Learning into Your Eighties

Have you ever seen an ad saying by word or picture, eat this or do that

and you will live years longer?

It is against the FCC and FTC rules and 99% false advertising.

So when the New York Times devotes an entire page to discussing the

one secret of longevity, living a longer life, inquiring minds must pay attention.

Answer

It is not a magic herb or bottle of vitamins, though Folic Acid has recently been

shown to increase sharp thinking and good heart function. This well researched

Times article concludes that staying in school, education and learning are the answers.

What is the single factor in every major country leading to longer life?

Answer: the amount of your education.

Health insurance is nice, being rich cannot hurt, long-lived ancestors is a plus,

but the Killer Ap (application) is the length of your education. It has proven to

be the nexus between dying at 67 and procrastinating up to 87 years of age.

Studies by the National Institute on Aging explicitly say education is the single contributing factor that extends life and improves health in your senior years.

Weird.

The writer (me) admits to being a life-long skeptic always searching for the hidden

motive and finding it. Let me recapitulate, education and learning cause two

results, more years and better health. If that is not weird and unexpected then we will vote for Bush in '08.

Skeptics, see January 3, 2007 page 1 and A16, New York Times. Read the international chart from Adriana Lleras-Muney, Princeton University, World Bank

and National Health Survey, Harvard University.

Inquiring Minds Want to Know

A City University of New York, health specialist is quoted in answering the question, What affects health and longevity? His answer, First on my list is education.

The Education Effect never wanes, more learning improves health and length of life.

One extra year of school adds up to one and one-half extra years of life down here. Double weird.

Many scientists search for reasons why the Education Effect occurs; they have not the foggiest idea. It just statistically a fact.

Lisa Berkman, professor at Harvard, School of Public Health believes the

magic clue lies in strong social networks. She reports that being isolated, the

opposite of having social network support groups, produces 2-5 times as many

deaths as having people who know you exist and care about you.

Philosophy

There are four core approaches to life, see if you agree.

a) Determinism, it is all written in a big book when we are born and we

are puppets following a defined path. Fate or genes run the show.

b) Retribution, you get what you pay for, and if you break it you bought it.

Causing pain produces pain for you later. Karma.

c) Reciprocity, cause and effect, trial and error; your works produce

measurable results. Tit for tat means you have free choice, so take

responsibility. We produce our own security, control and certainty.

d) Chance, there is no certainty in an uncertain life. You exercise 4x a week,

do not smoke and eat nice, but you get hit by a Mack truck.

Would you agree that all of the above have a degree of truth in explaining the meaning (purpose) of life?

Fact: genes have little effect on life span; perhaps less educated folks do not

plan as well for the future and require immediate gratification of their desires.

Delayed gratification offers better expectations than betting it all on one play of Blackjack.

Profound fact: not genes, but education and learning produce better health and

more years. It sounds counterintuitive but it aint.

Continuing Education

Public Admission, we are biased and believe consistent cognitive use of your 3 pound coconut lubricates your neural pathways so your thoughts remain lucid and

crisp.

Speed learning has a primary goal to 3x your reading speed and 2x your long-term memory. Our secondary goal is to synchronize the balance between your left and

right hemispheres and to change your brainwave rhythms (EEG) from high Beta

(stress, anxiety and worry) to low Beta (alert-relaxation) and Alpha-Theta.

The University of California at Irvine reported in January 2007 that Alzheimer is reduced by consistent learning and information gathering. We believe that learning and using new skills and knowledge creates a Firewall around your brain to defend against many forms of dementia.

Suggestion

The more you read with comprehension and save in long-term memory, the healthier your cognitive neural networks. Learning physically changes the function

and structure of your coconut through neuroplasticity and neurogenesis.

Do not scratch your head, Google these two terms.

Would you have the competitive-edge in school and career, and land in the

fast-track by reading 3x faster and improving your memory by 2x?

Use it or Lose it.

Just as the answer to health and longevity is learning, continuing education through

Speed Learning will make your life fun and enjoyable. You need knowledge not just

information.

You have repeatedly heard the expression, use it or lose it referring to physical exercise. You brain requires cognitive exercise or it atrophies from disuse and permits Alzheimers among others brain damage.

Last point, we have been contacted by a U.S. health care organization with over

9 million members to offer speed learning techniques to their Senior Citizens.

Funny thing, as long as we are alert and vertical, we want to enjoy life and

not vegetate. We suggest checking out speed learning strategies to do the trick.

See ya,

copyright © 2007

H. Bernard Wechsler

http://www.speedlearning.org

hbe@speedlearning.org

Author of Speed Reading For Professionals, published by Barron's; partner of Evelyn Wood creator of speed reading, graduating 2 million including the White House staffs of four U.S. Presidents.

Interviewed by the Wall Street Journal and Fortune Magazine for major articles.

http://www.speedlearning.org

Malpractice Protection

As professional malpractice becomes more visible year after year, professionals seem to be more concerned and worried that they may be sued next. Unfortunately, many notions regarding protection of personal assets from lawsuits, although popular, remain surprisingly untrue, ineffective, and outdated.

These "myths" give professionals an unstable sense of security and more often than not, they expose themselves to more serious harm.

MYTH #1: Owning assets under your spouse's name will protect you.

Legal statutes declare that transfer of properties between family members should be done legally, with attorneys carefully scrutinizing such acts. The Uniform Fraudulent Conveyances/Transfer Acts state instances in which transferring of assets into your spouse's name can actually be the basis for fraud.

MYTH #2: Assets can be easily transferred to another's name if a lawsuit occurs.

This is called fraud, similar to the discussion above. Even if there are lawsuits such as misdiagnoses or medical injury, courts may still find the transfer of properties to another person as an attempt to deceive creditors before a lawsuit is actually filed.

MYTH #3: The law will protect my assets.

Actually, it depends on which state you live in. Only the states of Florida, Texas, Oklahoma, Iowa, Kansas, and South Dakota protect their residents' assets from being seized in lawsuits.

MYTH #4: Political reforms can solve the problem.

Tort and other insurance reforms do play an important role in resolving the problems on malpractice. However, political reforms are often too slow in producing the same tangible results.

MYTH #5: They can never seize a physician's personal assets.

The National Medical Foundation for Asset Protection conducted a recent survey and found out that almost 20 percent of the nation's physicians had lost personal assets in lawsuits, so yes, they can be seized.

MYTH #6: More malpractice insurance means less exposure to lawsuits.

While more liability insurance makes it harder to exceed payout caps, larger policies actually make malpractice lawsuits more likely to happen in the first place.

MYTH #7: Total asset protection is impossible.

It is definitely possible to secure all your assets with just the right combination of legal and financial planning.

Malpractice provides detailed information on Malpractice, Medical Malpractice, Medical Malpractice Attorney, Dental Malpractice and more. Malpractice is affiliated with Whistleblower Protection Acts.

Touring New River Gorge, WV - Wild, Wonderful, And Older Than Dirt!

Along Route 19 in Wild, Wonderful West Virginia lies the New River Gorge National River. Crossing the bridge that spans the gorge takes less than a minute, giving no hint to travelers of the immense history, geology and technology encompassed in this valley. However, a stop at the Visitors Center offers a unique view of the world's second largest single-span steel arch bridge, a museum of local history, boardwalk trails and overlooks of the Gorge. Designation in 1978 as a National River by the National Park Service insured the protection of 53 miles of this historic watershed.

The geology of New River Gorge is fascinating. The New River is actually one of the oldest rivers in the world and the oldest river in the Western Hemisphere. It is one of the few rivers that flows northward. With an average depth of 1,000 feet, the New River Gorge is home to an amazingly diverse selection of plants and animals. The historical geology of the river also created vast coal deposits beneath the rugged terrain.

Largely inaccessible, the gorge remained undeveloped for centuries. Native Americans found the resources of the river and its forests to be invaluable to their way of life, but left little imprint.

