PUBLIC SQUARE: Obama failing as of late.

He's launching a secretive  military strike against Libya.  He's organizing a below average relief effort for rattled Japan.  On top of all that he's running a country full time that is not returning on its investment.  But I'm not here to talk about any of that.

 No this Obama issue has to do with his personal NCAA MARCH MADNESS Tournament Bracket.

About a week ago, President Obama appeared on ESPN networks for an interview.  He filled out his presidential bracket which they deemed "Barack-otology" a play on words of the famous myth science of the tournament; brackettology. 

 At the time Obama caught a lot of slack from critics and the GOP because they wondered if he was sending the right message with all the terror going on in the world.  Personally I think it was the right move.  He has done it every other year that he's been president.  It's a major part of American society to fill out a bracket.  Even if your not a fan you fill out a bracket.  To be honest, Obama definetly appeared to me as if he rushed through it just to finish and get to more pressing issues.  He picked the top 4 teams by ranking to make it to the final four and arguably the best team KANSAS to win.

Now the president can ball. He loves basketball, he renovated the white house to add a full court, he even keeps former Duke Blue Devil and NCAA champion Reggie Love as his assitant.  He's played all his life and is an avid Chicago Bulls Fan.  That is why it is no suprise that his bracket started off on fire.

He picked 29 of 32 games correctly in the first few rounds.  For perspective, "Only 491 of the 5.9 million brackets had more correct picks".  This sucess had the president in the top 99.9 percentile of results.  In short he was balling.  Then it all came crashing down.

He still had four of the remaning eight teams heading into the weekend.  He picked everygame of this round wrong.  He didn't pick one of the final four teams correctly and his national champion Kansas was upset by Cinderella VCU (Virginia Common Wealth).  It's safe to say he's no longer in that top percentiles, but he still did very well.

What I'm wondering is if a paralell can be made between Baracks bracket sucess this year and his entire tenure presedential sucess.  To me they are similar.  He started off well in the bracket just as he started off well as president.  Everyone was excited to see an African American elected to president for the first time ever.  People were ready to see this "Change" that he constantly spoke of and there was just a general buzz of hope around america.  Then we got to where we are now.  We have gone through tough economic times, a weak solution to the healthcare problem, and unemployment at historic highs.  Were seeing everyone around us soar above in education.  Our armor as the worlds most powerful nation is starting to rust.  Of course not everything should be blamed on one main but ultimately it will.


It remains to be seen how President Obama finishes his tenure.  Perhaps he will deliver us out of this mess and point us in the right direction moving forward so we can truly "win the future".  Or maybe it will follow the brakcet pattern and everything will blow up in his face.  If that's the case then we could have our first one term president since 1993.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-president-obamas-ncaa-bracket-2011-3#ixzz1Huka9boE

OP-ED Shaking up LA's plans

Although Japan's devastating earthquake was 5742 miles away, a simple thought must resonate in the mind of every Los Angeleno;  we must prepare for this to happen to us.

While Japan's current situation is a tragedy that in no way should be taken lightly, if the people of LA don't learn from this true horror then everyone lost will be even more in vain.

Every Angeleno knows that the area is prone to earthquakes, but not everyone realizes that Southern California is long overdue for a gargantuan high magnitude earthquake to relieve the pressure on the San Andres fault.Not to fear for two reasons:  California/America is more prepare d to handle the ramifications of a monster quake and the natural factors play to our advantage.

To start with, it should be mentioned that I am no expert on earthquakes.  I did, however, take a class at a Los Angeles college about the science of earthquakes. It's safe to say I know more than the average person.  Either way it doesn't take an expert to see just how horrible the aftermath of an earthquake can be.

Just look at Japan for example.  This site exemplifies just how much damage can be done by providing before and after pictures from the quake.  To be honest, there's was no way to avoid what happened there, but Los Angeles is a different case.

Its not a matter of if an earthquake will happen in Southern California but when.  Through studies of the seismology over the past few centuries scientists found that in LA, "strong earthquakes shook the area every 45-144 years". Finding out that the last major,  "earthquake struck southern California in 1857, or 153 years ago, scientists believe the next "Big One" could happen at any time."   Eventually the built up pressure will have to release.

With this there will be catastrophic damage.  The same scientists predict that, "With 37 million people living in southern California, chiefly in the cities of Los Angeles, San Diego and Anaheim, a major earthquake could kill between 2,000 and 50,000 people and cause billions of dollars in damage."  There's no way to prevent all of this, but knowledge and proper preparation could at least limit the devastation.

First off the natural factors of a quake make California/America more prepared for the earthquake than Japan.  Really there's almost nothing Japan could have done to prepare for what happened.  The 9.0 magnitude quake, which is one of the largest recorded since society started documenting them, isn't what caused the catastrophic damage.

While the quake caused its own issues, the main source of the problems was the killer tsunami that ravaged the country. The danger of a tsunami isn't the Hollywood version of a giant 30 foot wave.  The real danger is it's a small wave only a few feet high, but moving at insanely fast speed and extremely long, gushing hundreds of thousands of gallons of water and destroying anything in its path.  Tsunami's are caused by offshore earthquakes that raise or lower the earth's tectonic plates resulting an the creation of the forceful wave.  Its what caused the damage in 2004 in Indonesia and its what caused the damage in Japan last week.  Luckily for Angelenos, the pending earthquake won't cause a tsunami. The future earthquake will be land based because the tectonic plates of the San Andres fault lie a few hundred miles inland of Los Angeles.  While the damage will undoubtedly be great the lack of tsunami plays into the hands of people that will be affected by the incident.

