I was driving with my whole family this afternoon when I saw an electronic sign on the side of the road that warned of the dangers of texting while driving. And I understand that it is a huge problem right up there with driving while on cocaine, mescaline, and Jolt cola all at the same time. Here's what I see as the problem. I want to know what was sent to me and then politely say "I'm driving. This conversation is important to me. For safety reasons, I will respond as soon as I arrive at my destination." I want a huge button on the phone that sends this message. Better yet, I want the phone to detect that I am in my car and automatically send this response. No, no. I want to be able to say "Text to audio." and have the car translate the text into audio then send that polite response when I say "safe mode" or something. This can be done with today's technology. Hell, there may be apps for it for all I know. But I don't want to bother figuring it all out. This is very important and I should not have to be 19 to know how to do it. The brains of the industry need to get on with this feature like last week. Duh!
Until then my wife intelligently pointed out that we need a code that can be sent as simply as possible to accomplish this. Dear friends, coworkers, and family. If you see the text...
v v v
...or some variation of that, I'm driving. This conversation is important to me. For safety reasons, I will respond as soon as I arrive at my destination."
Pass this message on.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monday, February 14, 2011
Category: capitalism and climate change
Man I get tired of hearing free market enthusiasts cry foul every time someone proposes laws to restrict some highly profitable industry from business as usual. Defending laws that protect free markets at the expense of some social injustice or climate problem is only a reasonable position if free market capitalism is a perfect system. They treat laissez-faire as a sacred cow. Well, it ain't. There are far worse economic regimes than capitalism, don't get me wrong. But capitalism is the driving force behind a variety of the world's worst problems. At the top of the list is climate change. It is the child of free market action by way of the Tragedy of the Commons on a global scale. This principle states that multiple individuals acting logically and of their own self interest will completely deplete a resource that they all share and depend on even though they are aware that it is happening. The classic example is that of a pasture shared by local herders overgrazing because the benefits of adding an animal to your herd is enjoyed by only its owner while the incremental depletion of the quality of the pasture is shared by all, dooming the pasture and all the herds to destruction. It is human nature to get into this mess and not be able to get out just as cats get stuck in trees. Climate change is a gigantic tragedy that capitalism got us into.
The turds who are successfully holding up carbon trading in congress are taking this same principle to a new level though. We should all know by now that carbon trading is far and away the most promising solution to climate change. Capping and trading of carbon is the idea that pollution costs us all something and it should be charged to the polluters. Those who figure out more efficient ways to combat their own pollution issues will be successful and increase profits while those who are not as effective will be have to pay fees or buy carbon credits, either of which will cut into their profits. The lower polluters are the ones to sell their carbon credits as commodities to the companies who can't manage their own carbon as effectively, further increasing their profits. It forces the deep pockets of industry to use the same principles of free market that got us into this mess to get us out. It is an actual solution to the Tragedy of the Commons and these guys are intentionally holding it up as long as possible to avoid having to figure out how to control their polluting problems. Considering how much sense it makes, it seems unfathomable that we have never actually had any holistic system to monitor pollution from the world's polluters. Well, here it is. We desperately need it. And yet the anti-"cap and tax" lobby (this is what they call it - notice that it does not actually have any taxes involved and does not have any net increase in expense to businesses, but it sure sounds a lot less attractive with that pejorative) is holding up this legislation because they fear that it will cut into their profits in the short term. Well, it will if you suck at innovation. It is supposed to, damnit! That is exactly the point of it. But paying lobbyists is cheaper than having to innovate, I suppose. There are fewer unknowns that way, and money likes predictability. So they continue to profit now and we all suffer the tragedy later.
