Called The Let’s Move campaign, the program focuses on what families, communities and the public and private sectors can do to help fight childhood obesity, which she and health experts have termed an epidemic in the United States. The campaign aims to take steps to reduce childhood obesity within a generation.
As I wrote yesterday, I’m delighted that the growing obesity epidemic is a primary focus for the White House. I liked the details announced today regarding improved packaging information to help parents offer better nutrition to their kids at home. Also, I have to ask myself why kids weren’t being given fruits and vegetables in school cafeteria lunches before now?
I am, however, a little concerned that the Let’s Move campaign details announced today focused primarily on nutrition.
What we need, also, is a commitment to provide state funding to help public schools support physical education classes. No Child Left Behind essentially signed a death warrant for all extracurricular classes. A friend of mine volunteers his time to teach kids physical education during recess because gym classes were axed to ensure schools could meet No Child Left Behind standards and avoid funding cuts.
And there’s talk in Southern Arizona of eliminating recess as well.
We can’t just fight childhood obesity by helping kids cut calories; let’s get them outside and… well… moving.
Daniel Dae Kim, of Lost, is the first member of the cast to find work after the show’s much-touted May series finale. (And you’re crazy if you’re not watching this show. Last week was mind-blowingly-oh-my-god-they-did-not-just-do-that awesome.) DDK’s going to play Detective Chin Ho Kelly on CBS’ remake of Hawaii Five-O.
And, hey, maybe he’ll even get to speak English, and not pidgin, in this new show!
I was delighted to read this afternoon that the First Lady is gearing up for a campaign to end childhood obesity in this country. Scheduled to announce her initiatives tomorrow, Michelle Obama is hoping to raise awareness about the growing obesity epidemic in this country, largely affecting the nation’s children.
On Tuesday, the first lady will unveil the details of her comprehensive plan, the broad outline of which, she told a meeting of key members of Congress and the Cabinet, include four main elements: increasing the number of healthy schools; increasing the amount of physical activity children receive; improving accessibility and affordability of healthy foods; and empowering consumers and families to make healthier food choices. She’ll spell out the details in the coming days.
The childhood obesity epidemic is the newest front in the battle of the bulge, and Mrs. Obama should be praised for using her mass appeal to shed light on it. She is right to argue, as she has, that there is no one solution, federal or otherwise.
Stopping this epidemic will require complementary efforts that bring together government, families, schools, foundations, businesses and others. Here’s hoping that people across America hear Mrs. Obama’s call to action and join the national campaign to end childhood obesity. Our collective future, in no small part, depends on its success.
Honestly, it’s about dang time that this nation took tangible steps to end the obesity epidemic and raise the health of this country. Over the last several months, I’ve been shocked by the growing waistline of Americans; it feels as if everywhere I turn these days, I see obese men, women and children trapped in a fast food culture.
Currently, 1 in 3 Americans are obese, based on their body mass index (which I’ve railed against, but I digress). Obesity has been linked to increased risk for a host of diseases, including heart attack and diabetes. But, what’s most striking is that obesity is directly associated with socioeconomic status: the poorer you are, the more likely you are to be obese (particularly if you are a woman).
We see this relationship directly in data presented by Baum and Ruhm that compared measures of obesity against socioeconomic status (I graphed the data from Table 2).
But we also see this relationship when we look at the median household income in the top eleven most obese states in America: states with higher rates of obesity tend to have lower median household incomes.
State
Income
% Obese
Mississippi
36674
32.8
Alabama
40751
31.4
W. Virginia
40611
31.2
Tenessee
43458
30.6
Oklahoma
41497
30.3
S. Carolina
43338
30.1
Kentucky
41320
29.8
N. Carolina
44411
29
Michigan
51305
28.9
Ohio
48884
28.7
Arkansas
40001
28.7
In fact, if we graph these data for all states, we see an inverse relationship between obesity prevalence and median household income:
And finally, we also see a similar trend when we look across racial lines: minority groups with lower median household income (I used the 2006 numbers to match the year when the obesity data were collected) status tend to have higher rates of obesity.
