Who's Can We Blame for Being Fat? Certainly Not Ourselves

This is another fantastic editorial about the argument that we "haven't got time to cook."  When in fact, we do have time to cook, we just chose to use that time doing other things that are "more important" to us.    The same can be true for those of us (myself included) who don't work out (or at least don't do so regularly).  Certainly part of the problem is that the media helps to validate us by constantly telling us that we don't have time to cook and food companies use a products "convenience" as a way to market products to us that help to make not making time to cook much easier for us. 

PSA: More Than One Source Needed to Develop a Political Position

I never really care what political bent one has, all I ask is that you REALLY know what your positions are and be able to stand by them when asked to elaborate on your "talking point." That is not the case in this video and it shows why we have such a politically uninformed populace in the United States. Certainly FOX News is not the only culprit, CNN and MSNBC are guilty as well (While Hilary Clinton should have exited the presidential race earlier, I think the overwhelming pressure came from 24-hour news stations like CNN and MSNBC).

Whose Fat is it Anyway?

I've listened to the debate over childhood obesity with interest. I've been interested because I am conflicted about how I really feel about the solutions that have been posited about "curing" childhood obesity.

My immediate "go to" is that parents need to take responsibility for what their children are putting into their mouths (and bodies) most of the time. Sure, kids are going to eat junk at school (and trade away or throw away the healthy options packed in their lunches), but parents can control what their children eat for breakfast and dinner. Parents also have the ability to limit what food they bring into the home because they buy it. I know that the counter argument here is that parents are busy and more homes than ever are run either by a single parent or two working parents. I grew up with two working parents as well. And you know what they did? On Sunday, they cooked for the whole week. That's what refrigerators and freezers are for. That's not to say that we didn't have junk food and fast food, but it was eaten in moderation. But we also were forced to go outside and play, which got us doing some kind of physical activity rather than sitting in front of a computer or game console for hours on end.

In other words, the media (and the Obama administration) are making the food manufacturers the evil bandit in this scenario. Which is not to say that the food manufacturers don't have some culpability but the last time I checked we were free to make choices about the foods that we eat. That was one of the thrusts behind giving more information on food labels (including fast food), so that we had the information about what we were putting into our bodies and could make decisions based on those labels. But the bottom line is that Coke, Frito Lay, McDonald's and all the other businesses that make junk food are publicly traded companies. If we stop buying, they stop making because they're all about making money and making their shareholders happy.

Taxing us into allegedly not wanting to purchase fattier foods is a lame idea as well. While it may have an impact, my hypothesis is that it'll largely affect lower income people who perhaps won't be able to afford to buy these fattier foods. So, we'll have a slew of higher income level obese people? What does that really help? But as we have seen with cigarettes, higher prices/taxes haven't really stopped people from smoking. In Chicago, when the tax on cigarettes was raised, many smokers drove to Indiana to "stock up" where the tax on cigarettes was not as high.

I think the real solution is to make healthier eating more affordable and accessible. I am grateful that I can afford to make healthier eating decisions, but I pay for the decision I make. Whenever I go to a healthier grocery store like Trader Joe's, Sprouts, or Central Market, I pay more. A bag of fruit is oftentimes more expensive than a bag of chips. A gallon of water is often the same price as a 2-liter of soda. The price of ground turkey escalates as the amount of fat decreases, which is more expensive than buying ground chuck or ground beef. A bag of almonds (with their anticarcinogen properties) is more expensive than a bag of candy. Trader Joe's, Sprouts, Central Market and other health food stores are often located in the tonier neighborhoods and communities -- and for good reason. The residents of those tonier parts of town can afford to shop there while if a person with less economic resources wants to shop there, there are the added costs of travel as well as the physical expense of buying the food. So, for many, it's cost prohibitive. That is not to say that the Dominick's, Randall's, Jewel's and Kroger's of the world don't offer healthier eating choices. But the fact is, it'll cost more. So, let's focus on that disparity and perhaps when healthier eating choices are more affordable, then people will chose that as an option more frequently than they do now.

Fiscal Responsibility vs The Poor

Today, the Senate voted not to pass a bill that would have provided 500,000 temporary jobs to youth in America as well as a $1.3 billion extension of enhanced subsidies for poor families with children. Essentially citing the need for more fiscal responsibility/deficit reduction, the John Kerry/Patty Murray amendment failed to pass with the needed 60 votes. There are many problems that I have with the failure to pass this bill, but what I think is most important to note is my belief that this is classism disguised as principle.

My belief is that the modern Republican party (and quite honestly the modern Democratic party) doesn't care about the underclass in America. Certainly a lot of their opposition also has to do with a general disdain for the Obama administration but I think it's easier for politicians to find a fake, yet logical-sounding reason (i.e. fiscal responsibility) to mask what they are really feeling (i.e. a disdain for all things poor).

