Monday

Living Smart behind the scenes & weight loss issues)

I am in the research phase of Living Smart season four production. I am truly excited about the potential guests. Some of the topics I want to cover are shame, consumer legal rights, the art of happiness, critical thinking skills, natural medicine and many others. It is however a difficult process. I may pick some guests and topics but our diligent committee decides what is best to fulfill the mission and goals of our program. Our season three will begin airing on May 13th at 3pm on Sundays (repeat on thursdays at 1:30pm) below you will find more details on what we will be covering. One of my favorite topics always is permanent weight loss and you will find four of the guests from season 3 will enlighten us about this topic. Joan Ifland discusses why addiction to sugars and flours may be the reason why we are so overweight as a nation. Dr. Robert Moore discusses tips on permanent weight loss. Gracie Cavnar coaches parents on how to keep children eating healthy foods and John Fain, the pioneer of the natural foods movement in Houston also teaches us the advantages of organic foods. You can check the schedule below to see when they are airing, or check our website www.houstonpbs.org/livingsmart

Friday

From: "Norberto Loeda "[mailto:norloeda@yahoo.com] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 5:45
Mi comentario es ácido y realista... a pesar que muchísima gente no lo vea asi yo creo que (como el tema del Social Security y de los Sistemas de Salud) el problema se comenzaría analizar sin tantas presiones como la de la poderosísima de la "Rifle
Asociation" y los fabricantes de armas, cuando les tocara vivir personalmente y en carne propia los efectos de la liberalidad para la compra de armas (conste que no le deseo al hijo de puta mas reventado que se dedique al contrabando de armas que ningún miembro de ssu familia se convierta en víctima de la facilidad que los intereses creados promueven a la sombra de la constitución y la libertad) en forma significatica en cuanto a número de casos... aunque el caradurismo es rampante sino hacer memoria de lo sucedido al Vice-Presidente.
Yo creo que el que defiende el derecho de portar armas es porque piensa usarlas (el tipo de blanco es irrelevante... hasta que es un pet, un amigo o un familiar suyo.). Será muy contitucional pero yo creo que si tenemos la libertad de hablar y además de portar armas, estamos corriendo el riesgo que estas sean el punto final de una discusión acalorada.

Eso de que las armas no son culpables sino quien las dispara, para mi es una idiotez injustificable a partir que la pretenden justificar con el derecho a defenderse y protegerse... by the way ¿Ese no es el motto de la Policía? "To Protect and Serve" ... si es así ¿para que carajo gastan el dinero en ella?.. mantengamos el revolver al cinto tipo Wild West, hagamos el panegírico de la "gun culture" ... y luego quejémonos cuando los delincuentes y locos en sus desatinos y desvaríos se vuelven "happy triggers" y asesinan por nimiedades que hasta parece que lo hicieran como deporte. Perdón, el padre del Presidente ... ex-Presidente a su vez ...¿No es miembro de la "Rifle Asociation"?

Pongamos la bandera a media asta, pues masacraron a 31 jóvenes -y alguno no tanto- pero ninguno directamente culpable de los desvaríos del asesino envuelto en este caso... y luego de pasado el período de luto... ¿que tal si la ponemos de la mitad para abajo del asta para honrar un poco no ya los jóvenes sino a los niños que mueren en el mundo sin haber tenido siquiera la oportunidad de ir ni a la la escuela primaria inmersos en violencias desatadas por personas que se supone estan en capacidad de dirigir ...y ojo que no estoy hablando solamente de los que estan en puestos políticos, sino de los que son aán peores que ellos, me refiero a los que mueven los hilos por detrás del poder (que usualmente tienen el poder real) y manipulan las circustancias y los intereses económicos y geopolíticos que desembocan en conflictos armados "for the sake of the interest (add )".

El problema, comienza con la violencia en si y a esta no se la disipa con armas sino con ideas y acciones concretas. ¡Coño! ¿Es que no sirvió el ejemplo de Ghandi?He dicho.