(And no, I didn’t run any statistics on any of this stuff. What am I, some kind of number-crunching dork who likes to analyse data for fun? ^_^)
My point in all of this? Obesity is a health epidemic that disproportionately affects the poor. In a way, our continued cultural apathy towards obesity (childhood or otherwise) is a popularly condoned death sentence for the impoverished. Inaction when it comes to the obesity epidemic sends this message: yes, we believe the poor deserve to die.
The idea of anti-Asian bias in college admissions is gaining further traction in mainstream media. This article in the Boston Globe perpetuates the rather simplistic idea that equates higher mean SAT scores for Asian applicants with an “Asian Ceiling” that discriminates against Asian American students.
The article draws on Espenshade’s study, which I reviewed last year, and which can lead to an oversimplification (dare I say “white-washing) of the situation. At least my friend Oiyan Poon gets it right:
“When you look at the private Ivy Leagues, some of them are looking at Asian-American applicants with a different eye than they are white applicants,’’ says Oiyan Poon, the 2007 president of the University of California Students Association. “I do strongly believe in diversity, but I don’t agree with increasing white numbers over historically oppressed populations like Asian-Americans, a group that has been denied civil rights and property rights.’’ But Poon, now a research associate at the University of Massachusetts Boston, warns that there are downsides to having huge numbers of Asian-Americans on a campus.
In California, where passage of a 1996 referendum banned government institutions from discriminating on the basis of race, Asians make up about 40 percent of public university students, though they account for only 13 percent of residents. “Some Asian-American students feel that they lost something by going to school at a place where almost half of their classmates look like themselves – a campus like UCLA. The students said they didn’t feel as well prepared in intercultural skills for the real world.’’
Oh yeah, and is anyone else creeped out that there was a seminar at a national college admissions conference that was titled, in all earnestness, “Too Asian?”
Last night on Keith Olbermann, Olbermann asked Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas what he would do to end “political gridlock” in Washington. Moulitsas replied “kill the filibuster”:
KEITH OLBERMANN: In 30 seconds, what do we do to fix it [our political system]?
MARKOS MOULITSAS: Well, our system is broken. Mostly the Senate. In 30 seconds I can do it quicker: kill the filibuster. And that’s something I hope Democrats start looking into.
Oh, has it only been a five years since Democrats were decrying the Republican threat of invoking the ”nuclear option” in response to Bush’s Supreme Court nominations? Now, all of a sudden, Democratic pundits are the ones criticizing the use of the filibuster.
Daily Kos afficionados might applaud Moulitsas’ comment. And yes, I support healthcare reform, and am frustrated by the slow lingering death of the various healthcare reform proposals in Congress — many of them being stymied by Republicans. And yes, it seems unfair that 40 committed senators (or 41, as the case may be) can stop 60 senators in their tracks with one well-placed filibuster.
But, it’s incredibly short-sided for Moulitsas and other left-wingers to blame the failure of healthcare reform on the mere existence of the filibuster rule.
The filibuster has always existed as a desperate measure intended to help avoid a simple “majority rules” mentality in the Senate. Having a majority of votes in the Senate grants the ruling party a significant advantage over the minority party, yet the purpose of the Senate — more so than the House — is to ensure careful debate over any and all pieces of legislation. Without the filibuster, the party that holds the most votes could simply force through whatever piece of legislation they would like, and the representatives of the minority party are little more than seat-warmers. The filbuster exists in case the members of the majority party lose their mind, and want to push through a bill without any adequate debate from the members of the minority party; in other words, the filibuster exists to ensure that the little guy can be heard.
