Take It Easy On The Snack Packs

Obesity is a matter of personal responsibility of whether to choose to eat healthy or not. A big percentage of the United States population would choose to go get a greasy fast food burger than get a healthy salad. With this poor choice of food can come consequences, which puts on excessive amounts of weight called obesity, as well as illness, disabilities, and death.
The government has tried to put some action into the matter, but has not gone the greater distance to decrease this problem enough. There needs to be more sufficient laws passed to create healthier menus at fast food restaurants, and also sold in quick shops. I read in an article written by Gregg Cebrzynski where he discusses how many fast food restaurants have put up new healthy foods on their menu but take them down because they don't sell. What they need to do instead of taking it off the menu is put more healthy items on the menu so that there is a greater selection of healthy items. This would allow for people to go out and get something quick to eat while it being a healthy purchase.
According to the Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine many people that are obese are more subjective to getting diabetes, cancer, or a heart attack. Having at least extra 20% of body weight can put a toll on the human body fairly quick. People all across the world that are obese experience ankle, knee, and feet problems which can limit mobility. As well as disease and disabilities obesity can cause death. Approximately 300,000 deaths a year are contributed to these bad eating habits and choices. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. labeled obesity as the second leading cause of preventable deaths in America. With this alarming statistic the government should act upon this because this shows that many deaths in the U.S. could be prevented. If a few laws were passed to reduce the amount of unhealthy foods available then there would be a major decrease in the amount of obese people each year, which would increase the efficiency of our society.
There are many different ways in which that number could be reduced by many thousands. From eating a reasonable amount of food, exercising, and knowing nutritional value; these are all ways to help lose or maintain a steady weight. By cutting down a little on each meal can help lose many calories. Also by knowing the nutritional values of the food that is being eaten can help. By eating foods with less fat and less calories it would help reduce weight over time. Another way of cutting down on weight is exercise. It is the most efficient way to work the heart to keep the cardiovascular system strong. It will also work off a lot of the fat that is on the body.
With all of this being said it should be brought attention to that obesity is a growing problem in the United States that gets worse each year. There should be more enforced laws or instructions for fast food restaurants to create healthier menus and more advertisement on ways to lose weight. Overtime I think that it would help tremendous if more action was done about this matter of obesity.











Works Cited
Carson-DeWitt, Rosalyn, and Rebecca J. Frey. "Obesity." Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Gale Group, 2002.
Opponents, comp. "Obesity." SIRS. Online database. 13 Jan. 2009 .
ProQuest Staff, comp. "Obesity Timeline." Obesity Timeline (2008).



Posted by Jammin7

New Direction for Foreign Relations

AS SENATOR Hillary Clinton appears before the Senate Foreign Relations
Committee today for confirmation hearings as secretary of state, the
foreign policy agenda of the US government is confronting many
challenges. We are engaged in wars in different stages in Afghanistan
and Iraq. Global climate change represents a potential catastrophe.
The danger from the spread of nuclear weapons and technology remains
significant.

Yet it would be wrong to infer that we cannot triumph over the torrent
of troubles afflicting the world today. After eight years of
unilateral decision-making on the world stage and log rolling and
partisan paralysis at home, we have an opportunity to reshape the way
the United States does business with the world. We can resolve these
issues by reasserting our moral leadership and restoring the world's
trust in us through multilateral problem-solving rooted in diplomacy.

The Defense Department has fulfilled the enormous burdens placed upon
our men and women overseas with honor and professionalism. But the
road to reestablishing American leadership and improving the lives of
our citizens and the rest of the world also runs through the State
Department and the Congress. As incoming chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee, I am determined to push an agenda that recognizes
a new reality, returns civilian functions to civilians, and enhances
the ability of US diplomats to play the leading role in solving these
problems through effective foreign assistance and diplomacy.

We live under the constant threat of catastrophic terrorism. In recent
weeks, we have heard chilling warnings about the prospect of nuclear
terrorism. No issue is more urgent than dealing with nuclear
proliferation. And none cries out louder for international
cooperation. We need to signal the world that the United States is
again ready to lead the way toward a world free of nuclear weapons.
The ultimate goal may be far in the future, but now is the time to
begin the journey with two dramatic steps.