Efforts to promote pioneer settlement included land grants to veterans of the American Revolution, a wagon route from Virginia and boat or ferry transport across the river. The first settlement within the Gorge was Bowyers Ferry in 1798. It would be almost three-quarters of a century before the area was significantly impacted by economic development.

A railroad line began to impact the New River Gorge by providing transport for coal and timber. The Chesapeake and Ohio (C&O) opened a rail line from Virginia to Ohio in 1873. Investors quickly opened mining operations, and workers flocked to New River for employment. Company towns sprang up ensuring that workers were housed and fed - while returning their pay to the 'Company' in rent, food and clothing until the last mine closed in the 1962. The Gorge now hosts only ghost towns where thousands of miners once lived and worked. Kaymoor One was one of the largest and most productive coal mines in the gorge, producing 16,904,321 tons of coal from 1900 to 1962 - one shovel at a time!

The New River Gorge Canyon Rim Visitor Center hosts a small museum, as well as trails and a boardwalk offering view of the Gorge and the New River Gorge bridge - the second highest bridge in the US at 876 feet above the Canyon floor. Opened in 1977, it shortened the 45 minute journey down one side of the canyon and up the other into a 45-second trip.

The 70,000-acre park offers a wide variety of recreational activities. Birding, fishing, numerous nature trails from easy to challenging, waterfalls, camping and West Virginia's famous white water expeditions are all available in the Gorge area. The protected habitat and geologic variation insures an amazing range of native plants and animals. The Park Service also offers a number of tours and talks about the area. Visit http://www.nps.gov for more details on Park programs.

Enjoyed by more than one million tourists each year, the Gorge offers four major entrypoints.

1. Thurmond's restored depot and walking tour of the historic district is a must for history buffs.

2. Middle Gorge offers primitive camping in a Korean-era training camp.

3. Grandview hosts summer dramas in the Cliffside Amphitheater.

4. Sandstone is another primitive area with a Visitors Center, trails and a native plant garden.

Accommodations range from numerous primitive camping sites and rustic lodges to inns or bed-and-breakfasts. Nearby towns provide modern hotels, motels and world-class resorts.

Of special interest are the fall rail excursions through the gorge on the New River Train. These historic railtours operate only two weekends in October when the leaves are at their peak. The full-day round-trip excursion glides along the old C&O rail line through largely inaccessible areas of the gorge from Huntington to Hinton, WV.

So the next time you're heading through West Virginia on your way to another destination, consider stopping along the New River. It's a destination in itself!

For more than three decades, Ruth Seebeck and her husband, Ed, have been encouraging, coaching, mentoring and teaching friends, family, neighbors and strangers to find a more enjoyable and fulfilling lifestyle. As avid travelers, gardeners, history buffs and expert organizers, they share lifestyle tips, topics, and travel expertise at http://www.touringwithus.com or you can contact them directly by email at edandruth@touringwithus.com

St Augustine said "The World is a book, and those who do not travel read only a page." Come, turn the page with us and discover new chapters for your own life.

Doctors Are Not Health Experts

According to several studies, including those done by the CDC and many others reported in the Journal of the American Medical Association, prescription drugs are one of the leading killers in the United States.

It's a little hard to get a handle on just how many accidental deaths are caused by prescription drugs because the most reliable sources never combine into one study all of the ways prescription drugs kill people.

For example, in April 2008 the CDC testified to congress that 22,400 people died by unintentional prescription drug overdoses in 2005, and that exceeded murder by about 5,000 deaths.

But as high as 22,400 deaths sounds, it doesn't include the number of deaths caused by adverse reactions from prescription drugs.

One study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association puts that number at 106,000 deaths per year. The same study reports that more than two million people are hospitalized each year because of unexpected reactions to drugs prescribed by doctors.

If you add the 22,400 deaths from accidental overdoses to the 106,000 people who die from adverse reactions to prescription drugs, the total is 128,400 accidental deaths a year from prescription drugs. But, this 128,400 still doesn't include tens of thousands more that die in American hospitals from errors made by doctors and nurses giving the wrong drug to patients.

However, using the 128,400 estimated deaths reported by these studies, the number of Americans killed accidentally by prescription drugs is more than three times the number of people killed in automobile accidents each year, 25 times the number of American soldiers killed in Iraq since the beginning of the war, 43 times the number of Americans that died on 9/11, and it keeps on happening every year.

For obvious reasons, including doctors' professional reputations and increased costs of liability insurance, it's widely accepted that doctors don't report all the deaths caused by prescription drugs. Many experts conclude the number of deaths caused by prescription drugs is likely to be more than twice as high as reported. That would put the number of accidental deaths caused by prescription drugs at more than 250,000 deaths per year.

The reason for the huge number of deaths is that a large number of prescription drugs are poisons designed to block the body's ability to cause a symptom by interfering with the normal biological functions of the body.

A few tiny prescription pills can knock you stone dead, and that's exactly what these pills do to hundreds of unsuspecting Americans every single day.

When your doctor hands you a prescription, does he ever mention that you were gambling with your life when you swallowed the pills he prescribes?

On top of the 128,400 reported deaths caused each year by prescription drugs shortly after the drugs are taken, are the slow deaths and diseases experienced by millions more Americans caused by taking Symptom Masking Maintenance Drugs for long periods of time.

Symptom Masking Maintenance Drugs

Imagine driving down the road in your car. You don't know it but a tiny hole has worn into a hose, a hole that's causing a very slow leak of the fluid that keeps the engine in your car cool. Over the last five thousand miles, just enough coolant has leaked out to cause your engine to overheat a little.

The small hole in the hose is your car's first underlying problem. The second underlying problem is the engine over-heating a little. Suddenly a red light appears on your dashboard. The red light is a symptom.

You continue on your way home and park your car for the night. On your way to work the next day, the red light comes on again. A week goes by and you begin to be annoyed by the red light on the dashboard so you take a piece of masking tape and put it over the red light.

You pride yourself with the brilliant display of ingenuity of eliminating the aggravating red light.

But a week later, while sitting in traffic your engine burns up and smoke starts rolling out from under the hood. Your car is dead.

Sound ridiculous? Well, this example pretty much sums up the practice of prescribing symptom masking maintenance drugs.

Only the symptom masking drugs are worse because the poisons they contain cause new underlying problems.

Any drug that's taken week after week, month after month, year after year with no attempt to find a different solution to the underlying medical problem is a maintenance drug. Maintenance drugs are pills taken every day for 365 days a year, at some other frequent interval, or when a recurring aggravating symptom occurs.

Your health depends upon making sure the drugs prescribed by your doctor to be taken on a daily basis for months or years at a time are not just covering up symptoms as is unfortunately the case with many drugs doctors prescribe.

Drugs that mask symptoms don't do anything to solve the underlying problem your body is facing. Since they don't do anything to solve the problem, the problem will most often get worse and you'll eventually have to take drugs that are more powerful or add more pills to those you already take.

The same way that covering up the red warning light on your dash board will cause your car to die, using pills to mask symptoms year after year often leads to more severe disease and death.

It's important to know what a symptom is.

Common symptoms are pain, swelling, rashes, fever, fatigue, head-aches, dizziness, light-headedness, hot flashes, sleeplessness, anxiety, tingling in your fingers or toes, blood in the urine, and stiffness in the joints.

Symptoms are unwanted conditions and experiences that cause you to run to the doctor. Symptoms are annoying, painful, or ugly conditions.

But you have to understand that these annoying, painful or ugly symptoms are not really the problem you have. These are only symptoms that let you know right away that the body is faced with a problem. Every annoying or painful condition is a symptom that has an underlying problem.

