The Geographic Background to Current Wo :: Geo 262

Obesity and Overreaching

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:25:29 -0400

Reading this week’s articles involving obesity, it becomes readily apparent that the government considers obesity to be beyond a mere matter of personal choice. Reading President Kennedy’s piece in which he calls upon Americans to better their physical fitness as a means of patriotic service, one could easily make the assumption that this is an antiquated example of Cold War politics, and that America was looking for every possible way to exert its superiority on the world stage over the Soviet Union. It is therefore intriguing to note that even today, justification for government involvement in policing against obesity is justified through its relation to national security, as this article implies. Its author goes as far as to call obesity a “national security threat,” and centers his argument against obesity on the fact that obesity is a legitimate, tangible national security threat. Although the article is light on potential solutions to the problem introduced, one of the most interesting is to create zoning laws that would prevent fast-food restaurants from being allowed near schools, as the author asserts that studies have shown that there are more obese children in areas in which such restaurants are within a half mile of a school. Other measures have also been proposed that would involve an active government role in the regulation of what individuals consume. There is currently a debate in New York City over whether food stamps should be allow to be used to purchase soda and other sugary beverages, with Mayor Michael Bloomberg in favor of enacting such a ban in an attempt to lower obesity rates in within the city. While advocates of the ban insist that they are not attempting to stigmatize underprivileged citizens and are merely attempting to aid the public health, opponents criticize the attempt as a means of trying to control the bodies of poverty-stricken citizens, and see such laws as an attempt to further the gap between the rich and the poor. Given such that such a politicization of obesity has clearly become the norm, one must ask: at what point does an attempt to improve the public health become a situation of over-regulation? Should people have complete freedom to choose what to eat, or is it justified to treat certain types of food as tobacco is treated, ie. as a dangerous product that should be made more difficult to purchase? And finally, is it ethical for the government to impose limitations on what is purchased with government sponsored food aid such as food stamps, and if so, why?

-TH

A Widening Issue (Pun)

Thu, 26 Apr 2012 11:25:24 -0400

Stereotyping occurs whether it is consciously or subconsciously. For many foreign citizens, one generally agreed upon concept is that Americans are fat, and its true as 30.6% of the United States’ population is made up of people dealing with obesity. This statistic is over 6% higher than any other country, and rates show no sign of a steep or even gradual change. America needs to change its ways and it seems as if every new theory or idea is just a reshaped thought from last week. Every new “researcher” just ends up re-inventing the wheel (or the pyramid in this case). Recently, much effort has been put into the refinement of fast food restaurants for the sake of health, with the restaurants being a focal point for negative media coverage. Many argue on the side that they should be serving better quality products in terms of health when this point is irrelevant. If one does not like the food or health quality of a food then one should not eat at that restaurant. The companies shouldn’t have to change their products simply because the customers want it changed so they can eat exactly what they want with a McDonald’s or Burger King logo on their bag. Another point often made is how those with lower incomes at times only have access to such affordable eateries, which poses one of the most vital flaws in acquiring a control on obesity. Unhealthy food is more cost friendly than a healthy green salad from the super-market. The problem isn’t what they are selling, as their food is unhealthy and should be incredibly inexpensive; it’s the cost of fresh, healthy food in the first place. Should the effort the United States is using toward public fast food places (regarding health issues) be re-concentrated toward a reduction in the cost of healthier, fresher foods?

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/hea_obe-health-obesity

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2011/0407/Obesity-s-hidden-factor-high-cost-of-healthy-meals

The War on America

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:30:23 -0400

When on paper many ideas can seem like they will work out, but history has told us otherwise time and again. The war on drugs (not to be confused with any of the other wars the United States has waged on non-human entities) sounds and appears to be an effective campaign eliminating potential threats inside as well as outside its borders, but it has proved to be a nominal menace to the facilitation of the drug underworld. Jeffrey Miron, an economics professor at Harvard University, composed “The Budgetary Implications of Drug Prohibition”, going into great detail about the possible savings and earnings for the United States from marijuana alone. Miron reports that if strictly marijuana transitioned into a commodity with a system of regulation and taxation, savings would reach $7.7 billion in annual state and federal expenditures. From the taxation, earnings could equate to $2.4 billion if taxed like most commodities are. If the government taxed marijuana as it does tobacco or alcohol, the United States would gross over $6 billion, in addition to the savings of $7.7 billion.