Wednesday

Virginia Tech and the massacre

I am saddened once again about these sorts of shootings in our schools. Why do they happen? Is it a reflection of our culture or some crazy individuals, very different from us? Do we all have
a proclivity to do something like this to ourselves or to others in a time of desperation? I don't know the answer. What I'd like to know is where this young man got his guns. Where did all the shooters in the past 20 years get their guns. Why did they have semiautomatic weapons. What are they for? Aren't they to fight wars? I would think you would not want a weapon like that if you were a real hunter. I don't know enough to judge if I am for or against the availability of guns. There are good arguments on both sides. However, I am concerned that we will allow this to become a "normal" feature of our culture. Gun shootings in our schools every other month. Do we arm ourselves more as some believe we should (I have heard gun proponents say if a student had a gun, maybe this man would not have killed so many people) or do we make it harder for anyone to get a semiautomatic weapon? Apparently this young man had a history of strange behavior. I would like some answers. Where did he get his guns? and does it matter? What can we as a society do to stop these shootings?

Thursday

Imus fired

Imus was fired. I am actually surprised. I thought financial considerations would be more important to the network than doing the right thing. I hear a lot of anger from people who believe there is a double standard because black men insult black women often on the radio, in their hip hop songs or narrative. While this may be true, it is wrong for ANYONE to make those sort of statements. Our society has to stop this somewhere. I hope this does influence those radio talk show hosts or singers or celebrities or writers of ANY RACE, CREED OR RELIGION, to stop their racist statements towards ANYONE. It is wrong. If they feel that way, they should get educated, healed and delivered. Usted que opina?

Iran, US Iran relations and the release of prisoners

I was so glad when I heard the news yesterday. Iran released the British sailors. It was welcome news after weeks filled with anxiety about what could happen next.

After watching the documentary "the secret" and learning more about the law of attraction. (By the way I have been a student of metaphysics for many years so I know our thoughts have a tremendous influence in what happens in our lives.) I had for the past few weeks prayed for peace in our planet. I could not imagine us involved in another war for whatever reason.

I no longer focus on conflict and how to end it. I focus on peace and I wish everyone did. I don't think we should call people who are against the war part of the anti war movement because it has negative connotations. We should call it instead, the peace movement, that way, I feel, they can actually attract "peace." I believe some wars have to be fought, but most are manufactured.

"Only when there are many people who are pools of peace, silence, understanding, will war dissappear." OSHO

I also like this one "If you want peace, work for justice." Pope Paul VI

My issue with international affairs and conflicts in general has to do with lack of context in our media about any country we tend to have conflicts with. It is a mistake to believe what our leaders say without asking the tough questions. I have never believed anything a politician from any party tells me without some skepticism.

Here is what I have learned about Iran recently. My intern Arnav Chakravarty wrote a paper on US Iran Relations and Policy and this is what he found in his research. Here is a quick summary and a recommendation to create peace with Iran.

1. The US has played an integral role in Iranian domestic affairs since the early 1950's.
At the time President Eisenhower felt we needed to stop the USSR influence there so he decided the then elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (yes he was democratically elected)
was a threat to US oil interests throughout the region, so he approved the former British plan to overthrow Prime Minister Mossadegh (Sokolski and Clawson 2005) The CIA was ultimately successful in removing him through a domestic coup and restoring the Shah of Iran to power.
According to author Dilip Hiro "This reprehensible act of the United States left a deep scar on the minds of Iranians, implanting most of them with abiding animosity toward America." (Penn 2005)

2. During the Johnson years, according to the US Department of State Bureau of Public Affairs in 1999, "the only bone of contention between the two countries was the shah's seemingly insatiable appetite for more and newer military equipment." The conflict continued and exploded under the Jimmy Carter presidency with the hostage fiasco. the Iran Hostage crisis, lead to anti Shah groups protesting the oppressive nature of the Iranian regime and despised US support of it, so it took over the American embassy in Iran and took 66 people hostage. The standoff eventually ended under the Reagan administration.