The underlying problem that is causing the annoying, painful or ugly symptoms, the challenge the body is facing are things such as; a nutritional deficiency, an infection caused by bacteria or virus, excessive consumption of any one of thousands of chemicals added to food, an allergy, eating too many carbohydrates(sugar), too much vegetable oil, or too much sugar, exposure to a toxin in your environment, excessive caffeine, a damaged organ, stress, exposure to a pesticide, drinking too much alcohol, a food ingredient such as MSG or Aspartame, a combination of many of the above or any one of thousands of other problems that are making it difficult for the body to work properly, problems that cause symptoms. When the body is facing one or a combination of these underlying problems, they result in symptoms that let you know there's a problem.

Again, although symptoms are painful, annoying or unsightly, they're only symptoms, they're not the cause of the problem.

The way to restore your health is to determine what causes the symptom, to determine the underlying problem, then to remove or fix the underlying problem so the body is no longer challenged. When the problem is solved, the symptom will automatically disappear and continued medication isn't necessary.

But most maintenance drugs prescribed by doctors only cover up or mask the symptom. As soon as you stop taking the drug, the symptoms reappear.

There's usually no attempt to fix the underlying problem. Many times the doctor won't even try to learn what the underlying problem is. The doctor just knows what pill to prescribe that makes the symptom go away. But since the underlying problem hasn't been addressed, the symptom may return requiring a stronger pill, or an altogether different symptom may appear causing the doctor to prescribe a second medication designed to stop the new symptom.

Most drugs that cover up symptoms are powerful poisons that cause the body to react in ways that stop the symptom. Because they're poisons, they not only don't do anything to fix the underlying problem, they actually harm the body, as any toxin will. And because the underlying problem continues, you must continue to take the drug indefinitely. That's the intent of maintenance drugs that mask symptoms, to keep you taking them forever. They're a money making racket.

An indication that a maintenance drug may be a toxic substance is that it has a long list of harmful side affects. Other indications that a drug may be a toxin is that it's a controlled substance or the quantity of the active ingredient necessary to make a sudden or dramatic impact on the body is less than 100 milligrams.

How can a poison help the body? It can't. Poisonous drugs only trigger responses in the body that eliminate symptoms. Poisons don't cure. Think about it.

Antibiotics are an exception. These drugs attack bacteria that cause infection. But they're not maintenance drugs either. Doctors prescribe antibiotics for short-term use. They're not designed to be taken for 365 days a year, year after year.

Some prescription drugs also provide substances that the body normally produces but which are not being produced in sufficient quantities to avoid symptoms. While these drugs may be used as maintenance drugs and taken 365 days a year, they really aren't toxins. But in many cases, instead of taking this type of drug, the body can produce sufficient quantities of the needed substance if it's given all the nutrients it needs, and the things that are making it difficult for the body to produce them are eliminated from the diet or environment.

When you take a poisonous maintenance drug that masks a symptom, when you take a drug that makes the symptom go away but doesn't remove the underlying cause of the symptom, your body faces two problems.

The first problem your body faces is the underlying problem that caused the annoying or painful symptom that first caused you to go to the doctor. You really don't know what the underlying problem is because no one tried to find out what it is. Remember, the drug didn't eliminate the underlying problem; it just stopped the symptom by using a poison that caused the body to react in a way that made it impossible for the symptom to continue. The second problem is elimination of the toxin in the drug you're now taking to stop the first symptom.

Because the body is now facing a new problem that weakens it, the body will eventually send another signal to tell you that the poison in the drug is making it hard for it to cope. The signal will be another symptom such as a soreness, a weakness, swelling, aching, headaches, blurred vision, loss of balance, burning when you urinate, rashes, fever, any of hundreds of symptoms to let you know there is a new underlying problem with which it needs help. The new underlying problem is the powerful poison in the drug you're taking that's designed to cover up the original symptom.

When your doctor learns of the new symptom, even though your new symptom may be listed as one of the dozens of side effects of the first symptom masking drug your taking, he will often give you a second drug that stops the side affect of the first drug.

The new toxic drug will stimulate a reaction in the body that counteracts the body's reaction and the new symptom will be gone.

Then the body will have three underlying problems;

1) the problem that caused the first symptom which hasn't been determined yet,

2) coping with the toxin in the first symptom masking drug, and

3) coping with the toxin in the second symptom masking drug that's designed to mask the side affect of the first symptom masking drug

Now that you're body is fighting two toxic drugs in addition to the original challenge that hasn't yet been identified, your body is weaker and facing more challenges. In time, your body will send yet another signal, another symptom telling you that it's not coping, or the first symptom will come back and be worse than it was when you first went to the doctor.

And, I think you know what your friendly doctor will prescribe when you tell him of this new symptom. Right, another patented toxic maintenance drug that triggers a response in the body that covers the new symptom but which further weakens the body because the immune system must now eliminate the poisons from a third toxic pill.

Maintenance drugs don't solve the body's difficulties. They add to the body's difficulties. But they sure do make huge profits for the pharmaceutical industry. Once you begin taking expensive little pills every day, once you begin to take expensive toxic drugs designed to mask symptoms, the body will become weaker and weaker and your doctor will keep shuffling back and forth between different toxic pills trying to match them with your changing symptoms. And for 365 days a year for the rest of your life, you'll be taking little toxic pills, pills that cost pennies to manufacture but which sell for hundreds or thousands of dollars each year.

This is one of the best moneymaking rackets ever devised. In a 2000 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, it was determined that 44 percent of Americans were taking at least one prescription drug and that 17 percent were taking three or more prescription drugs. Moreover, large portions of these drugs are paid for from the taxes you and I pay that are then funneled back to the pharmaceutical companies through Medicare, Medicaid and other federal drug programs. We're talking hundreds of billions of dollars!

Don't let your doctor convince you of the need to take toxic maintenance drugs to mask symptoms. Hire a doctor who will help you determine the underlying problem. Work with your doctor to find out what's causing your body to experience pain, fatigue, swelling, dizziness, headache, or whatever annoying symptom you have.

A doctor's efforts to determine the underlying problem will include blood tests for levels of toxins, nutrients, antibodies, and many other indicators. The doctor will discuss your diet, any stressors such as toxins that may exist in your work place or at home, the history of different diseases experienced by your ancestors and family members, the possibility that you may have allergies and dozens of other stressors in the environment, food or water that may be causing the symptom you're experiencing.

And the doctor will continue researching and working with you until identifying the cause of your rash, pain, fatigue, swelling, dizziness, numbness or whatever symptom you have. When he determines the cause of your symptom, he will prescribe a more nutritious diet, vitamin supplements, antibiotics, exercise and other things that help your body defeat the stress that is causing the symptom. On the other hand, he may recommend you discontinue eating certain foods or work on a plan of eliminating toxins from your diet or your environment that may be stimulating the symptoms.

The approach a doctor takes to eliminating the underlying problem will look more like the Five Step Naturopathic Approach to Healing and Perfect Health described in chapter 16 of this book. It will not include prescription of toxic drugs that trigger reactions in your body to cover up the symptoms you have.

A good place to look for a doctor who will take this approach to healing is in the listings of Naturopathic Doctors, or ND's.

For the same reasons it wasn't such a good idea to cover up the annoying red light on the dashboard of the car, it might be best if your doctor didn't give you a pill to cover up the symptom because if the symptom is gone, it will make it harder to identify the underlying problem.

Cholesterol lowering drugs are a good example of a toxic maintenance drug you should never take. First, your doctor determines that your blood cholesterol level is at a level that the medical and pharmaceutical industries have published as being excessive. Then he or she prescribes a toxic cholesterol lowering statin drug that changes the chemistry of the liver and the blood by reducing the liver's ability to make cholesterol and other essential life supporting compounds such as Co-Q-10.

Does it really make sense to take a drug that interferes with the production of several compounds that are necessary for the life support functions of the body?