The war on drugs has been an on-going saga for the United States for quite some time, and projects a positive, progressive image for their crusade. Unless thoroughly searching, no one learns that the Unite States could be possibly losing the war they have spent so much of their time and effort on. The Washington Post article “U.S. Called the Loser in War on Drugs” involves an interview from a power player in one of Mexico’s most ruthless drug cartels, where he claims “the United States has already  lost its war on drugs and that violent trafficking gangs will thrive as long as Americans keep buying marijuana, cocaine and heroin”. This one comment genuinely shows how short sighted the war the United States declared on drugs is. If Americans did not want the drugs, drugs wouldn’t sell well in the United States, and thusly would not be smuggled in as they are, leaving the question should the United States start embracing rather than continuing its meek attempts at a lost cause to abolish drugs?

http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/miron/files/budget%202010%20Final.pdf

http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/drugs/arellano-interview.htm

—Amir

profit in prisons

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:29:54 -0400

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Pz8mG-chs1E

This reminded me of some class discussion we had. figured i would share

Doomed to be Obese

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:29:45 -0400

It has become quite clear that obesity is becoming a growing problem for not only the United States but also the world. “The two most common and well-known reasons for obesity are lack of exercise and eating unhealthy foods that are high in calories and low in nutritional value. Probably 80 to 90 percent of people are overweight due to these reasons” (Ramm). However, the problem lies in who is to blame for this obesity problem, the users or the suppliers? I guess this same argument could be used in the drug war, so is obesity the worst drug of them all? “Prof Stephenson said it was likely the solution lay in changing the way people were exposed to advertising. “Another aspect is the taxation of cigarettes to deter people from buying them – that seems something to look at in relation to food.”(Stephenson).” The overexposure to unhealthy food choices creates for an environment in which society is entrapped in a world of unhealthy food choices. So what is going to be done to try and deter people from making unhealthy food choices? A campaign by the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges was launched yesterday with a broadside against an unlikely target – the London 2012 Olympics. The body, which represents 200,000 doctors, says sponsorship of the Games by fast food and soft drink firms including McDonald’s and Coca-Cola sends out the wrong health message. Spokesman Professor Terence Stephenson said: “They clearly wouldn’t be spending the money if they didn’t benefit from being associated with successful athletes.(Stephenson)” Without creating a deterrent for people to stop eating unhealthy choices and creating an incentive to start exercising and living healthier lives are we doomed to allow obesity to take over the world?

-Douglas-

Obesity in America

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:28:48 -0400

It is clear that the people of the United States have progressively grown fatter over the decades leading up to today. Studies show that though calorie expenditure has not increased much over the last thirty years, calories taken in have risen significantly. This begs the question: Why? Today, people tend to eat prepared meals, rather than cook their own meals, because they are quick and tasty. These meals are often loaded with preservatives and fatty oils. As technology has progressed we have become a faster paced nation. This may answer many of the questions why obesity has become an epidemic in the United States. It has become common for women to have fulltime jobs to help pay for family expenditures. This takes women away from the home, where they were expected to cook healthy and hearty meals, and puts them into the work place. Now, less people know how to cook, people are tired and would rather settle for a cheap easy alternative, and more fast food places are readily available for consumers.

Bad habits are being created at young ages in America, where children are being raised off up snacks foods, microwave dinners, and fast food. They are innocent casualties in our country’s shift towards unhealthy eating because they lack a voice in what foods they will eat. Children suffer from the same trend in obesity as the rest of the country, increasing year after year. Over recent decades, numerous efforts have been put in place to nip obesity in the bud by schools nationwide. It has been proven that multiple smaller meals throughout the day are more efficient in boosting metabolism and burning fat than fewer large portioned meals. In cities around the country this has led to schools distributing breakfast to students, to get their minds and bodies working early in the morning. They began doing this for students who were suffering from the current economic hardships, and could not afford meals of their own. The problem with this, noted here, is that this may lead some students to double-dip, eat breakfast at home and then again at school. This would further the problem of obesity by allotting children with more than the necessary required amount of calories they need.

In most high schools around the nation, one can find vending machines. Schools use the extra funds accumulated from these machines to buy things for the students that are not in the funding programs. Up until recent years they were stocked with snack foods like cookies, sodas, candies, and potato chips. The Obama administration has been working to make these machines more nutritious, in order to get students eating healthier. Alternatives that have been proposed include fresh fruits, yogurts, and wraps. Schools argue that they need the extra revenue brought in by the vending machines, while food activists argue that they would still make money if the products in those machines change.