The turds who are successfully holding up carbon trading in congress are taking this same principle to a new level though. We should all know by now that carbon trading is far and away the most promising solution to climate change. Capping and trading of carbon is the idea that pollution costs us all something and it should be charged to the polluters. Those who figure out more efficient ways to combat their own pollution issues will be successful and increase profits while those who are not as effective will be have to pay fees or buy carbon credits, either of which will cut into their profits. The lower polluters are the ones to sell their carbon credits as commodities to the companies who can't manage their own carbon as effectively, further increasing their profits. It forces the deep pockets of industry to use the same principles of free market that got us into this mess to get us out. It is an actual solution to the Tragedy of the Commons and these guys are intentionally holding it up as long as possible to avoid having to figure out how to control their polluting problems. Considering how much sense it makes, it seems unfathomable that we have never actually had any holistic system to monitor pollution from the world's polluters. Well, here it is. We desperately need it. And yet the anti-"cap and tax" lobby (this is what they call it - notice that it does not actually have any taxes involved and does not have any net increase in expense to businesses, but it sure sounds a lot less attractive with that pejorative) is holding up this legislation because they fear that it will cut into their profits in the short term. Well, it will if you suck at innovation. It is supposed to, damnit! That is exactly the point of it. But paying lobbyists is cheaper than having to innovate, I suppose. There are fewer unknowns that way, and money likes predictability. So they continue to profit now and we all suffer the tragedy later.
Friday, January 21, 2011
Category: advertising
Ever hear of E.D.? That's erectile dysfunction. How about Low-T? It stands for low testosterone. That's the new one for essentially the same thing. I bet you learned about these "conditions" from television commercials. Yeah, me too. When you are educated about a topic by people who get paid lots of money to get you to buy their product, that's the education you get. You have to question everything. These guys don't get paid big money for nothing, you know. I don't know if it is wrong to respect a person and hate him all at once. But that's sort of where I am on this one.
The first commercial spot on television ever was an advertisement for Bulova, a clock manufacturer. You had a simple reminder of the existence of the company and what it peddled. Advertisements come in many, many styles today. But the best/most devious ones you see on TV bare no resemblance to that first ad any more. They don't seek to inform you of their product so much as trick you into buying it. In the case of viagra, levitra, cialis, or whatever, all the boner pills had a major problem for the manufacturers. There was no demand for them. More to the point, they needed to solve a problem that was taboo to talk about.
Their first order of business was to convince the public that a reduction in sexual drive is a medical condition when in fact it is a normal part of aging. The idea that a doctor should prescribe medication for it is absurd. You may as well have your family physician prescribe botox injections, hair transplants, and vaginal rejuvenation surgery. This is where the phony medical-sounding language comes into the picture. When the narrator of the advertisement tells you in an understanding voice that you may "suffer" from "erectile dysfunction", and "ask your doctor..." he is equating impotence associated with aging to a tooth ache. Take our pills to cure you of this unfortunate ailment. Do people "suffer" from sagging breasts or pattern balding? What if I came up with a fancy name for wrinkles? Would that mean that doctors should be prescribing face lifts to "cure" peolpe of this "condition" too?
And how are doctors diagnosing E.D. anyway? When my mother asked my pediatrician long ago if I had allergies, he performed a battery of tests before prescribing medication. Do guys have to prove their impotence? Do doctors have dirty mags next to the tongue depressors and alcohol wipes to help them make an accurate diagnosis?
Or is this one just taken at your word?
Great system there.
Scoundrels.
The first commercial spot on television ever was an advertisement for Bulova, a clock manufacturer. You had a simple reminder of the existence of the company and what it peddled. Advertisements come in many, many styles today. But the best/most devious ones you see on TV bare no resemblance to that first ad any more. They don't seek to inform you of their product so much as trick you into buying it. In the case of viagra, levitra, cialis, or whatever, all the boner pills had a major problem for the manufacturers. There was no demand for them. More to the point, they needed to solve a problem that was taboo to talk about.
Their first order of business was to convince the public that a reduction in sexual drive is a medical condition when in fact it is a normal part of aging. The idea that a doctor should prescribe medication for it is absurd. You may as well have your family physician prescribe botox injections, hair transplants, and vaginal rejuvenation surgery. This is where the phony medical-sounding language comes into the picture. When the narrator of the advertisement tells you in an understanding voice that you may "suffer" from "erectile dysfunction", and "ask your doctor..." he is equating impotence associated with aging to a tooth ache. Take our pills to cure you of this unfortunate ailment. Do people "suffer" from sagging breasts or pattern balding? What if I came up with a fancy name for wrinkles? Would that mean that doctors should be prescribing face lifts to "cure" peolpe of this "condition" too?