Your liver is busy making cholesterol, apparently because your body thinks it needs the extra cholesterol. But the doctor thinks the medical and pharmaceutical industries know more about how much cholesterol you need than does your body. Or he simply wants to keep his job as simple as possible. So he writes a prescription for statin drugs and you begin taking pills that attack the liver's enzyme producing function, enzymes and products important in the body's hormonal balance and energy production.

What if your body was right? What if your body knows a lot more about how much cholesterol it needs than those who publish medical guidelines for doctors, people who have never even seen you? Your doctor didn't look at anything but the cholesterol level. He never even considered that the body might be making the extra cholesterol for a reason.

Cholesterol is used in the production of a myriad of crucial life sustaining substances including vitamin D, testosterone, estrogen and many other hormones that regulate body functions. Cholesterol is a powerful antioxidant that fends off free radical damage such as is caused by free radicals in unsaturated vegetable oils. Cholesterol is used in the production of bile, and cholesterol helps give structural support to cells. Cholesterol aids in the fight against cancer. And, cholesterol is the material the body uses to patch small fissures in the coronary arteries caused by years of inflammation from excessive carbohydrate(sugar) consumption and exposure to various other chemical compounds added to our artificial food supply. (See chapter four for more about the important functions of cholesterol.)

If the doctor truly believed high cholesterol is an important symptom that must be addressed, he would try to determine the underlying problem. And once he determined the cause of the symptom, he could eliminate the cause, your cholesterol level would automatically drop and you wouldn't have to take a toxic pill every day.

But instead, he simply read the report from your blood test then followed the rules of his job, acted as agent for the pharmaceutical industry and sold you a daily dose of toxic pills that make it impossible for the liver to make as much cholesterol and other important life sustaining compounds as it once did.

Taking drugs to attack the liver's cholesterol production capacity is fighting against the natural and necessary healthful operation of the body's mechanisms. Because death from all causes is lower when you have high cholesterol, it's obvious the body does know what its doing when it makes extra cholesterol.

The scientific tests pharmaceutical companies use to demonstrate the effectiveness of statin drugs have nothing to do with cholesterol. Along with the dangerous interference with the liver's normal production of important cholesterol and enzymes, statin drugs also reduce inflammation of the coronary arteries. Inflammation is the real cause of coronary heart disease. But, this inflammation can be easily reduced by supplementing the diet with vitamins C and E, reducing the consumption of carbohydrates (sugar) to get blood insulin levels under control and cutting back on eating foods with trans fats found in all foods made with vegetable oils.

Instead of using natural means to eliminate inflammation in the body, ways that make the body stronger, toxic cholesterol lowering statin drugs attack the body's normal function of the liver and cause several problems.

First, because the body uses cholesterol to repair coronary arteries caused by inflammation, the body's coronary artery maintenance system is weakened.

Second, because cholesterol is important for the maintenance of cell structure, the entire body will be weakened if the extra cholesterol was being made by the liver to overcome a problem that affected cell membranes.

Third, because statin drugs reduce the production of Coenzyme Q-10, the muscles of the body, including the heart muscle, have less energy. Less energy causes fatigue.

Fourth, cholesterol is used by the body to make many important hormones including all the sex hormones, and others that fight cancer.

Fifth, Cholesterol is used by the body to make vitamin D. Reducing cholesterol potentially reduces the body's ability to produce sufficient amounts of this important vitamin that's already deficient in most people because of sun-fear and living in climates where for most of the year the sun isn't strong enough to help our bodies convert cholesterol to vitamin D.

Sixth, cholesterol is manufactured by the liver for use as an antioxidant. Therefore, reducing the amount of cholesterol increases the risk of cancer and other diseases caused by free radicals.

Seventh, the body was intentionally making extra cholesterol to improve the functioning of the body, to overcome an underlying problem that it faced. Taking statin drugs interferes with the body's natural system of health maintenance.

The underlying problem that most often leads to heart disease is inflammation. Instead of worrying about your cholesterol level, instead of worrying about the material your body intentionally makes to prevent heart attacks, start worrying about your insulin levels and getting enough vitamins to eliminate the inflammation, especially vitamin C.

Don't take expensive toxic pills every day that only make the symptoms go away and give the body more problems while the original underlying problem keeps working against the body. Find out what is causing the symptom. Find out the underlying problem, then eliminate the nutritional deficiency that is causing the problem, remove the stressor in food or the environment that is making life difficult for the body, eliminate the bacteria or virus that may be causing the problem, get more exercise, or do a combination of all of these and the symptom will automatically disappear or become more tolerable.

An MD cannot make a single dollar until you are sick. So, they have absolutely no training in medical school on what you should do to stay healthy.

So, stop relying on MD's for health and nutritional information.

I have 27 years investigating nutrition and nutritional cures. If you want a complete guide to getting healthy and staying healthy, visit us at [http://www.PerfectHealthInstitute.com]

The government issues the license of Certified Public Accountant (CPA) to designate people qualified to perform investigations of the finances and operations of corporations and to give opinions on these finances and operations.

As a CPA conducting financial and operational examinations for a government agency that regulates corporations, and later as a CPA doing financial examinations for a multi-billion dollar international corporation, Springer personally experienced how people who are "just doing their job" unknowingly support institutional greed or have no feeling of responsibility or wrongdoing. Moreover, after generations of employees coming and going, the immoral consequences of policy are completely lost within a menagerie of procedures done repeatedly without thought by employees who can say with all honesty, "I just work here".

In 1981, Springer began investigating the discrepancy between the claim of the American Medical Association that taking vitamins just made "expensive urine", and the claims of several medical doctors who were using vitamins to effectively cure and treat many diseases and sickness.

His investigation of nutrition and nutritional cures spanned 28 years and included critical analysis of more than 40 books and hundreds of other publications with an investment of over 4,000 hours. Because this study required more than 13 times the time required to obtain his bachelor degree in accounting and CPA license, Springer considers himself a nutritionist first, and a CPA second.

They're Making You Fat and Sick is his report on this 28 year investigation.

The finding of this investigation is that health and profit are competing interests. Because the corporate profit motive is one of the most powerful forces in our nation, profit is winning this competition. As a result, the food industry and the health care industry are the most profitable industries but both fail in promoting good health.

Values in the 2006 Election

Most Americans have been getting sick and tired of the war in Iraq. It drags on month after month, pulling the country ever deeper into a whirlpool of insurgent terrorism, rising American military casualties, chaos and destruction. But war weariness was not the overriding factor that decided the outcome of the Congressional and state elections in November of 2006. No matter how bad conditions are in Iraq, Americans' concerns were naturally focused on conditions right here at home-on the moral issues affecting their country and on the domestic issues affecting their personal daily lives.

In particular, a sizable and vocal group of Americans is primarily concerned about retaining their wealth and health. The enormous "baby boomer's" generation is retiring, joining those left of the "greatest" generation to produce the largest and most powerful voting bloc in the United States: our senior citizens. This sector of the American population, their hierarchy of values and concerns, was a chief determinant of the election results.

At the top of the elderly concern list was social security. President Bush's efforts to reform the social security system have made older folks worried that government will not assure them a comfortable retirement. Several decades ago, the average American saved sufficient money for his retirement, which tended to last only ten years. Now that the average retirement lasts almost thirty years, senior citizens' own savings are far from adequate. The baby boomers have tended to save much less than their parents and grandparents did, which is a result of their comfortable upbringing as well as of the amazing variety of technologically advanced goods that feeds their materialist weakness. Moreover, the federal budget deficit has skyrocketed to record-breaking levels during the Bush administration and will have to be eventually repaid, seizing hundreds of billions of tax dollars from both social security and health care.