More and more policies are put in place each year to try and prevent obesity, but still the problem continues to grow. What policies could be put in place to prevent people from eating foods that impact their health negatively? Are these policies required or should the government lack the right to dictate what a person can or cannot put into their body? Why does the government care?

—Ian

Trying to Knockout Obesity

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:27:59 -0400

Because of the rapidly growing obese population in the United States, the fight against obesity had been the most popular American war. It had led to the development of various fitness equipments, such as treadmills and bowflex, an assorted array of weight-loss nutrition foods, such as Slim-Fast!, and now, laws that would lead to the taxation of high fat and high sugar foods. According to this article, surveys conducted by Phalanx Investment Partners LLC revealed that “1 in 3 Americans believe that obese people should pay more in taxes than healthy weight people.” But the article argues that this idea would be unattractive to most politicians who are constantly seeking for the votes of those people. The article states that the best alternative would be to tax high fat and high sugar foods, such as french fries and cotton candy, just as how the government fought smoking by taxing cigarettes.

-Von

America is not the only fighter against obesity. Great Britain had been fighting as well. According to this article, its most recent attack, initiated by the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges, was protesting against McDonald’s and Coca-Cola’s sponsorship of the London 2012 Olympics. They argue that those companies “send out the wrong health message.” Furthermore, spokesman Professor Terence Stephenson said: “They clearly wouldn’t be spending the money if they didn’t benefit from being associated with successful athletes.” In other words, it’s all about the money. Another solution they considered was to tax unhealthy foods just like what’s being considered in the U.S.

What do you think about taxing high-fat and high sugar foods?

The Timeless Nation

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:27:47 -0400

Are national identities really as timeless as they seem? Well, not really…

http://youtu.be/e8OEuj6-pVg

—Sebastian

War on Obesity

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:27:26 -0400

More than any other country in the world, obesity is a high priority issue in America. According to one article assigned in class, “despite our good food and our many playgrounds, despite our emphasis on school athletics, American youth lagged far behind Europeans in physical fitness. Six tests for muscular strength and flexibility were given; 57.9% of the American children failed one or more of these tests, while only 8.7% of the European youngsters failed.” An increasing sedentary lifestyle in combination with a diet full of saturated fats and cholesterol lead to a high rate of obesity in America. An NYT article agrees, stating that, “Americans are eating more than ever, increasing their average number of calories year by year. And the percentage of adults who claim they are physically inactive remained nearly flat from 1991 to 1998, at about 29 percent.” The result is the launching of President Kennedy’s “War on Obesity”. The objective of the War on Drugs is to eliminate the increasing rate of obesity, ultimately ending with a generally healthy population. President Kennedy, when introducing the War on Obesity, states, “Throughout our history we have been challenged to armed conflict by nations which sought to destroy our independence or threatened our freedom. The young men of America have risen to those occasions…But the stamina and strength with the defense of libery requires are not the product of a few weeks’ basic training or a months conditioning. These only come from bodies which have been conditioned by a lifetime of participation in sports and interest in physical activity.” Here, Kennedy asserts the importance of physical fitness upon the county. According to a different NYT article, the War on Obesity is nothing but a trend of paranoia in our country. Being fat is not as big a deal as it is made out to be by the government. The article states, “But a growing group of historians and cultural critics who study fat say this obsession is based less on science than on morality. Insidious attitudes about politics, sex, race or class are at the heart of the frenzy over obesity, these scholars say, a frenzy they see as comparable to the Salem witch trials, McCarthyism and even the eugenics movement.” Another article from class sides with this view, stating, “…portraying obesity as a problem of class and race potentially provides new avenues for racism and classism…” In short, prejudice against obese people can open the doors to new types animosities against obese, such as linking them to race or class. These articles are claiming that one of the deficiencies with the War on Obesity is that it demonizes and targets obese people, instead of the actual institutions that produce fatty foods themselves. My discussion question is: Which would be more effective, targeting the people themselves for their choices or the food manufacturers?