And how are doctors diagnosing E.D. anyway? When my mother asked my pediatrician long ago if I had allergies, he performed a battery of tests before prescribing medication. Do guys have to prove their impotence? Do doctors have dirty mags next to the tongue depressors and alcohol wipes to help them make an accurate diagnosis?
Or is this one just taken at your word?
Great system there.
Scoundrels.
Tuesday, December 28, 2010
Category: politicians (and flatulence)
In my house, we have an unwritten rule. Well, it is sort of a guideline actually. OK, it is a just a habit...a lazy one. Passing gas is a cherished event. I was not raised to do it in front of others, but somehow it became my habit to do so. My wife allowed me to get away with it and she eventually followed suit. It was destiny for the kids to toe the line. Whatever. The fact is that flatulence constantly reminds me of politicians.
I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul make a habit of floating stink biscuits in public. No, I mean the response to it. See, every time I let one loose, the wife makes a big stink about it (heh). Yeah, she carries on as if I just lit the bed on fire. And when she or one of my kids makes a foul gaseous emanation, I similarly claim nasal distress. At first, such responses were sincere. But these days I find myself claiming olfactory offense whether there is a foul aroma about the place or not. I just can't pass up the opportunity to complain. And neither can the rest of them. The family complains when I do it too, and we all get a good laugh no matter who slices the aromatic cheese. But the feigning of offense is the important feature here. Politicians never pass up a chance to hold their nose and point their finger. To be sure, they pretty much all stink like a refuse pile. But they do not wait until an opponent lets one rip. They declare stench alerts even when they know it was just some poor soul's torn pants making the sound.
This is why you get Chinese politicians claiming major indignation time after time when some world event shines a light on how poor their human rights record is (like when a jailed political dissident is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize) or the Iranian leaders blaming the West for every internal problem they face. They get an opportunity to rally the troops to their cause whether they give a fart about the issue or not. Even domestically it is the reason why politicians can't resist an opportunity to stick each other with a steaming poker every time one of them slips up over the tiniest thing, Outrage is a hot commodity in Washington. Having it on your side gets media coverage to your moral high ground. And it does not cost you a shred of political capital to engage in it. It's no wonder I had such a wealth of colorful adjectives to distribute throughout this entry. They all just seem to describe flatulence and politicians at once.
They all stink. They are all constantly pointing and fanning the air at each others' wind. Perhaps the rest of us should take a page from my 4 year-old and laugh long and loud at their absurdity.
I don't mean to imply that Hillary Clinton and Rand Paul make a habit of floating stink biscuits in public. No, I mean the response to it. See, every time I let one loose, the wife makes a big stink about it (heh). Yeah, she carries on as if I just lit the bed on fire. And when she or one of my kids makes a foul gaseous emanation, I similarly claim nasal distress. At first, such responses were sincere. But these days I find myself claiming olfactory offense whether there is a foul aroma about the place or not. I just can't pass up the opportunity to complain. And neither can the rest of them. The family complains when I do it too, and we all get a good laugh no matter who slices the aromatic cheese. But the feigning of offense is the important feature here. Politicians never pass up a chance to hold their nose and point their finger. To be sure, they pretty much all stink like a refuse pile. But they do not wait until an opponent lets one rip. They declare stench alerts even when they know it was just some poor soul's torn pants making the sound.
This is why you get Chinese politicians claiming major indignation time after time when some world event shines a light on how poor their human rights record is (like when a jailed political dissident is awarded the Nobel Peace Prize) or the Iranian leaders blaming the West for every internal problem they face. They get an opportunity to rally the troops to their cause whether they give a fart about the issue or not. Even domestically it is the reason why politicians can't resist an opportunity to stick each other with a steaming poker every time one of them slips up over the tiniest thing, Outrage is a hot commodity in Washington. Having it on your side gets media coverage to your moral high ground. And it does not cost you a shred of political capital to engage in it. It's no wonder I had such a wealth of colorful adjectives to distribute throughout this entry. They all just seem to describe flatulence and politicians at once.