This brings us to the second priority of seniors: health care. Due to a massive propaganda campaign waged by the US government and biotechnologist, both of whom are eager to launch a new multi-billion-dollar industry, older folks have been duped into thinking that embryonic stem-cells offer the magic cure to their diseases. Thus a Missouri measure allowing scientists in that state to clone human embryos and then kill them for their stem-cells narrowly passed. Because of a greater reliance on private funding, well-known rising costs and inefficiency plague the US health care system. Health insurance companies have been fighting tooth and nail to prevent the government from lowering insurance costs by paying a larger fraction of them. Additionally, since 9/11 the Bush administration has severely crippled the Veterans' Administration with funding cuts, forcing 340,000 military veterans to pay out of their own pockets while waiting to receive disability ratings in 2005. And despite rising insurance costs, the Bush administration's health savings accounts have not garnered the support of older Americans, who see them as a thinly veiled governmental attempt to relinquish all responsibility for their health care.

The economy is a third vital issue to the elderly. With a deepening recession since 2001, senior citizens felt that five years was enough of a chance for the Republicans to display their economic talent. Keeping our energy needs tied to oil creates rising energy costs despite low inflation and benefits petroleum magnates at the elderly's expense. While the growth of big business to immense proportions has indeed created millions of new jobs, it has destroyed millions more by forcing hundreds of thousands of small businesses to close. Official coddling of the high-tech, electronics, and defense industries has caused them to engulf other fields, leading to an imbalanced economy. Furthermore, low interest rates have reduced the standard of living for those whose income depends entirely on interest. Moreover, retired Americans are concerned that their tax dollars are subsidizing a huge wave of semi-permanent illegal immigrants which is sustaining the mega-corporate dominance and taking jobs from American citizens. They are outraged that Republicans have sacrificed the security of our national borders to the demands of American big business.

However, the elderly alone did not shape this past election. Two overlapping constituencies with diametrically opposite interests chose the same Democratic Party. For younger and underprivileged residents of the United States (a growing, ethnically and religiously diverse group which includes most Blacks, Hispanics, immigrants, and some Catholics), persistent poverty was the defining concern.

Lacking the younger generation's majority commitment to moral values, Americans in general simply tend to vote based on their social condition: the rich want to keep their wealth while the poor want a better life. Across age groups and wealth levels the real or perceived security of jobs and income has always been a key determinant factor, or swing issue, of party affiliation and voting. That is why good-sized cities vote Democratic and rural areas vote Republican. A good instance of this general rule was offered by western Ohio, for instance, where Allen County in economic shambles voted 55 percent Democratic and a limping Hardin County gave the Democrats 51 percent, while my own slightly better Logan County voted 52 percent Republican and the fairly sound Mercer County chose Republicans by a whopping 60 percent. The state of the economy as described above is clearly a pressing issue for all Americans, but without the allegiance of younger and poorer voters to the Democratic Party, it could not have triumphed in 2006.

In addition, the gradual disappearance of the middle class is inevitably becoming a polarizing factor in American society. While the phenomenon of globalization has brought many benefits such as higher employment rates, the exponential development and affordability of technology, the rapid transmission of news and information, and greater knowledge and appreciation of other cultures, it has also led to greater economic instability and widened the gap between rich and poor. The national median income has been declining since the late 1980s for all but the top quintile of Americans from $44,603 in 1990 to $43,389 in 2003 (using 2003 dollars), with the richest 10 percent now earning fifteen times more than the bottom 10 percent. Another relevant example is Mexico, where a local financial crisis in 1994 was exacerbated by a rapid withdrawal of foreign investment, pushing millions of Mexicans to immigrate to the United States every year since then. Thanks to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), we now have a huge population of Mexican illegal immigrants who have joined poorer American citizens to create an ever-expanding underclass. As the wealthy grow fewer and wealthier and the poor grow more numerous, the discontent of latter group can only rise.

How did Republicans manage to retain a large minority in the fluid US House of Representatives and almost hang on to the Senate? The answer is abortion. Though propaganda and advertising have been effective, more and more Americans are coming to understand what a barbaric and unjust practice abortion is. The abortion rate has been declining since a peak of 1.4 million in 1990 and was down to less than one million in 2003, according to the Center for Disease Control. Evangelical Protestants, followed by white American young people, represent the largest and strongest pro-life constituencies; the most outspoken group of pro-life advocates is women who have had abortions. Research carried out by the Pew Research Center, PollingPoint and other organizations indicates that roughly two-thirds of the younger generation tends to place moral issues at the top of their hierarchy of values. For them the right to life from conception to natural death precedes all other issues, including the economy, terrorism and even the war in Iraq. Furthermore, with this election the number of pro-life Democrats in Congress grew from twenty-nine to thirty-six.

With the aid of money, numerous candidates secured their victory in the recent elections despite flagging or insufficient popularity. The most notable example was Joseph Lieberman in Connecticut, who supported abortion on demand and the war in Iraq yet defeated his more popular challenger Ned Lamont. Other cases included prolific novelist Jim Webb in Virginia, attorney-general Sheldon Whitehouse in Rhode Island, and multimillionaire construction entrepreneur Republican candidate Bob Corker in Tennessee. Large campaign contributions simply finance a high volume and quality of advertisements to reach prospective voters, increasing the chance of success against a less wealthy opponent.

Finally, we must not ignore the role of voter turnout-and lack thereof-in assessing the latest elections. Surely a substantial percentage of Democrats and independents eager to turn the country in "a new direction" went to the polls, while millions of traditionally-minded Republicans alienated by President Bush's economic and foreign policies sat at home.

Democrats hoped to sweep the United States in the 2006 election, but they failed to do so because Americans will not easily give up their precious moral values. Nonetheless, they did wrest control of Congress from Republicans due to a recessing economy, real and perceived health care needs, and the breakdown of social security. Although the war in Iraq may be unpopular by a landslide, it was the paramount issue only for the small fraction of Americans who consider themselves staunch anti-imperialists, Communists, internationalists, or pacifists. The values of the growing "baby boomer" senior community as well as of younger and poorer American residents have emerged and become dominant for the time being.

Born and raised a devout American Catholic, Justin Soutar has published sixteen articles on various political subjects in a wide range of Internet and print publications. He lives in the Ohio countryside.

Perception, Persuasion, and Politics in Media - A Look at How Politicians Can Legally Rig Elections

It's amazing I won. I was running against peace, prosperity, and incumbency. George W. Bush, June 14, 2001, speaking to Swedish Prime Minister Goran Perrson, unaware that a live television camera was still rolling.

The Case Study

Making someone, or indeed something, persuasive is much more complex than it may initially seem. We know what appeals to us to make us align with someone, but we are not always aware what the 'x factor' they possess really is; in other words, we can warm to someone without fully understanding why. The following example, from psychological literature, sheds some light on the matter. During the American 1984 Presidential campaign between Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale an experiment took place for eight days. Lead researcher Brian Mullen, of Syracuse University, videotaped three national, nightly news broadcasts featuring news anchors Peter Jennings of ABC, Tom Brokaw of NBC and Dan Rather of CBS. Mullen viewed the tapes and excerpted every reference to both candidates, leaving him with thirty-seven segments of roughly two and a half seconds in length. A group of randomly selected participants then viewed the tapes with the volume muted so they were unaware of what the broadcast pertained, removing the chance of political bias. The participants were asked to rate the facial expressions of each news anchor on a 21-point scale, with the lowest number being "extremely negative" and the highest being "extremely positive".