NYT articles: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/10/31/weekinreview/ideas-trends-eating-disorder-the-fat-war-hope-amid-the-harm.html#

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/01/arts/demonizing-fat-in-the-war-on-weight.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

—Dan

The War on Obesity

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:27:13 -0400

I had a friend who taught English in a French high school for a year. Her students did not believe that she was American. When she queried the reasoning behind their disbelief, they said, “Because you’re not fat.”

My experience studying abroad in France paralleled this comment, as I endured many lectures from the French about the negative eating habits that Americans practice, regardless of whether or not I practiced them myself. While France does not represent the entire world, it remains difficult to deny that America has a bizarre politics surrounding food and weight.

The readings from this week discussed obtaining physical fitness as a step on the quest to American patriotism and mentioned the paradox of how American cultural food contributes to obesity. Another more important theme of the reading relates to the unevenness of obesity across populations.

http://healthystate.org/2012/04/how-money-factors-into-the-war-on-obesity/

This article discusses the statistical tendency of obese people to be unable to afford healthcare with doctors and other professional services that can help them relieve this condition. This further propagates obesity among these underprivileged populations. Insurance companies have started covering costs of obesity, though that does not guarantee quality of doctors that people can afford seeing.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/doctors-declare-war-on-obesity-epidemic-796122

This article does not boast a great length, but it relates to the readings through commentary by British experts who theorize that American obesity would become less of a problem if physically fit athletes and models did not promote junk food through sponsorships and other forms of advertisement. It argues that changing the culture would affect the obesity phenomenon.

The questions I pose are as follows: When does obesity, a seemingly personal matter, become an issue of the state? What measures to combat it remain justified? Would a “fat tax” and cultural shift of the media really make a difference?

-Justine

Blaming the Victim: An Evolutionary Obesity Bias?

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:27:08 -0400

Obesity is unlike many other illnesses in that a strong negative bias is associated with it. Obese people are often shunned and rejected because of their physical appearance. We all play in to this to some degree: although it is not shameful to prefer a more fit sexual partner, many of us come to see the obese as lazy and stupid. Obesity is often derided as a non-ailment. As if obese people are like they are entirely by choice. It is shameful that we are so willing to shun those who suffer from what many doctors are now calling a disease. But is the bias against obese people evolutionary in nature? And, if so, what can it tell us about human relations in general?

Dr. David Katz recently wrote an article that claims that we inherently dislike the obese as a form of evolutionary survival instinct. We evolved in an era where calories were scarce, so those who had clearly had too many were regarded with envy and resentment. When hunger was a zero-sum game, feeling hostile towards the obese helped people to press their evolutionary viability by condemning the other to reproductive failure.

But if this is true, how does it help us? Understanding why obesity is looked upon with derision is an important step towards understanding how to stem the tide of the epidemic. People are likely to blame the victim in the case of obesity. Even obese people are less likely to view another obese person favorably. This phenomenon stymies efforts to halt the advance of obesity by writing off the victims as “unhelpable”. If we can recognize the source of our dislike of obese people, we can more effectively end this practice of blaming the victim, and perhaps we can effectively stem the evolution of the human race into a sea of obesity.

—Sam

Obesity

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:52 -0400

It is no secret that Childhood obesity in America is a huge concern and serious issue among the growing population. John F. Kennedy does a great job in his article, “The Soft America,” bringing awareness to the fact that our nation is unlike any other. Physical fitness tests have proven that America lags far behind Europe in this aspect. The decline of physical fitness is clearly consistent and Kennedy implies that our schools must incorporate programs targeting a more healthy lifestyle for the student’s.

In America especially, we are provided with many institutions, indoor and outdoor for exercise, along with healthy produce at almost every food store close by. We do not take advantage of what our country offers to us and frankly, children are not very concerned. As Kennedy stated, young America is growing “soft,” and most of us do not notice or take the time and effort to make a change. However, a candidate has arose that is determined to make change and that happens to be the First Lady, Michelle Obama.

Within Michelle Obama’s campaign “Let’s Move! America’s Move to Raise a Healthier Generation of Kids,” many steps have been taken across the country to work towards a healthier tomorrow. Most recently, the “United States Department of Agriculture has announced a new farm to school program to help improve the health and nutrition of kids receiving school meals.” This program will make the children aware of where the food they are eating originates from. The article discussed how children are not the slightest bit familiar with agriculture and in todays society, they are much more likely to recognize a Wendy’s logo rather than a tomato tree. While childhood obesity rates are growing and causing disease, this program will give kids the information they need to make healthier life decisions.