First, I will urge the Obama administration to embrace the goal of
reducing our strategic nuclear arsenals to 1,000 deployed warheads and
work to persuade the Russians to do the same. That number is more than
enough to keep us and our allies safe, but it will tell the world that
we are determined to fulfill our responsibilities to eventually
eliminate these doomsday weapons. In conjunction, it is essential that
the new administration immediately open serious discussions with the
Russians on extending or replacing the landmark Strategic Arms
Reduction Treaty, which expires in less than a year.

Second, I will begin working to build the necessary bipartisan support
for US ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty,
which would impose a worldwide ban on nuclear testing under the watch
of a far-reaching verification regime. Winning approval of two-thirds
of the Senate will be a long and difficult process. It will require
the unyielding support of the Obama administration and my colleagues
on both sides of the aisle. But success would be the single greatest
arms control accomplishment for the new Senate and it would
reestablish America's traditional leadership role on nonproliferation.

Just as we must work diligently to prevent a nuclear attack, the same
leadership must be applied to avert a potential disaster of equal
magnitude - global climate change. For eight years, the United States
has been the world's laggard on this vital issue, and the global
community craves new and aggressive leadership. We need to send a
strong and certain message that we are ready to lead the effort to
combat climate change through action at home and active engagement
with other countries to develop a comprehensive new treaty.

In two months, negotiators will meet for the next round of discussions
on a pact to replace the Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012. The
essential elements of that treaty must be defined by the next
Conference of Parties in Copenhagen this December. The time is short
and the task is tremendous. The Senate has a vital role to play in
defining the scope of the treaty to meet this urgent challenge.
And just as we must work with allies and other progressive nations to
meet these challenges, we need the assistance of the international
community to achieve stability in the Middle East and find a solution
to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Strengthening our alliances
through leadership and cooperation will help when it comes to
persuading Iran to abandon its nuclear weapons ambitions and to
deliver the political and economic stability we seek in Afghanistan
and across South Asia.
The common element in this formula for a new foreign policy is
replacing military solutions and unilateral action with diplomacy and
multi-national consensus. Clinton's work on the Armed Services
Committee, her lifetime of public service, and her global stature have
prepared her well to help pave this new road for American leadership.

Senator John F. Kerry of Massachusetts is chairman of the Foreign
Relations Committee.

(c) Copyright 2009 Globe Newspaper Company.

Posted by Rambunctious Mongoose

Pretty Talk and Ugly Realities

 

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | No phrase represents more of a triumph of hope over experience than the phrase "Middle East peace process." A close second might be the once-fashionable notion that Israel should "trade land for peace."

Since everybody seems to be criticizing Israel for its military response to the rockets being fired into their country from the Gaza strip, let me add my criticisms as well. The Israelis traded land for peace, but they have never gotten the peace, so they should take back the land.

Maybe a couple of generations of Palestinians in Gaza living in peace under Israeli occupation and a couple of generations of the occupation troops squelching the terrorists — "militants" for those of you who are squeamish — would set up conditions where the Palestinians would be free to vote on whether they would like to remain occupied or to have their own state — minus terrorists and their rockets.

Casualty totals alone should be enough to show that the Palestinian people are the biggest losers from the current situation, where the terrorists among them, firing rockets into Israel, can bring devastating retaliatory strikes.

Why don't the Palestinians vote for some representatives who would make a lasting peace with Israel? Because any such candidates would be killed by the terrorists long before election day, so nobody volunteers for that dangerous role.

We don't know what the Palestinians really want — and won't know as long as they are ruled by Hamas, Hezbollah and the like.

Whatever the benefits of peace for the Palestinian population, what are the terrorists going to do in peacetime? Become librarians and furniture salesmen?

So-called "world opinion" has been a largely negative factor in this situation. Nothing is easier than for people living in peace and safety in Paris or Rome to call for a "cease fire" after the Israelis retaliate against people who are firing rockets into their country.

The time to cease fire was before the rockets were fired.

What do calls for "cease fire" and "negotiations" do? They lower the price of launching attacks. This is true not only in the Middle East but in other parts of the world as well.