The outcome proved enlightening. Dan Rather of CBS scored 10.46 and 10.37 when talking about Mondale and Reagan respectively, meaning his expression was perfectly neutral, offering no advocacy over one candidate or the other. Tom Brokaw of NBC scored 11.21 for Mondale and 11.50 for Reagan, making him slightly more positive for both than Rather but still remaining balanced for both. The enlightening part came when analysing the results of ABC's Peter Jennings. His results showed him speaking more positively about Mondale than both his counterparts, at 13.38, but for Reagan he became so enthusiastic he scored a very high 17.44 - less than four points off the maximum. The study's researcher Mullen acted in accordance with his scientific duty and tried to determine if there was an explanation for this beyond candidate bias, such as the possibility that he was just more animated and expressive than the other broadcasters. To conclude whether or not this was the case, the same participants were shown control segments from the same broadcasters as they spoke about a happy topic and a sad topic (namely, a medical breakthrough in treating a congenital disease and Indira Gandhi's funeral respectively). Of Jennings, Brokaw and Rather, Jennings not only failed to score higher, but appeared to be the least expressive and by no means had a happy expression as his usual one. So much so that he scored only 14.13 for the story of the medical breakthrough, which was considerably lower than both other newscasters. Therefore, Mullen had no choice but to conclude that Jennings did, in fact, have "significant and noticeable bias in facial expression" when talking about Ronald Reagan.

Of course, this information is useless by itself and so Mullen, along with his colleagues, needed to find a way to determine whether or not this facial bias actually impacted voting choices. Their method to do this was to phone people who regularly watched the evening news, in various cities all across the country, and enquire who they voted for. The results were quite remarkable: in every phone survey ABC viewers voted Reagan much more than those who watched CBS or NBC. For example, a full three-quarters of the Cleveland ABC watchers voted Reagan, compared to 61.9 per cent of CBS or NBC viewers; over 71 per cent of ABC viewers in Williamstown, Massachusetts, voted Reagan compared to just half of the other two networks; and in Erie, Pennsylvania, it was 73.7 per cent for Reagan and 50 per cent for Mondale. So not only did Jennings subtly influence voting behavior across the nation, but also in staggeringly similar numbers.

Somewhat predictably, and no doubt but for the sake of its public image, ABC vehemently disputed the study, indeed the study researcher Mullen is quoted as saying "It's my understanding that I'm the only social scientist to have the dubious distinction of being called a 'jackass' by Peter Jennings". It is possible that Mullen's conclusion got the cart before the horse, that rather than Jennings influencing viewers it is simply that Republicans watch a station that is more sympathetic to their party of choice, and rather than Jennings tempting over 70 per cent of viewers to vote a particular candidate, those 70+ per cent watch Jennings because they like his stance. Yet, as obviously plausible as this is, Mullen argued - with no short supply of likelihood - that it simply was not the case. To validate his claim, he referred to the fact that ABC was actually more hostile to Reagan than Mondale and so cannot be considered necessarily a pro-Republican station. Not leaving the issue there, four years later he proved his initial findings were not merely flukes, because when Bush was competing against Dukakis for Presidency Mullen repeated the experiment - with the same outcome. He said of this second experiment that "Jennings showed more smiles when referring to the Republican candidate than the Democrat" and that in another phone survey like before "viewers who watch Jennings were more likely to have voted for Bush"

Source: Adapted from: The Psychology of Consumer Behavior & The Tipping Point

The Takeaway

It is common knowledge that the media has a profound effect in shaping elections and some would argue it is a useful tool for social engineering. Yet despite knowing the effect exists, few know exactly how it works, except those with esoteric knowledge on the subject - and they are probably exploiting it already. This research has direct implications on how a politician can leverage his position by specific manipulation of the media which can, in turn, have a profound subconscious effect on the choice of voters. Implicit in the above study is the view that if all newscasters covering politics just so much as only exude a positive expression regardless of what is being said when covering or discussing certain politicians, the perception will have a measurable effect come election time. This is subliminal persuasion to say the least, as what is being said is not as important as how it is being said - from a visual perspective that is. A positive slant can be obtained from a neutral or mildly negative story if it is delivered with enthusiasm or positivity, without viewers even consciously comprehending the effect.

Assumptions

As Mullen showed, the independent variable is the facial expression of the newscaster, while the dependent variable is the perceived emotional content of expression i.e. positive or negative. The key word here is 'perceived'.

Assumptions made in this study are therefore:

a. Newscaster's preference for a politician is positively correlated with his facial expression

b. Viewers have not misread his expression i.e. if he came across as positive, that is because he is feeling positive, as opposed to appearing positive because his job essentially demands as much.

c. Viewers who were exposed to positive facial expression of a newsreader covering a certain politician are much more likely to view that politician in the same light.

d. Viewers who perceive a politician in a positive light are therefore more likely to vote for the same candidate come election time.

Each assumption is the sine qua non for the next (i.e. for b to be true a has to be true, for c to be true, b has to be true (so a has to be true as well) and so on)

Mullen et al. were careful to draw any conclusion as noted in their statement: "Jennings exhibited a significant and noticeable bias in facial expression toward Reagan" which neither gives away nor explicitly implies Jennings's political preference.

Perhaps there is really only one way to confirm the above study and put it beyond any reasonable doubt: to look at Peter Jennings' voting ballot. Since that is illegal, it seems that the only person that will ever know for sure is Peter Jennings himself. However, t is unlikely for Jennings to ever reveal who he voted for for two reasons; a) this is a powerful knowledge to have (if confirmed) and b) the backlash for ABC and Jennings is unthinkable.

Implications

Mullen et al. found that people who watch Jennings were more likely to vote for Regan than people who watched Brokaw or Rather. Newscasters can have much more influence than they either believe or admit. Such findings are disturbing to say the least, for they purport that we are effectively governed by what we see. In everyday life, political discussions rarely lead to a changed opinion, and yet tacit, subconscious influences can have profound effects. To quote Mullen once more: "When people watch the news, they don't intentionally filter biases out, or feel they have to argue against the expression of the newscaster...it's much more subtle and for that reason much more insidious, and that much harder to insulate ourselves against."

A second implication of these findings is that visual, nonverbal cues are equally, or more, important than verbal ones. As validated countless times by body language experts, how we conduct ourselves matters. This is further proven when we simply consider that Jennings did not litter his newscasts with pro-Reagan speeches - in fact, as mentioned previously, ABC was openly more hostile to the Republican party than NBC and CBS.

The third, final and arguably most important implication is that persuasion works in ways we often do not appreciate, or even understand. For instance, visual expressions of happiness such as smiles and nods are not subliminal, they are visible and apparent. However, they are very subtle and the way in which they are used gets processed in our subconscious and then relayed in our conscious with a message that such-and-such is good. In this instance, Jennings smiling each time he mentioned Reagan subtly influenced viewers to believe Reagan was a good choice to vote for. Yet, despite this link, no viewer would ever accept it is the reason they voted for Reagan; no, they would argue that they liked Reagan's policies, or thought he was doing well so far or even his charisma, but never that they were influenced by a newsreaders smile. Yet it is very apparent that persuasiveness works beyond eloquence and choice of words; it works very well with subtle, nonverbal communication too.

Recommendations

· A politician seeking power will benefit from newsreaders displaying positive expressions when covering news pieces that relate to him or her.

· To avoid accusations of a biased media, this strategy can be undertaken covertly (e.g. the director of the news company can encourage the 'right' newscaster to smile more often when covering a certain subject. That way, the newscaster does not even need to be aware of their own effect on viewers/voters). This will reduce any likelihood of the newscaster exposing the tactic at a later date.

· When times are good, a politician in power can use this knowledge as a tool for gaining public approval for his agenda or pushing through his policies.

· When times are bad, it can help with PR or falling popularity.

Discussion

A politician's winning smile is often mentioned. The above study is clearly consistent with the disturbing possibility that a smile might be able to elect a president! Granted, that is farfetched even for the most naive wannabe believers. 'Smiling' alone may not elect a president, but when used in conjunction with many other media manipulation techniques, the outcome of an election can be all but certain.