Just as people know that the choices they are making in their diets are leading to obesity and putting their health at risk, they are still doing nothing to stop it. An example of something many of us are not using are cookstoves, which were found to save a great deal of lives according to the article, Nobody’s Using Cookstoves. Studies have found that “indoor air pollution from primitive stoves was a leading cause of death in the world,” but not many are taking initiative to change this. It has been stated that many people do not want to get new cookstoves and the ones that have, do not even use them. If people continue to disregard the issues that are being brought to their attention, just like obesity, these issues will continue to increase. Many people can lose their lives from how they are preparing their food and how much they are choosing to prepare.

-Is there any other things we can do to further the awareness of childhood obesity and could the adults possibly be at fault for a majority of this epidemic?

-Mary

The Physical Decline of America

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:49 -0400

In The Soft American President John F. Kennedy starts by talking about the Greeks, and other high achieving Western societies, who believed that physical soundness is an important quality. President Kennedy argues Americans are becoming soft, losing their physical strength. This physical decline can be attributed to conveniences like television and movies. In response to this physical decline President Kennedy proposes the implementation of a national program in public schools to improve the fitness of Americans.

This lack of physical vigor is considered important because it ruins the image of America. In the essay Kennedy talks about the spread of communism, and how the communists want to show the world that their way “possesses the vigor and determination necessary to satisfy awakening aspirations for progress and the elimination of poverty and want.”. America has to appear stronger than the enemy, a philosophy that we still fall back on to combat obesity today.

Obviously President Kennedy’s program did not have as great an impact as he had hoped. The physical decline of America has gotten worse since the 1960’s, and is projected to get even worse as time progresses. It has become so bad that a hospital in Texas has enacted a policy where they have stopped hiring obese workers. Not only that, healthcare costs double previous estimates because of the obesity epidemic. Costs associated with obesity are at 190 billion dollars, which is 121% higher than the original estimates.

So while President Kennedy enacted his physical fitness program for the sake of America’s image, it clearly did not work as well as intended. While communists aren’t a threat to America today, the terrorists are. Will America lose the fight against terrorism because of its obesity?

-Harris

Tipping the Scales

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:47 -0400

The view that the moral and physical vigor of a nation is dependent on the robustness of the individual citizen is a theme that has been around for centuries. A harmonious combination of physical vigor, pristine character and mental aptitude in the individual is seen as vital to the strength and longevity of the nation. The atrophy of these qualities in the individual can be perceived as a threat to the nation as a whole. Obesity is viewed as a 5th column fueled by a fast food and well rested by a sedentary lifestyle .A traitorous agent that lies in wait preparing to assault the integrity of the nation from the inside out. The language of the war on obesity poses many problems that have the potential to further marginalize citizens whose relationship to the concept of “American” is already a precarious one. “Women, people of color, immigrants, working-class and poor people” are already alienated and face further detachment once this war on obesity creates another category for both stereotyping and the attachment of a stigma implies that being fat is both un-American and a danger to nation security. There is a tendency to not separate obesity from the individual who is obese. This can attribute both blame and the accusation of an inherent moral deficiency to the obese individual. Similar to how during the early and mid-80s, AID/HIV was seen less as a viral agent and more as a consequence of the victims’ lifestyle: homosexuality, drug use and promiscuity. This type of discourse can be both dangerous and laden with misinformation. Discussion of obesogenic environments, particularly in certain urban areas where there is a higher incidence of obesity, is often riddled with assumptions and misinformation. One of those assumptions is that inner cities are food deserts, with an abundance of unhealthy and cheap fare and deprived of healthy food options. The old concept of environment al determinism is used to offer an explanation to the obesity epidemic. That people become obese due to what is available and affordable in their immediate environment. This is proven to be a myth in Studies Question the Pairing of Food Deserts and Obesity (Kolata) while they do have a surplus of fast food restaurants and convenience stores; they also have an equal number of grocery stores and restaurants whose variety of healthy options balance the demonized offerings that contribute to obesity. This takes away credence from the assumption that people’s choices are determined by what they have access to. The fear that there is an implicit correlation between obesity and the future of the nation is one that can be subtle but lasting in its persistence in our collective consciousness. The recent title of an NY Post article on NJ governor Christie is evidence of this. The article was about his trip to Israel but was titled The whale at the wall. His physical size dominates the headline of story that had nothing to do with his often publicized obesity. The language within the article suggestively hints at his obesity when it uses the term “political heft”. His weight has often been lambasted by pundits and used as evidence that he does not possess the quality of physical fitness that a potential president should naturally have. The thought of an obese president is anathema to our vision of the leader of the fittest nation on earth despite that by current BMI classifications of obesity Bill Clinton was obese. We would have to look back 100 years to find the last morbidly obese president William Taft.

