wired and unhealthy. I’ve seen other mothers remain firm and deny such requests, going as far to tell the kids “no” (Gasp! Can it be true? Doesn’t that lead to tormented psyche?). They then inform their child that they can have an apple or plum or nectarine or some grapes when they get home. It may not come as a surprise to you how much better such children look physically, and how much better they behave in public.
There has been a good deal of speculation about the failure of the massive amount political ads in the election, especially here in Ohio. Karl Rove simply couldn’t believe that the voters of Ohio were not swayed to vote for the Republican candidate. He had an on-air meltdown on Fox. It was really pretty sad. He did persuade almost half the Ohio electorate to vote his way. Thankfully it was just under half. But he, like many other political king-makers (and avid advertisers), failed to allow for the all-important “Law of Unintended Consequences.” What they mostly did was make us distrust all politicians. They made us so sick of commercials and other political ads that in an effort to maintain our sanity we simply tuned them out. Our state’s famous tiny fraction of undecided voters (really, you couldn’t decide even a few days before the election?) that swung the state to the incumbent must have simply flipped a coin in the end, and the fickle odds of chance made the decision for them. Or maybe they finally tuned out the bullshit, and searched their soul for reason. I think it was probably the coin, because if you didn’t understand the issues well enough, you probably lack the necessary mental acuity to find reason within yourself. Blame under-funded public schools. I do.
For the most part, however, advertising is effective. We are an easily swayed life form, and that is a shame. As a species, humans have a great deal of promise, but we’re blowing it. We are allowing ourselves to be advertised to death. All too often we fail to take the long view. Our health will improve if we make healthy choices. Our economy will improve if we produce more things here instead of buying cheaper foreign-made goods. Our people would be better off if we spent more money educating them to make good decisions, but these things don’t benefit us immediately, so it’s out of the question that we would do something to help our future generations at our own immediate expense. Yet, when you ask a parent what it is that they hope for most, the most likely reply is that they desire for their children to be healthy, and live in a better world than today’s mess. Most people don’t even stop to think about it. Their answer is routine. Probably something they heard on TV.
“Children must be taught how to think, not what to think.”
― Margaret Mead
No comments:
Post a Comment