Below is just one of many examples on how clever media manipulation can be used for political gains. White (1972) described how Franklin Roosevelt cleverly removed Thomas E. Dewey from the stimulus situation for an evening during the 1944 presidential campaign. Roosevelt had reserved a fifteen-minute segment on NBC radio and Dewey subsequently reserved the following fifteen-minute segment in order to capitalise on Roosevelt's audience. However Roosevelt spoke only for fourteen of his allocated fifteen minutes and left the last minute completely silent. Reportedly, listeners across the country believed that the NBC network has gone off the air after the president's speech and all of those listeners began scanning for other stations. As a result, the millions who had listened to Roosevelt a minute before were not listening when Dewey came on the air.

Although Roosevelt's action had less to do with persuasion and more to do with underhand tactics, the results are equally profound as the public/voters were not aware that they were being 'manipulated'.

For a more recent example on perception, persuasion and politics in media, consider Barack Obama's presidential campaign. We have the benefit of a retrospective view on Obama as a politician, therefore it is vital to consider the following scenario from its given time frame of prior to the election. In October 2008, Wall Street Journal Online reported that Obama had made a decision not to sport an American flag pin on his lapel. When asked in an interview with KCRG-TV in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, the Illinois senator said he stopped wearing the pin shortly after the attacks and instead hoped to show his patriotism by explaining his ideas to citizens:

The truth is that right after 9/11 I had a pin. Shortly after 9/11, particularly because as we're talking about the Iraq war, that became a substitute for I think true patriotism, which is speaking out on issues that are of importance to our national security. I decided I won't wear that pin on my chest, instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great, and hopefully that will be a testament to my patriotism. (Taranto WSJO)

During the campaign trail, Obama's pastor, Rev Jeremiah Wright, gave a speech (later referred to as "God Damn America") that was racially polarising and could easily spell the death blow for Obama's White House aspirations. Rev Wright was alienating white voters (amongst many other anti-patriotic criticisms) with his rhetoric, and to the viewers and voters, Obama was guilty by association.

This prompted Obama to issue a TV ad denouncing Wright's statements. His "major speech on race" was also necessitated by the revelation that his "spiritual mentor" had among other things called on God to damn America. Critics noted that Obama "did the right thing", that his TV ad statement and speech were well crafted and "did the job" considering the extent of the case, and the campaign's aim of damage control.

Most people may not realise that Obama's TV ad has the American flag carefully placed in shot, and he gave his "major speech on race" amid a row of eight American flags! They were placed directly behind him as he stood at the lectern. (This is perhaps the most liberal use of subtle tactics uncovered by Mullen.)

Critics were quick to notice it, with James Taranto of the WSJ noting:

...in light of his October comment, what are we to make of his extravagant use of the Stars and Stripes on Tuesday (Major Speech on Race)? If a flag pin on a lapel is "a substitute for true patriotism," is that not also true of eight flags on a stage as a backdrop to a political speech? Obama proclaimed himself too good for cheap symbolism, but resorted to it the first time he faced a real crisis. Is he really any different from the run-of-the-mill politician?

In the context of this paper, a critical reader will not ask "what the flag symbolises" but rather "how such symbolism and visual aids can be used in media for the attainment of specific purposes".

This is not to take anything away from Obama as a politician. But to ignore the impact of carefully crafted media images (i.e. images of Obama eloquently denouncing Wright against a backdrop of American flags beamed to millions of American voters) will be blatantly taking credit away from the media's contribution to Obama's campaign.

With the benefit of hindsight, it is no surprise that Obama's campaign has successfully leveraged the power of media. It is also no secret that his campaign's online media strategies - his personal website, YouTube channel and social networking site - were well crafted and credited for Obama's election success. For further insurance, Obama's camp had hired Facebook's co-founder Chris Hughes to coordinate their online efforts.

This does not mean people such as Jennings, and the media as a collective, are unwitting tools in the political game. At least, not explicitly; they can be with the right circumstances. If a US politician aspiring to the highest office goes on national television and fails to name a Supreme Court case other than Roe v Wade, no amount of media persuasion or manipulation can save their political campaign. In fact, it will further speed up their political demise. Consider the following example: In the run up to the 2008 US presidential election, Republican vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin was ridiculed after her interviews with CBS's Katie Couric. In the interviews, the then Governor of Alaska appeared stumped by relatively easy questions regarding Supreme Court rulings and foreign policies. At one point, in response to Couric's question: "...when it comes to establishing your world view, I was curious, what newspapers and magazines did you regularly read..?" Palin could not, or at least did not, even name one newspaper that she read.

As one can imagine, when the interviews aired, the media had a field day at Palin's expense. The key point here is not how Sarah Palin carved her own downfall by appearing incompetent or how Palin jokes making the rounds among newscasters and late night talk-show hosts were making her look bad; but rather the 'message' the newscasters have imprinted on their viewers. A newscaster may be presenting news on the Grand Old Party as professionally as he possibly can, but his personal sense of disbelief, whilst irrelevant to the news, is somehow transported into the mind of viewers through the subtle, the hidden and the unspoken.

The fact that such a seemingly incompetent woman could one day be President of America should the Republicans win the election and anything happen to John McCain hit home to viewers, without the newscaster intending as much. Accordingly, Palin suddenly became the talking point of citizens who up until that point had little to no interest in politics. The 'Jennings effect' therefore can also work the other way round: negativity from a newsreader can cause disillusion with the party.

A politician with such knowledge and the right skills can theoretically push the right buttons, tick the right boxes and win our votes. Isn't that what a politician is supposed to do anyway? Isn't that his job, to use the media and any available tool at his disposal to convince us? Yes, it is, just like it is a magician's job to convince us of the seemingly impossible. It is one thing watching a magician perform and applauding him, but another to reveal the secrets to his tricks. In some ways, a politician is similar to a magician as they both have to perform in public, they both have to gain our approval to win us over, they both use perception and persuasion techniques and they both have to sometimes convince us against overwhelming odds. The only difference is that when it is all said and done, when the performance is over a magician has no say over the forces that influence of our lives and country.

To take this crude analogy further, a street magician can use all the tricks up his sleeves to manipulate members of the public for good or bad intentions. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing to stop these people using it for their own personal gains. We, the public, are aware of this and call them 'conmen' or 'scam artists'. This is not to say that all street magicians are scam artists or that politicians have their own agendas; an overwhelming majority of them have good intentions and politicians are there to serve the public trust.

The premise of this paper is not to identify politicians with street magicians. Any criticism directed at such comparison is missing the point. It is one thing to watch a magician manipulate an audience, it is another to reveal the tricks, and yet entirely another to replicate it (perform it). Similarly it is one thing to watch Jennings on ABC news, another to be able to link viewers voting preference with his facial expressions, and yet entirely another to be able to methodise it and incorporate such methods to affect the outcome of an election.

Perhaps knowledge really is power. But the great Napoleon Hill once wrote that "Knowledge is only potential power. It becomes power only when, and if, it is organised into definite plans of action and directed to a definite end." [p 75 (2004) Think and Grow Rich]

And so, with the above information in mind, I propose the following questions to the reader:

As a voter,

How would you view the next political message you come across?
How would you analyse it or read into it?


As a politician,

How would you devise your next campaign?
How are you utilising the media to maximise the effectiveness of your message?


More importantly, what would one do with knowledge that can shape the outcome of an election? Is such knowledge applicable elsewhere? Is it already in use? Have I been affected by it? These are the questions that are central to the premise of this paper.

The methods discussed so far represent only the tip of the iceberg, the size of which remains undetermined. Therefore, in future, if a reader watches a political campaign and recalls the discussion and questions set forth earlier then, suffice to say, the author has achieved his original aim when he set out to write this article.

Conclusion

In conclusion, consider the following fictional work by suspense author Robert Bloch. The story presents a nameless professor who has arranged a secret meeting with the head of the nation's largest advertising firm. The reason for the meeting is to propose a means of developing the most effective type of politician.