Meisan

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/health/research/pairing-of-food-deserts-and-obesity-challenged-in-studies.html

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/the_whale_at_the_wall_oken1GUqPamnfVeZB6xgHL

International Epidemic

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:41 -0400

Disease is a type of phenomenon that has the potential to strike anyone at any given time in any location. However, there are areas around the world that have been stricken with disease due to poor environmental standards and poverty. Our world runs on economic assistance when it comes down to medical aid and it is almost inevitable to try to help everyone when countries have poor governments who are unable to supply the necessary medical attention that is needed. For example, 126 people have already died and more than 12,000 have been diagnosed with dengue fever in Pakistan’s rich and poor areas of Lahore. It was reported that this breakout is just another case of Pakistan’s government failing to take preventive measures to kill off the mosquitoes before the situation got out of hand. However, in another article, Pakistan’s government took matters into their own hands and shut down educational institutions in Lahore to try to save as many people as they can. Special health departments were also called upon form India to help bring the necessary medications needed to help fight the epidemic. Asking help from Indian officials after having such a brutal relationship with them, the Pakistani government took a huge step in trying to make peace when their health was at stake. This brings up the question if it would be possible for the two battling countries to ever be at peace when there is an epidemic on their hands?

-Noreen

Obesity as a Culture

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:38 -0400

For this blog post, I will focus on the article entitled “The Soft American.” It focuses on the importance of physical fitness in health and also in defending our countries and ourselves in general for survival. Even dating back to ancient times, the Greeks placed great emphasis on physical fitness, and apparently so does everyone else except the United States, which has staggering rates of not only physical unfitness, but also obesity. The more technology there is, the less we exercise or have the desire to exercise. However, the more technology there is, the more danger there will be, and in turn, the more physical fitness we will need to defend ourselves. As a country, we are far behind others in strength and endurance, even as children. As the article says, the government can try to implement as many policies as it wants, “but no matter how vigorous the leadership of government, we can fully restore the physical soundness of our nation only if every American is willing to assume responsibility for his own fitness and the fitness of his children. We do not live in a regimented society where men are forced to live their lives in the interest of the state. We are, all of us, as free to direct the activities of our bodies as we are to pursue the objects of our thought. But if we are to retain this freedom, for ourselves and for generations yet to come, then we must also be willing to work for the physical toughness on which the courage and intelligence and skill of man so largely depend.” This seems to be imply that the unfit naturally choose to become or remain unfit because there is nobody forcing them to be in shape. This stance deflects blame from the government by implying that nobody should have to tell you to get in shape, and it threatens that if unfitness gets out of hand, the government will have to come in and babysit strictly. It seems to say that it should just be implied that you should want to stay fit if you are interested in the well-being of the state and are a responsible citizen, rather than selfishly letting yourself go at the expense of the nation’s defense. It deflects blame also from the culture and values of the country and places blame on the individual. Claiming that government intervention will not do much in terms of increasing physical fitness because people in America are naturally lazy and unfit and want to remain as such is hardly true. First off, not everyone is unfit because he chooses to be. There are variances in body type/capability and genetics. Moreover, for many people, there are limitations regarding the knowledge of, money for, and and proximity to healthy foods that would aid in physical fitness. There is, however, much potential to change the ways we eat and exercise through changes in policy, processes of food manufacturing, and education. However, the effects and progress will show, if at all, at a very slow rate since 75% of people are projected to be overweight or obese in the next ten years. As other countries value physical fitness, the United States seems to value time more, as time is money. This focus on the clock leads to fast means of transportation and fast means of getting food. This ultimately means less exercise and less nutrition. This seems to be cultural on some level. As of right now, though, there seem to be more accommodations for the obese than positive policy changes that would get the ball rolling. Some may say a factor in why people are in no rush to get smaller is that there is an increase in the size of products and facilities to accomodate large people. One example that actually affects the environment is cars, whose size has increased majorly since their creation. Overweight people tend to buy the largest cars we’ve got; in fact people buy more SUV’s, trucks, and vans than ever, consuming 40% of all car sales each year now. Larger cars weigh more, and larger cars with larger people inside them weigh even more, which means the average miles per gallon decreases by a lot. Large Americans use around one billion gallons of gas per year due to their size, and 39 million gallons of gas per year per pound gained. Gas prices are not decreasing any time soon, and this kind of fuel will not be around forever and does not grow on trees. Moreover, the burning of this fuel is not the best for the environment. Large people driving seem to be using fuel at an increasing rate, contributing to even more greenhouse gas production. Is that good for our reputation, especially as we are trying to be/come off as more eco-friendly? Not only is being obese not patriotic in the sense that the typical American should look a certain way, but being obese is also not patriotic in the detrimental environmental results it has and their effects on our nation’s reputation as an increasingly “green” nation. Another scenario in which the obese bring negative attention to our country is in terms of airplanes and public transportation. How does America look when a one of its men arrives in a foreign country, and the first things he does are to remove his seatbelt (with a seatbelt extender a flight attendant slipped him to fit over his stomach), get up from the two or three seats he took up due to his size (and had to pay extra for), and then not be able to pass through the turnstiles in the airport? I feel like the fact that America does not put physical fitness first anymore is a never ending cycle: We create conditions under which obesity is likely to occur, then it does, then we accomodate the obese since they cannot lose the weight overnight and need to get home somehow, and this further enables obesity.. and the cycle continues. Going back to the article “The Soft American,” it may be true that governmental policies and influences are needed to get the ball rolling on increasing physical fitness. However, seeing as we are the only country in the world that is this obese, I would say obesity is largely a product of culture and geography (we are in a good position for the transport of goods from many countries) rather than the individual. I now pose: How is it possible for the United States to become as physically fit as other countries without completely changing the culture and values of our country?