This bill , if passed, would have impacted politicians or their families and friends in no way, shape or form. Their well-heeled friends and family have the connections to ensure that their children have summer jobs (ones that pay more than minimum wage).

The bill would have also provided subsidies for vulnerable families with children via the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program. Again, not a constituent who truly matters to politicians. These families are not going to financially contribute to their next campaign and conventional wisdom says that poor people don't vote anyway or vote against their best interest.

I don't know the solution to our broken American political system. I do know that even as a middle class person, I don't feel like my interests are always reflected by the people I have voted for who are supposed to represent them. Part of the problem is that the people who run for public office are already wealthy enough such that they can afford to take time off from their jobs without pay (assuming they are not already politicians) to campaign and they are connected enough with well-heeled folk to gather donations. These people are theoretically wealthy enough already that they can't possibly really understand what it is like for Americans to live day-to-day. Maybe when we have a political system where money doesn't rule the day (which will likely never happen) we'll start to get people in office who represent the real Joe and Jane Q. Public.

Movies and Financial Education

Here's a story for bankrate.com for which I was interviewed to discuss what movies teach us about money.

Tiger Woods: Celebrity Endorsement Counterpoint

According to Chris Rojek, one of the reasons that the concept of celebrity has increased recently is because of the commodification of everyday life. And Tiger Woods, in addition to his status as a world class golfer, has also become a world class commodity -- that is, until it was revealed that he has had a number of extramarital affairs. According to some of his sponsors including Accenture, Gatorade and AT&T, this "lapse of judgment," "violation of his marriage," "battle with sex addiction," or whatever one wants to call it, has tarnished his once pristine, monogamously married image as a marketing gimmick. And as such, they have chosen to sever ties with him as a celebrity endorser.

Maybe I am among the minority of people who don't buy a product simply based on a celebrity endorsement, but marketing expert Robert Grede believes that it is still a great way to attract attention, create excitement for products, and build awareness among prospects and customers. So, perhaps those companies who have dropped Tiger Woods are not necessarily damning him and his actions per se as much as positioning [insert company name here] as a company that stands up for "traditional family values" and "the institution of marriage."

But while some, like Laura Kipnis assert that marriage is an equal-opportunity oppressor, trapping men and women in a life of drudgery, emotional anesthesia, and a tug-of-war struggle to balance vastly different needs, others believe marriage is an institution that needs to be preserved and protected (especially from the gays). These opposing positions largely support a Western ideology. Watch maker, Tag Heuer is continuing its use of Tiger Woods in its advertising, particularly in China, where the number of mistresses one has increases street cred.

But what really should be the test is whether anyone was less likely to drink Gatorade (or prohibit their children from doing so) simply because Tiger Woods, adulterer extraordinaire, endorses the product. Did it really come down to the fact that these companies were not seeing the return on investment from the Tiger Woods endorsement deal and this scandal provided an easy way out? After all, our culture is all about consumption and businesses are all about making money.

Joseph Stack, Politics and Celebrity

Celebrity is a crazy and arbitrary thing. Joseph Stack entered a realm of celebrity today when he crashed his plane into the IRS building in Austin. Before today, the public at large knew nothing about Slack. His six-page suicide note details a man who has railed against big, corrupt government and taxation for nearly 30 years. His act has spurred (as of this writing) 10 Facebook groups, many of which position him as a hero.

But Slack offers an opportunity to look at the creation of celebrity. To paraphrase Chris Rojek, transgression is a tried and true route to acquire celebrity and Joseph Stack has become an overnight notorious celebrity-- at least for the short term. What appears to be a solo act of frustration with taxation has been co-opted into a treatise on all that is wrong with the way taxes and government work in our country. And many people, myself included, believe that there is something wrong with the way our government is run, but I believe it often boils down to the idea that as Americans we are lured by the concept of politician as celebrity, not who will do the best job per se.

Television forever changed the way we elect public officials. The overarching complaint most people had with Al Gore during his run as president was that he wasn't charismatic. What does that really have to do with whether or not he would be a good, effective leader? Barack Obama is certainly smart and charismatic but the jury is still out on how his presidency will be remembered. We've never had a truly unattractive president since the dawn of the TV age and we've also never had an obese president (although some of the Clinton Big Mac years got very close). So, in effect, we vote for the most popular one, who also sometimes happens to be the one with whom we'd most like to have a beer.

In a week, we will have forgotten all about this incident (if it even takes that long) but for now, Joseph Stack has become a celebrity and the face for the Tea Party movement to signify all that is wrong with government as people, particularly small business owners, decry the injustice of being "taxed twice." And we will continue to vote for the one who is most attractive and charismatic while continuing to get the same result while expecting something different -- which coincidentally is the definition of insanity.

What TV Characters Teach Us About Money

Here's an article where I was interviewed about what TV characters teach us about money for mint.com.