When I began to study these things you've mentioned - how people from the entertainment would have gradually infiltrated politics as advisors, producers, technicians; how they've tried to train our politicians and office holders to become like actors. And it occurred to me then- why not use actors?... You said yourself that almost any man who starts with a clean record and a noncommittal attitude can be built into a political figure by means of present-day psychological techniques. The trick is to teach him to speak, to handle himself properly when on public display. So why waste time on tired old men or egotistical prima donnas who can't cope with their roles? If politics is show business, why not put the right actors into the parts to begin with? (Bloch, 1959, Show Biz p.66)

The notion is probably somewhat fanciful, but certainly interesting - that an effective politician could be produced merely by using an existing actor who knows how to "play to an audience", as evidenced perhaps by Clint Eastwood becoming Mayor or Carmel in the 1980s. Or, maybe even Ronald Reagan's rise to presidency.

As Bloch's writing shows, it seems that reality can sometimes draw inspiration from fiction. Or is it the other way around?

David S. Wong is the Head of Corporate Communications at Asia Media. He has been with the company since its inception in 2007. He is currently pursuing a PhD at the University of Brighton where he specializes in entrepreneurship and management practices of IT and media firms. David also works as a management and IT consultant. He is a Microsoft certified systems administrator. A Malaysian native, David studied Civil Engineering at University of Liverpool where he obtained an honours degree. He subsequently read postgraduate Management at University of Brighton where he graduated at the top of his class with Distinction. David splits his time between living in London and Kuala Lumpur. His current interests include advertising, digital Out-of-Home media, management and entrepreneurship research. In his spare time, David enjoys managing his own portfolio: trading derivates and shares on the UK and US stock market.

A Brief History of Sheffield

Sheffield lies in the North of England, about 65 kilometers east of Manchester in South Yorkshire. Chartered as the City of Sheffield in 1893 due to it's origins in a field on the River Sheaf. The population tops a half million citizens now, with a workforce over a million strong residing within an hours drive of the city. Sheffield's fortunes have long been shaped by world events and external forces that forced the residents of Sheffield to adapt and innovate in order to survive.

Sheffield Castle was built after the Norman Conquest to oversee the local settlements in what is now the heart of the city. The market that grew around the Castle, in what is now Castle Square, made Sheffield a market town just prior to 1300 A.D. Over the next century, Sheffield became well known for the fine cutlery that was produced and sold there, and by 1600 the town was the known to be the center of Cutler Production in all of England, earning a mention in Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales".

Sheffield was on the "cutting edge" so to speak of cutlery technology in those early years, and the invention and improvement of several processes in the mid 1700's revolutionized metallurgy. Crucible Steel and silver plating placed Sheffield squarely in the lead in metallurgy in the world. Sheffield grew as an industrial center, and was a great producer of steel until a recession from the loss of import markets at the end of the 18th century. Conditions in the city deteriorated, and a cholera epidemic killed over 400 people in 1832. The huge amounts of wealth created by the large steel producers tended to stay at the top of the hiarchy, while the unchecked pollution, overcrowding, and disease made its way to the masses.

The start of the industrial revolution brought people back to the city over the next few decades, and clean drinking water was necessary to avoid the deadly diseases of 1832. New reservoirs built on the outskirts of the city helped keep the water supply disease free, but the collapse of a dam wall at one site in 1864 caused the Great Sheffield Flood, which resulted in the deaths of 270 people and widespread damage to the city.

The early 1900's saw Sheffield again noted in literature as George Orwell called Sheffield the "Ugliest town in the Old World" in "The Road to Wigan Pier" written in 1937. The combination of quickly built slums to house the growing numbers of working people, and the pollution from the factories they manned made Sheffield a less than attractive city. The invention of stainless steel in 1913 by a Sheffield resident steel producer bolstered the industry, but at the cost of the beauty of the city founded at the confluence of five rivers. The hills around the city vary from 10 to 500 meters above sea level forming a natural amphitheater. By the end of the 1930's a recession that paralleled "The Great Depression" in the U.S. had taken a toll on all industrial areas, and Sheffield was no exception.

That recession was soon over as European factories began gearing up for war. Sheffield quickly regained its spot as a world class steel producer, making weapons and ammunition for the coming World War. The very same industry that had made Sheffield prosperous during the good times, also made it perilous during the bad times. World War II made Sheffield a vital weapons and munitions manufacturing center, which in turn made it a target for Luftwaffe bombers. Three nights of air attacks known as the "Sheffield Blitz", killed 660 and wounded another 1,500 residents. 40,000 others were left homeless by the air raids as 3,000 homes were demolished and another 3,000 severely damaged. All toll 78,000 homes were damaged to some degree.

After the war, Sheffield continued as a major player in the steel industry. Cutlery was still a big industry in Sheffield. Over half of the world's surgical blades are produced in Sheffield to this day. Rebuilding the city after the war was a success, not only clearing the slums, but investing in infrastructure and park areas to beautify the city, and roads to get people to work at the steel mills. Sheffield was awash with prosperity during the years following World War II. Steel for reconstruction was needed all over Europe, Russia, Japan, the South Pacific and many other areas.

Rebuilding Industry in Germany, and Japan was a double edge sword, as the steel for their rebuilding meant busy steel mills around the world. The end result was that as industry labored to keep up rebuilding German and Japanese industry, it did not keep up with the automation, and process improvement systems that would soon drive many of them out of business, not allowing them to compete against the factories they helped build.

The late 1970's and 1980's saw Steel mills that could not compete close down throwing thousands into unemployment. A mid 80's miner's strike did not help matters either, and the industrial backbone of Sheffield was snapped. Again noted, not so much in literature, but in a movie, The Full Monty chronicled some young and not so young Sheffield residents who were force to change occupations as when their long and hopeless job searches were not panning out.

The movie itself was not only hilarious, but intriguing because the money brought into the cities economy when a movie is shot there is exactly the type of economic boost former industrial centers require when moving from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. Other movies with Sheffield roots were: Threads, When Saturday Comes, F.I.S.T., and Whatever Happened to Harold Smith. Sheffield has also produced its share of entertainers. Actors like Sean Bean who's recent credits include, "Patriot Games", "National Treasure", and "Flight Plan". David Bell starred in "Cross-eyed Waltz" and Thomas Craig a former Sheffield Plummer with over 30 television credits on his resume.

Sheffield is also fertile ground for musicians. Local acts that made it big include Pulp, The Artic Monkeys, Joe Cocker, the Long Pigs, and 65daysofstatic. Sheffield is also the center of the Yorkshire Hip Hop and R&B scenes. Talented local acts like "NoXcuse" and "Hoodz Underground" are local headliners and celebrities in and around Sheffield.

Sheffield still supports industry, including steel, mining, and cutlery, but its economy is diversifying the way many cities in the world are, trying to compete in a global economy. Sheffield will not be mistaken for Hawaii as a tourist spot anytime soon, but they seem to be doing a lot of the right things to create a competitive economy for the coming years. Often with industrial job loss, poverty and blight soon follow, and the inherent rise in crime draws people away from the cities center.

Creativity, culture, tourism, sporting events, and service industries are ways to avoid economic ruin for a city in transition. Sheffield has all that, as well as great educational facilities that support 45,000 university students. If used and marketed correctly that spells a bright future for the city of Sheffield. The fact that Sheffield is one of the safest cities in the U.K. according to government statistics shows the typical problems with economic transition have not affected the city. Manufacturing provides only 14% of the jobs now, while service industry positions account for 82%. Far behind are Health Care, and technology sector jobs.

Plenty of attractions including National Park land within the city boundaries help keep the educated university students from bolting upon graduation. That in turn insures economic, and technological improvements for years to come, helping Sheffield to be at the forefront of economic development for the future.

Article by Susan Ashby of Sheffield Singles. To read more articles like this or for dating in Sheffield visit http://www.sheffield-singles.co.uk