-Michelle

Getting Soft: Are You “Lovin’ It” ???

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:31 -0400

When JFK wrote about the “Soft American” in December of 1960, he started his essay with the legacy of the Olympian games. The Greek tradition, he claimed, was the foundation of the “vigor and vitality” respected throughout the Western world.

Today, the Olympic tradition no longer juxtaposes the “Soft America” that JFK warned us about. In fact, it has become soft itself. Ironically, it is the junk-food-giant McDonald’s that will be the official sponsor of the upcoming 2012 Olympic games in London. 2012 will be the ninth time McDonald’s sponsors the event, the first being the 1976 Montreal games. In the spirit of Olympia, McDonald’s plans to build their biggest restaurant yet. The colossal “official restaurant” of the Olympic games will seat 1,500 and is expected to sell 50,000 Big Macs and 180,000 servings of fries during the event.

As McDonald’s prepares to supersize their London supply of greasy foods, we have to wonder if the Olympic games really encourage viewers to be healthy and athletic. Despite decades of evidence related to the health risks of unhealthy nutrition, companies such as McDonald’s flourish. As people around the world get increasingly unhealthy, Mickey D’s has reported another healthy serving of quarterly results. McDonald’s first-quarter income gained 5% and now stands at $1.27 billion. The company is seeing some of the best results outside of the United States, as it constantly expands on the global scale. If it is any compensation to the “Soft American,” it looks like the rest of world is on its way to being soft as well.

Question: Why are McDonald’s sales on the rise despite the increased awareness of the health risks involved, and the surge in the popularity of healthy living? Should a company promoting bad health be an official sponsor of the Olympic Games?

-Sebastian

Obesity Epidemic

Wed, 25 Apr 2012 13:26:13 -0400

Diet related diseases kill more people in the country than tobacco, AIDS or Alcohol. Cardiovascular, Diabetes, Hyper tension are one of the many diet related diseases that are mostly preventable. Changing our eating habits can have a tremendous impact on our lives. Of course as we discussed in class, it is not easy to change our diet. Had we been told to eat healthy, (by our parents on the most part) we would make better choices about our eating habits. If only the parents could be responsible to feed their children proper meals while educating them about the importance of nutritious food, then perhaps we would not be battling child obesity epidemic.