Yet, a cloture vote — which requires 60 votes to end a filibuster — is not the only way to end a filibuster. Indeed, some of the most famous filibusters in history ended because the guy talking for 22 hours straight got sleepy or needed to pee — a person simply can’t stand and talk in one place for more than 24 hours.
If we want to pass healthcare reform (or any piece of critical legislation), we need only look to history. Strom Thurmond’s filibuster of the Civil Rights Act didn’t prevent its passage in 1965. Senator Huey Long’s 15 hour filibuster of the Glass-Steagall Banking Act didn’t stop banking reform.
So, I say this: if Republicans want to filibuster healthcare reform, let them. Let the Republicans draw straws to pick a representative amongst them to pee in Gatorade bottles and down throat lozenges to speak for 20 hours on why Americans don’t need healthcare. If they have a point — which they don’t – than voters across the country will be able to hear it for themselves.
But when it’s clear that the Republicans don’t have a point, let’s see whether voters will vote in favour of the party that wants to ensure that the sick get the live-saving treatment they deserve, or whether they will vote back into office the guys who actually gridlocked Washington for 24 hours trying to stop doctors from treating patients.
But let’s end this dumb talk over getting rid of the filibuster. It comes off as petty and myopic. Moulitsas’ comment comes from the same partisan bickering that has characterized the last two decades in Washington. I guarantee that if a Republican majority were elected to Congress tomorrow, we would find Moulitsas on Rachel Maddow tomorrow night defending the filibuster as a noble and time-honoured political tradition.
I just caught this on CNN: a 1998 study “showing” a link between measles vaccinations and autism has been retracted by The Lancet. The 1998 Wakefield et al. paper reported that in a study of 12 children, GI abnormalities and onset of autism was associated with a measles vaccination were found in 8 of the patients, leading the authors of the paper to conclude that the measles vaccination led to failure of the GI tract, causing waste to enter the blood and producing autism.
As you can see from the Pubmed abstract, the 1998 Wakefield et al. paper attracted heavy criticism and comment, sparking a heated debate in the published literature. Walker-Smith’s lab (out of which the original 1998 paper was published) issued a partial retraction in 2004, clarifying that the original paper was not intended to demonstrate a causal link between measles vaccine and autism. Furthermore, manypapers published by other investigators subsequent to Wakefield et al. demonstrated findings contradicting Wakefield’s initial causal conclusion — yet, in the popular media, Wakefield et al’s paper became a fundamental piece of “evidence” in the growing anti-vaccination hysteria that has taken the country by storm over the last decade.
Following the judgment of the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel on Jan 28, 2010, it has become clear that several elements of the 1998 paper by Wakefield et al1 are incorrect, contrary to the findings of an earlier investigation.2 In particular, the claims in the original paper that children were “consecutively referred” and that investigations were “approved” by the local ethics committee have been proven to be false. Therefore we fully retract this paper from the published record.
Basically, here’s what happened — recently, the UK General Medical Council’s Fitness to Practise Panel met to discuss and review the investigative and ethical practices of the original 1998 Wakefield et al. paper. The panel found that, contrary to earlier reports, the study used shady and unethical practices for recruiting patients and collecting data, including Wakefield paying children for their blood samples at his son’s birthday party.
For those of you who don’t know, all human studies (like all animal studies) undergo a rigorous review prior to implementation to ensure that patient safety and scientific rigor are maintained. Very rarely does an investigator implement such poor scientific method that they invalidate their own findings, yet it turns out that Wakefield was one of these scientists.
Hopefully, this full retraction will begin to dismantle the rampant anti-vaccination hysteria we’ve seen in association with flu vaccines, chicken pox vaccines, and the latest H1N1 vaccine. I find parents’ fear of vaccination to be anti-intellectual at its core; they fear what they don’t understand.
But let’s get it straight: vaccines don’t hurt you, they help you. Vaccines can save your child’s life, and they sure as heck won’t give your kid autism. Go get your kid vaccinated already; when your kid gets sick, it’s already too late.