During the Vietnam war, when American clergymen were crying out "Stop the bombing!" they paid little attention to the fact that bombing pauses made it easier for North Vietnam to move more ammunition into South Vietnam to kill both South Vietnamese and Americans.

After Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands, if British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher had heeded calls for a "cease fire," that would have simply lowered the price to be paid by the Argentine government for their invasion.

Go back a hundred years — before there was a United Nations and before "world opinion" was taken into account.

An Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands at that time would have risked not only a British counter-attack to retake the islands but also British attacks on Argentina itself.

Anywhere in the world, attacks such as those on Israel today would not only have risked retaliation but invasion and annihilation of the government that launched those attacks.

Today, so-called "world opinion" not only limits the price to be paid for aggression or terrorism, it has even led to the self-indulgence of third parties talking pretty talk about limiting the response of those who are attacked to what is "proportionate."

By this reasoning, we should not have declared war on Japan for bombing Pearl Harbor. We should have gone over to Japan, bombed one of their harbors — and let it go at that.

Does anyone imagine that this would have led to Japan's becoming as peaceful today as it has become after Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

Or is the real agenda to engage in moral preening from a safe distance and at somebody else's expense?

Those who think "negotiations" are a magic answer seem not to understand that when A wants to annihilate B, this is not an "issue" that can be resolved amicably around a conference table.

~~reagan 08

 

'A Corrective Coup' in Thailand - Surin

BRUSSELS (IPS Asia-Pacific) - The Sep 19, 2006 coup in Thailand shouldn't be looked at by the international community as a loss of democracy but, rather, as a 'corrective' measure to prevent autocracy from completely taking over.

This, in a nutshell, is former Thai foreign minister Surin Pitsuwan's analysis of recent political upheavals that plagued his country. Speaking at an 'Asian Voices' seminar in Brussels, Belgium, the director of Thailand's Democratic Party believed that democracy did not die in the coup led by army general Sonthi Boonyaratklin, but was, in fact, saved just in time.

"Thailand is a young democracy facing tremendous pressure from competition with the outside world. We have been misled for the past five years. On the outside, it looked like that we have lost the democratic process. But if you were in Thailand, you would appreciate the fact that it was a necessary coup, a corrective coup," said Surin, who is now also a member of the National Legislative Assembly installed by the military-led government.

Explaining that he is neither defending nor rationalising the coup, Surin outlined several reasons that could have led to such drastic change in government in this South-east Asian country.

Surin said that "there was little semblance of democracy in the Thai political system" in the last five years under ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra's term. "It was (an) extremely autocratic (government). Civil liberties were contained, if not done away with. The media had been intimidated if they did not toe the line. The bureaucracy was completely under (his) control and was highly politicised. The system of checks and balances was gone. The constitutional process was manipulated. Corruption was widespread," he said.

He added that, being a young democracy, the nation was led to believe the promises of what many thought of as a strong and forthright leadership, especially against the backdrop of frequent changes in government and prime ministers in the past.

"Any emerging democracy comes under tremendous pressure of globalisation and intense competition and, naturally, its people will be very much attracted to a very strong leadership that promises to protect its constituents from the pressures of globalisation and give the nation a vision," Surin said.

Once ruled by a succession of kings, Thailand became a constitutional monarchy in 1932. The country was plagued by a series of coup d'etats up until the early 1990s when democratic processes were brought back. In 2001, telecommunications magnate Thaksin Shinawatra was elected prime minister, and was reelected in 2005.

In recent weeks, Thaksin has been giving interviews to foreign journalists. In the interview with 'Time' magazine in its Feb. 12 issue, he said that while many Thais have accepted the coup, "They are watching what (the new rulers) are doing and when they will return democracy to the people."

Surin said that the Thaksin government initially caught the attention of the people for its "strong dose of nationalism". Another component it had, he added, was populism. "All sorts of populist programmes have been thought up. Easy credit, free health care -- all sorts of credit  schemes were given the villages. For the first time, the people, who used to be very marginalised in the countryside, were brought centre-side in Thai politics," said Surin.

The popularity of populism, he added, holds true in other countries such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, even in Mexico and parts of central Asia.

"A third element is corruption. You cannot propel populism and sustain the interest and support of the people without some fund to sustain these programmes," he continued.