Once such place where negligence by parents has taken its toll is in Huntington, W. Virginia which remains America’s fattest and unhealthiest city. Since the poverty rate is high, parent’s first choice is to buy cheap fattening food for their kids. Literacy rates are also low, resulting in less knowledge about the importance of nutritious food. When Chef Jamie Oliver, winner of TED Prize gave his award winning speech about his anti-obesity project in Huntington, Oliver stated , “Your child will live a life ten years younger than you because of the landscape of food that we’ve built around them.” Oliver didn’t make this statement only for the parents in Huntington, it was for all Americans. What really stood out from his speech is the lack of knowledge about vegetables and fruits among kids. Many kids simply did not know what a tomato was or even an apple. It is no surprise they grow up and develop food ignorance.

Of course this childhood obesity epidemic is not recent; it started decades ago with the invention of the fast food industry. John F.Kennedy pointed out this issue of ignorance and negligence a long time ago when he states “ But the harsh fact of the matter is that there is also an increasingly large number of young Americans who are neglecting their bodies-“( The Soft American). This statement raises the question, what is more important to Americans than health?

-Sara

http://www.ted.com/talks/jamie_oliver.html (TED)

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/lcod.htm (CDC)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27697364/ns/health-health_care/t/w-virginia-town-shrugs-being-fattest-city/#.T5gLnauJeLI

The Attack on the Global South

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:04:46 -0400

As we saw last week, the US has seen an increase in zero-tolerance policing, repressive tactics, exclusion from the population tactics and the militarization of its police force. In the article, “Neoliberal Globalization and the War on drugs” , we learn that since 1973 violent crime rates (in the US) have remained stable and property crime rates have fallen. What, then, is to account for the explosion in the prison population?… The Geographer Ruth Gilmore states, “it is the greater propensity to lock people up as opposed to peoples greater propensity to do old or new illegal things that accounts for 90% of US prison growth since 1980”. It is the idea that we have to look like we are doing something! In addition the article faults the media with “social spectacle for media profit” practices that have contributed to this war-on-crime attitude embraced by the government, local and federal. And who is targeted..of course it is the minorities and the poor. Thomas Friedman is quoted for his “hidden fist” metaphor as being a necessary part of the free markets hidden hand. Well the same militarized tactic used in the US against the poor is being implemented against the Global South. Just as in the US where the marginalized are often reduced to relying on an informal economy and are targeted because “we have to look like we are doing something”, the Global South, which is being exploited by globalization, and does not benefit from globalization, instead must rely on its own informal economy (at times, the drug world) and thus is targeted. This is yet another example of the powerful few wanting to maintain their stronghold at the expense of the disposable poor. If it weren’t for jihadist anti-globalizers ( I include anti- WTO organizers in this description), who would defend these tactics?

Question: What do anti-globalists need to do in order to bring attention to the targeting of poor countries for their involvement in the world wide drug trade? Does this include halting the engine of globalization? Do you support anti-globalizers if that includes jihadists?

beth

Awkward Allies: The Visa Waiver

Wed, 18 Apr 2012 13:01:14 -0400

The suggestions of visa related legislation are once again popping up in Washington. This time around, it is Sen. Charles E. Schumer, proposing that a number of nations are added to the Visa Waiver Program. The proposed legislation would allow potentially Polish nationals to visit the United States in a fashion identical to the other EU citizens.

I use terms like “once again” and “this time around” for a reason. The promise of the visa waiver has been, well… waived in front of Polish diplomats for nearly two decades. As it stands, Poland is the only nation in the EU without the benefit of the visa waiver. The situation is especially awkward, considering Poland’s historical alliance with the United States. The roots go deep. Polish Generals Kościuszko and Pułaski offered their services to Americans during the Revolutionary War. Pułaski died in Georgia, during the Battle of Savannah. Fast forward to the American invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq; Poland was one of the only EU nations offering both political and early military support. Today, Poland continues to estrange European partners and Russia through its unrestrained eagerness to assist the US in realizing the defense-shield program. Bearing in mind this mindless devotion to the US, the exclusion from travel privileges enjoyed by the rest of Europeans is insulting to say the least.

It is possible that in the next few years the issue of the visa might finally be resolved. Ironically, the decision is likely to have little to do with Poland’s status as America’s historical ally. Instead, the focus lies with the newly prosperous Polish consumer class – “Less paperwork and fair treatment … will lead to more tourists coming.” It will “boost our economy” said Sen. Schumer. What power then can trump the so-called visa regime? The answer seems to be clear, the power of money.