They all stink. They are all constantly pointing and fanning the air at each others' wind. Perhaps the rest of us should take a page from my 4 year-old and laugh long and loud at their absurdity.
Sunday, December 12, 2010
Category: parenting
Babies are beautiful. My boy is very cute. And my baby nephew is clearly the handiwork of God himself. That kid is so comely that he can turn even the hardest atheist into a believer. But I am not really talking about any of that.
I mean that babies are beautiful from a design standpoint. They are such a marvel of engineering that MIT and Cal Tech would do well to offer classes on baby design to incoming freshmen. You probably know that a baby can not see clearly. Are the eyes still forming? Is that why? Nope. It is by design that a baby has blurred vision. The little one starts off only using the senses that have already been working for months. This prevents information overload in a new world. The womb has no light after all. The brain has no frame of reference to process vision at first.
A baby's smile has nothing to do with pleasure. They are programmed to smile at friendly faces to manipulate adults into paying more attention to them. Babies need attention from adults to thrive. Eye contact, familiar voices, mom's touch and smell are all part of how they learn. And we adults are ourselves programmed to give them this attention. That is - babies are cute on purpose.
My mom used to ponder out loud why it is necessary to feel pain. I know the reason. It is because of obesity and credit card debt. Heh. Didn't see that coming did you? I mean that there is no strong motivator for a person to stop spending money he or she does not have. Same with food. There is no immediate downside to over eating. Our rational self knows that it is bad, but the instinct to eat or buy all you can usually wins. Pain, on the other hand, is a powerful motivator. It demands that you immediately change your behavior. That is why babies cry too.
Baby cries are such a piercing annoyance that it actually alters our behavior. Even if you are not the parent, you strongly feel the urge to give the baby whatever it wants to shut it up. Again, this is by design. We are programmed to dislike that sound so intensely to mimic the effects of pain. Since babies can not do for themselves, nature needs a strong motivator to get others to do for them. Seeing a number on a scale or getting a bill in the mail just doesn't have the same punch.
Everything about a baby is a perfect adaptation to getting what they need from adults (well, that and learning like nothing else in this world). But there is one deficient area in a baby's design that I am reminded of every time I yank something from my son's hand. They put everything in their mouth. This is not the same kind of danger as covering wall outlets or not letting them near a swimming pool. They stick things in their mouth not out of ignorance of the world, but as part of this grand design. Even before modern civilization, babies would not have been able to procure food on their own. Babies are not able to distinguish food from nonfood by looking at it so it's not as if they are foraging like this. Why then is this trait necessary? In particular, how did babies who stuck everything in their mouths manage to survive more often throughout the ages than the ones who only did so only when they were hungry? Is sense of taste really so important to our development?
At any rate, I think this speaks volumes about the instinct of motherhood. Throughout the ages, moms have been so vigilant about preventing their children from choking on random objects that they have actually outmaneuvered natural selection.
Go moms!
I mean that babies are beautiful from a design standpoint. They are such a marvel of engineering that MIT and Cal Tech would do well to offer classes on baby design to incoming freshmen. You probably know that a baby can not see clearly. Are the eyes still forming? Is that why? Nope. It is by design that a baby has blurred vision. The little one starts off only using the senses that have already been working for months. This prevents information overload in a new world. The womb has no light after all. The brain has no frame of reference to process vision at first.
A baby's smile has nothing to do with pleasure. They are programmed to smile at friendly faces to manipulate adults into paying more attention to them. Babies need attention from adults to thrive. Eye contact, familiar voices, mom's touch and smell are all part of how they learn. And we adults are ourselves programmed to give them this attention. That is - babies are cute on purpose.