3. Ronald Reagan's presidency outwardly focused on arming Iraq against Iran in the Iran-Iraq war. In other words, our government supported Saddam Hussein over the ayatollah's Iranian government. Reagan then decided he needed to get arms to the contras in Nicaragua to avoid it becoming another communist vietnam but congress refused to get involved, so he sold arms to Iran because the profits from those sales would to to the Contras, who would buy arms with the profits. This was known as the Iran Contra scandal. This eventually led to more distrust between the US, Iran and Iraq.

4. Under the First George Bush and Clinton relations with Iran stabilized until 9/11. When the current Bush administration decided on a pre-emptive approach to future terrorist attacks and consequently invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, other countries in the Middle East, including Iran felt genuinely threatened by the US's increasingly militaristic presence in the region and have taken action for their own security. The new Ahmadinejad's regime's attempt to begin nuclear development has the US and particularly Israel and some arab neighbors worried.

5. The Bush doctrine of pre emptive strike is no longer acceptable. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated "The US will give the diplomacy a little time. "(Shanker 2006) and while President Ahmadinejad's statements are agressive, his views only represent a minority view, while most of the Iranian government wants energy for civilian purposes only, not military purposes.
In fact, it is the country's supreme leader, Ali Khamene'i who , on more than one occasion, has indicated his willingness to pursue dialogue with the US (Azlan 2006) and with Iran's supreme leader willing to negotiate with the US, the US has tremendous leverage over the Iranian public.
Iran is a "sophisticated and technology-savvvy country that boasts adult literacy rates approaching 90 percent. The vast majorities of Iranians- nearly 70 % of who are under 30 years old are fiercely pro-american and would like nothing more than an end to the clerical regime."(Aslan 2006)

WHAT SHOULD U.S. THEN CONSIDER?

Iran is currently the 4th largest exporter of oil in the world. If they cut their exports, it could cause a global recession. Yet many believe Iran would not play the "oil card" because it sustains its economy (Bremmer 2006) but if isolated, it might be its only choice, so UN enforced economic sanctions may not be the best policy.

Military intervention through surgical airstrikes have been discussed. Vice President Dick Cheney has claimed surgical strikes from US air bases in Turkey would effectively destroy Iran's nuclear capability and"set back Iran's nuclear capabilities by at least a decade."
(Holsinger 2006) However the probability the US would be able to hit every one of the nuclear spots is extremely remote. (Pena 2006) and Additionally, the collateral damage from the initial air strikes would result in large numbers of civilian casualties (Isenberg 2006)

The best option then is a negotiated solution which leads to enforceable agreements that would be based on the motto:"Trust but verify." Averting a war is worth the compromise.

Can America afford another war when we are spending $250 million dollars a day on Iraq? I don't think so. It is time to try another route and this time without weapons of mass deception.

Tuesday

Living Smart will now air on Sundays at 3pm not 3:30pm

I hesitated when I was told the station had to change my show time since I felt I had built an audience after three seasons, but programming has to balance schedules all the time. The fact is viewers are difficult to capture in today's television world. They have access to 50 to 500 channels, the internet, Ipods, I tunes, etc. That is why having show on the web is so important. I feel this is where the future is going. People will want something in particular and they will go after it when they have time. That is also why TEVO has been so popular, (the ability to record a show at any time and view it without commercials, we now consider it a verb!) Did you tevo the show last night? My hope is that people who need help in many aspects of life will of course watch the show, but also click on google and see it any time they want if they happen to miss it. My next season launches on May 13th at 3pm. I am really excited about this season because the quiet heroes I have found are truly courageous. They are problem solvers. They spend no time whining, just empowering themselves and other people. I really look forward to hearing from you.