America/ California's infrastructure is far more prepared to handle the aftermath of a large earthquake than Japan.  First off America is a much larger country.  When the earthquake happens the U.S government will be able to evacuate people to the east towards the center of the country.  Plus the government can import supplies from the rest of the country to help the survivors.  Japan's small size led to the whole country's affect of the earthquake and not just a small region.  Our sheer size will help.  Secondly another fallout from the quake is the nuclear power plant issues that Japan's dealing with.   While this could happen in a socal quake it's not as likely.  Our plants are built to withstand magnitude 7.5 quakes.  Seeing as the larget quake on the San Andres fault was a 7.9, coupled with the low risk of a tsunami, a nuclear power plant failure to rival japan is not likely.

Personally I have nothing to worry about for the future great quake.  No, I'm not invincible and no, I don't have a crystal ball that allows me to predict when the incident will happen, but I just may have lady luck on my side.  You see, I've lived here in Los Angeles for three years and not once have I ever been around during a significant earthquake.  In some fate-based trend I have travelled out of the state each and every time a notable earthquake has occurred.  A few plane rides and one bus to Vegas have allowed me to miss these unpredictable phenomenon.  And where was I when the great Japan quake happened?  That's right, on a plane out of California.  Unfortunately, my luck won't help the 37 million people left behind.  That is why we must prepare now.

OP-ED Taco Bell's not "meating" standards

It's been 27 years and the question on fast food customer's minds is still the same; WHERE'S THE BEEF? Only this time instead of a mock grandma from a Wendy's hamburger commercial the question is formed by a group of Alabama lawyers filing a class action lawsuit against Taco Bell. The claim is that the meat served at Taco Bell is less than 35% beef.  Taco Bell's meat make-up shouldn't be the only issue examined, but broadened to measure the level of quality of all fast food.

To start off this lawsuit should widen it's view to the whole taco.  This typical taco sells for 99 cents.  For Taco Bell to turn a profit that taco has to cost them at most 75 cents to make.  Assuming they spend the most on meat, let's say 50 cents, that leaves them 25 cents to spend on the cheapest surrounding ingredients.  The cornmeal to make the the shell that's slightly more quality than cardboard. A minimal amount of lettuce that's only marginally above what they feed cows on a farm. Finally they shave a few cents by opting for pseudo Velveeta cheese.  To sum it up, there's nothing of healthy high quality substance in that taco, or on the taco bell menu at all for that matter.   

When a salad, which should be the healthiest item on the menu, packs in 900 calories and 57 grams of fat you know the restaurants not a healthy stop.  Guess that's better than getting the volcano nachos, "Weighing in at 1,000 calories, 62 grams of fat and 1,930 milligrams of sodium, this nacho "snack" has all the makings of a nutritional disaster."    Not to mention these nachos cost only $3.49 which one can assume doesn't buy the best ingredients.  Taco Bell may be the only restaurant currently under the public microscope, but don't be fooled in thinking that all fast food restaurants aren't pulling the wool over your eyes.

Taco Bell, McDonald's, Burger king: No matter which character brands the bag the food inside it is all of the same poor quality.  McDonald's issues are well documented in Morgan Spurlock's documentary Super Size Me.  The results are in this video and included: 24.5 pounds gained, a 7% increase in body fat, higher cholesterol, higher risk of heart disease/failure, and massive cravings that were followed by headaches if he didn't eat McDonald's.   This is an experiment in a vacuum, but the results prove that McDonald's food product cannot be high quality and consequently healthy.  Don't tell professional NFL player Chad Ochocinco, who claims his diet consists of Mickey D's daily, but the reason for McDonald's unhealthy tag is that they cut corners in food quality to provide meals at such low cost to consumers.

The list goes on an on.  Burgerking has a line of XXL meals that average 900 calories and sixty grams of fat per sandwich.  Chic-fil-a's chicken is loaded with controversial chemical MSG.  Jack in the box had a salmonella scare that nearly ruined the franchise.  There are continuous examples of fast food restaurants using fillers, preservatives, and simply sacrificing quality in the concern of lowering cost.  However there is a small sample of healthy fast food options.

There's only two restaurants that come to mind that provide fresh high quality ingredients; Subway and In-n-Out.  It's surprising and relieving to learn that Subway has just passed McDonald's for most restaurants worldwide.  Be that as it may it is less hope inspiring when you look at the nutrition facts. Subway provides fresh cheap sandwich's with a barrage of fresh vegetables to pile on free of charge.  However Subway isn't what they appear.  One nutritionist claims,

"Don't be fooled by the Subway "health halo." This sandwich delivers 9 grams of fat, not to mention nearly 800 calories. On top of that, you'll be getting more than 2,000 milligrams of sodium with your sub. Most adults should consume less than 2,300 milligrams per day."

In-n-Out is a different story.  It's their  philosophy to not open a franchise that's more than one day's truck ride from their privately owned farms. They provide the freshest ingredients possible with no freezing and no microwaves.  Yet that doesn't stop the American public from ordering their burgers extra large with extra cheese such as this 100x100 delicious monstrosity.  That raises the final question if the fast food restaurants are really the only one's to blame.

It's clear that Taco Bell, McDonald's and the other fast food restaurants are cutting corners in food quality in order to continue lowering their prices.  This recent lawsuit of Taco Bell only highlights a small part of a massively growing problem that will end in nationwide U.S obesity. However how much of the blame should be placed on the restaurants and how much should be place on consumers themselves?  The consumer is the one that continues to eat at these restaurants on a weekly, and in some cases daily basis.  Americans love fast food so much that in 2006 they spent $142 Billion at fast food restaurants.  That amount has only increased.  With the continued growing knowledge that this food is low quality and bad for us, perhaps the question should be changed from "Where's the beef?"  to "Where's our common sense?"

PUBLIC SQUARE: Urban Pideon Racing: Pilot.

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.