My mom used to ponder out loud why it is necessary to feel pain. I know the reason. It is because of obesity and credit card debt. Heh. Didn't see that coming did you? I mean that there is no strong motivator for a person to stop spending money he or she does not have. Same with food. There is no immediate downside to over eating. Our rational self knows that it is bad, but the instinct to eat or buy all you can usually wins. Pain, on the other hand, is a powerful motivator. It demands that you immediately change your behavior. That is why babies cry too.
Baby cries are such a piercing annoyance that it actually alters our behavior. Even if you are not the parent, you strongly feel the urge to give the baby whatever it wants to shut it up. Again, this is by design. We are programmed to dislike that sound so intensely to mimic the effects of pain. Since babies can not do for themselves, nature needs a strong motivator to get others to do for them. Seeing a number on a scale or getting a bill in the mail just doesn't have the same punch.
Everything about a baby is a perfect adaptation to getting what they need from adults (well, that and learning like nothing else in this world). But there is one deficient area in a baby's design that I am reminded of every time I yank something from my son's hand. They put everything in their mouth. This is not the same kind of danger as covering wall outlets or not letting them near a swimming pool. They stick things in their mouth not out of ignorance of the world, but as part of this grand design. Even before modern civilization, babies would not have been able to procure food on their own. Babies are not able to distinguish food from nonfood by looking at it so it's not as if they are foraging like this. Why then is this trait necessary? In particular, how did babies who stuck everything in their mouths manage to survive more often throughout the ages than the ones who only did so only when they were hungry? Is sense of taste really so important to our development?
At any rate, I think this speaks volumes about the instinct of motherhood. Throughout the ages, moms have been so vigilant about preventing their children from choking on random objects that they have actually outmaneuvered natural selection.
Go moms!
Friday, December 10, 2010
Category: government
It is a few minutes before 3 AM and I can't go back to sleep. The 4 and 6 year old girls burst in the room an hour ago, each accusing the other of kicking off the covers or some variation thereof. Somehow, my wife and I ended up talking about the government and I kinda knew I would end up here until I got this particular gripe off my chest.
She says "that Dream Act thing passed."
"Only in the House," I said. "It won't get passed in the Senate even though the Democratic backers have a majority."
This prompted a bit of discussion on bicameralism and the role of the filibuster. Ultimately I don't know if I am in favor of this tool existing or not. It is not elegant. It is the single most blatant measure that makes the old joke "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'?" so funny, and painful. The fact that the action of filibustering is itself intentionally talking endlessly about nothing, specifically so the government can do nothing, only adds to the silliness of it all. But this thing gives the important tradition of majority rule with minority rights some teeth. So what can you do? The question goes back at least until ancient Rome. Maybe even Greece. How do you get a government to have the power to do what you need it to without the governing persons taking advantage of their power? Democracy, of course. Well, sorta.
When I have the nationalistic pride part of me driving, I really think it is cool that the United States has never had a monarch. George Washington really and truly could have become one but the guy declined. The people pretty much expected him to. His contemporaries would have backed him if he decided to. But the man was Bilbo Baggins voluntarily giving up the One Ring. His allegiance was to the nation alone. And he felt that, after eight years as its leader, he had done his part to set it straight. So he...retired. If all leaders were as benevolent as our first, there would be little need for democracy. But for every Washington you have many Neros. So we have this elaborate system of balancing power by playing one branch of government off another. If you suck at your job you will lose it. The problem with that is that your employer is a nation of people who are educated about you and your job by the media. Consequently, all politicians are themselves ruled by protection of their own image so that their allegiance is to that image first and the nation second. That is at the heart of the problems with our democracy. But how can you inhibit power without this nasty side effect? I don't know. I suspect that there is no way to. You have tyranny at one end of the spectrum and a dead fish at the other. My complaint is that we are too close to the dead fish end. But because I am not just filibustering, I have a solution to offer.
We need a king. That's right.
Did you know that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life? No elections. They are not beholden to their public image the way a politician is. So a beautiful thing happens at the Supreme Court - governing. You have these nine people who keep each other in line and have only their legacies to protect. Because I am not completely off my rocker, I don't mean that I want to be ruled by an absolute dictator. But a ruling family that can stay out of the public eye like the supreme court has its advantages. They decide based on their own internal politics how to intervene when congress deadlocks or the president is clearly a nincompoop. At all other times, they would be relegated to observe and advise status. How can this be designed to always work that way? Hell if I know. But consider how beneficial it could be to have a leader who is not a politician. Perhaps the true Fourth Estate should be the American Monarch. It could be like having our own benevolent superhero with the with the superhuman ability to govern based on the needs of the nation and not the needs of his or her career.
She says "that Dream Act thing passed."
"Only in the House," I said. "It won't get passed in the Senate even though the Democratic backers have a majority."
This prompted a bit of discussion on bicameralism and the role of the filibuster. Ultimately I don't know if I am in favor of this tool existing or not. It is not elegant. It is the single most blatant measure that makes the old joke "If 'pro' is the opposite of 'con', what is the opposite of 'progress'?" so funny, and painful. The fact that the action of filibustering is itself intentionally talking endlessly about nothing, specifically so the government can do nothing, only adds to the silliness of it all. But this thing gives the important tradition of majority rule with minority rights some teeth. So what can you do? The question goes back at least until ancient Rome. Maybe even Greece. How do you get a government to have the power to do what you need it to without the governing persons taking advantage of their power? Democracy, of course. Well, sorta.
When I have the nationalistic pride part of me driving, I really think it is cool that the United States has never had a monarch. George Washington really and truly could have become one but the guy declined. The people pretty much expected him to. His contemporaries would have backed him if he decided to. But the man was Bilbo Baggins voluntarily giving up the One Ring. His allegiance was to the nation alone. And he felt that, after eight years as its leader, he had done his part to set it straight. So he...retired. If all leaders were as benevolent as our first, there would be little need for democracy. But for every Washington you have many Neros. So we have this elaborate system of balancing power by playing one branch of government off another. If you suck at your job you will lose it. The problem with that is that your employer is a nation of people who are educated about you and your job by the media. Consequently, all politicians are themselves ruled by protection of their own image so that their allegiance is to that image first and the nation second. That is at the heart of the problems with our democracy. But how can you inhibit power without this nasty side effect? I don't know. I suspect that there is no way to. You have tyranny at one end of the spectrum and a dead fish at the other. My complaint is that we are too close to the dead fish end. But because I am not just filibustering, I have a solution to offer.
We need a king. That's right.
Did you know that Supreme Court justices are appointed for life? No elections. They are not beholden to their public image the way a politician is. So a beautiful thing happens at the Supreme Court - governing. You have these nine people who keep each other in line and have only their legacies to protect. Because I am not completely off my rocker, I don't mean that I want to be ruled by an absolute dictator. But a ruling family that can stay out of the public eye like the supreme court has its advantages. They decide based on their own internal politics how to intervene when congress deadlocks or the president is clearly a nincompoop. At all other times, they would be relegated to observe and advise status. How can this be designed to always work that way? Hell if I know. But consider how beneficial it could be to have a leader who is not a politician. Perhaps the true Fourth Estate should be the American Monarch. It could be like having our own benevolent superhero with the with the superhuman ability to govern based on the needs of the nation and not the needs of his or her career.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Category: advertising
This may come as a surprise to a lot of people, but raising cattle for commercial dairy products is a relatively new phenomenon. Well, that is not entirely true. There have always been small and mid-sized dairy traditions throughout Europe and to some extent elsewhere. But these are almost exclusively for production of cheese. Today, when we think of dairy farming, we are thinking of cow's milk. But it was not always that way. The American cowboys of the late 19th century were not moving milk cows, those herds were steaks on legs. The entire milk industry only came about in the middle of the 20th century. This is the why and how in case the category heading has not already clued you in.
I eat my share of cold cereal with milk as a speedy breakfast. My kids all drink milk with some sort of vitamin supplement as a type of healthy snack. Lots of it. Frankly, I am not especially settled on the idea, but my wife was raised on it, and I am very settled on domestic tranquility. So milk it is. We go through several gallons a week in this way. But what about milk is so healthy after all?
Well, for one thing it has plenty of calcium. We all need the stuff, but especially the young and the old. It has some protein also. And it is spiked with vitamin A and vitamin D. Calcium is present in plenty of other foods including broccoli., almonds, oranges, most beans, eggshells, and lots more. Protein and vitamin A are plentiful in most meat. And vitamin D your body actually makes by itself. So don't think that milk plays some sort of indispensable role in nutrition. We cook with it, but let's be serious, water will usually do in its place. (Except for milk chocolate. Don't even THINK about messing with that.) Milk and cereal is a new trend. So are my beloved milk and cookies. How did milk go from a drink you only got on a farm to a commercial powerhouse and woven part of our culture?
Marketing.
Beginning in the 50's dairy farmers hired advertising companies to create a demand for milk where none existed because they could make more money selling cow's milk than the cheese it was being primarily used for at the time. An endless barrage of television and print advertisements depicted milk as a healthy drink for many occasions. They took advantage of the popular ideas of the time that country living was to be upheld as ideal. Milk was a farm product that could be delivered to your doorstep. Cold cereal has been around for over a hundred years, but it did not begin to look like the enormous industry of today until milk began to be viewed as a requirement in every household. You also saw the rise of milkshakes and similar concoctions in this time as people looked for new uses for it. But the view that milk is a natural and beneficial product borders on absurd. It is a fatty, sugary stuff that should properly be classified as a dessert. No other mammal drinks milk past infancy - it is not a natural part of life to drink the milk of a cow. So why do we? Because we have been told to by people who stand to profit from our belief that it is an essential part of our diet.
This process of inventing a market from thin air happens all the time and is the holy grail of marketers. Advertising agencies have actually been able to warp western culture to suit the needs of their clients on many occasions. This is one of them.
I eat my share of cold cereal with milk as a speedy breakfast. My kids all drink milk with some sort of vitamin supplement as a type of healthy snack. Lots of it. Frankly, I am not especially settled on the idea, but my wife was raised on it, and I am very settled on domestic tranquility. So milk it is. We go through several gallons a week in this way. But what about milk is so healthy after all?
Well, for one thing it has plenty of calcium. We all need the stuff, but especially the young and the old. It has some protein also. And it is spiked with vitamin A and vitamin D. Calcium is present in plenty of other foods including broccoli., almonds, oranges, most beans, eggshells, and lots more. Protein and vitamin A are plentiful in most meat. And vitamin D your body actually makes by itself. So don't think that milk plays some sort of indispensable role in nutrition. We cook with it, but let's be serious, water will usually do in its place. (Except for milk chocolate. Don't even THINK about messing with that.) Milk and cereal is a new trend. So are my beloved milk and cookies. How did milk go from a drink you only got on a farm to a commercial powerhouse and woven part of our culture?
Marketing.
Beginning in the 50's dairy farmers hired advertising companies to create a demand for milk where none existed because they could make more money selling cow's milk than the cheese it was being primarily used for at the time. An endless barrage of television and print advertisements depicted milk as a healthy drink for many occasions. They took advantage of the popular ideas of the time that country living was to be upheld as ideal. Milk was a farm product that could be delivered to your doorstep. Cold cereal has been around for over a hundred years, but it did not begin to look like the enormous industry of today until milk began to be viewed as a requirement in every household. You also saw the rise of milkshakes and similar concoctions in this time as people looked for new uses for it. But the view that milk is a natural and beneficial product borders on absurd. It is a fatty, sugary stuff that should properly be classified as a dessert. No other mammal drinks milk past infancy - it is not a natural part of life to drink the milk of a cow. So why do we? Because we have been told to by people who stand to profit from our belief that it is an essential part of our diet.
This process of inventing a market from thin air happens all the time and is the holy grail of marketers. Advertising agencies have actually been able to warp western culture to suit the needs of their clients on many occasions. This is one of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)