To be able to push these elements forward, according to Surin, a fourth component is needed -- authoritarianism.  "You have to suppress all criticism and make sure you have enough supporters in the parliament. (The Thaksin government) used money in order to win seats in parliament," he said.

Surin believed that the past government was given too much power, what with 377 seats out of 500 being won by Thaksin's Thai Rak Thai Party. The 1997 Constitution, he noted, stipulated that 200 votes out of 500 are needed to file a no-confidence motion against the Prime Minister.

The sale of the Thaksin family-owned Shin Corp to Singapore-based investment company, Temasek Holdings, for 3 billion U.S. dollars that led to tax evasion charges against the former prime minister was the straw that broke the camel's back, said Surin.

The former deputy foreign minister observed that about 90 percent of Thais approved of the coup for it gave them another chance to bring back the democratic system undermined by the Thaksin government.

Citing the Thais' loyalty to their King, Surin said they prefer the monarchy's self-sufficiency economy, which calls for living within one's means and one that is characterised as "ethical, quiet, persuasive, and not too materialistic".

"Thaksin's leadership style, on the other hand, was seen by many as bombastic, aggressive, confrontational, noisy and acquisitive. (So) the people chose the kind of leadership they have been used to for the last six decades," he noted, referring to the rule of the world's longest reigning monarch.

Thailand's tumultuous political history showed that the King was always called to "defuse the conflict every single time", Surin explained, but he also said that society needs to have a stable political system so that it does not need to turn to others to address political problems.

Touching briefly on the insurgency problem in Thailand's South, Surin is convinced that the thousands of killings in the mostly Muslim provinces are a consequence of the previous government's leadership style.

"It's all a reflection of what is happening in Bangkok. There is lack of respect for the rule of law, intolerance, and the centralisation of power. It's the CEO approach -- 'Listen to me, I know best how to run the country'. The people who were appointed to go down to the Deep South were those who knew nothing about the problems, the sensitivities and the diversity in those provinces," he said.

Surin says he is hopeful that the junta would be true to its promise to vacate power in a year's time, citing the King's iteration on the eve of his birthday on Dec. 5 that there would be a new government by September 2007. He also says that the undercurrents of discontent in the wake of the coup among people opposed to the junta and military rule, and the pressure this puts on the coup, leaders are a good sign.

"We are committed to go back on the road to democracy after having been led astray for the last five years. It is not going to be easy. We are working on the new Constitution (after the 1997 Constitution was suspended by the military government).We just want your understanding," he pointed out.

http://www.ipsnewsasia.net/bridgesfromasia/node/88

Posted by Captain Planet

 

Hard Numbers on Obama?s Redistribution Plan

The Tax Policy Center's recent analysis of the presidential tax plans has received a considerable amount of attention in the press. While much of the focus has been on how much or how little each plan benefits "middle-class" taxpayers, little attention has been paid to how each plan affects the overall distribution of the nation's tax burden.

On this account, the plans are vastly different. Under the McCain plan, since every taxpayer gets a tax cut, the overall distribution of the federal tax burden remains roughly the same as it is today. Under the Obama plan, because some taxpayers get a tax cut and others get a substantial tax increase, the overall distribution of the federal tax burden changes quite considerably.

In short, the Obama plan would redistribute more than $131 billion per year from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers. In 2009, for example, Tax Policy Center figures show that after the income-shifting in the Obama plan, the top 1 percent of taxpayers would pay a greater share of the total federal tax burden than the bottom 80 percent of Americans combined. In other words, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.

These figures do not include the impact of Obama's proposal to apply Social Security payroll taxes on incomes above $250,000. According to Tax Policy Center estimates, this plan would increase the tax burden of top earners by an additional $40 billion in 2009 alone and more than $629 billion over the next ten years. By itself, the $40 billion tax hike is twice as much as all the federal taxes paid by people in the bottom quintile combined.

To put the Obama plan in context, it is important to understand how divided America's tax burden already is between a large group of Americans who pay little or nothing and a shrinking group of upper-income taxpayers who shoulder the lion's share of the burden. For example:

• In 1999, about 30 million tax filers had no income tax liability after taking advantage of their credits and deductions. By 2006, the number of non-payers had grown to nearly 44 million, one-third of all income tax filers.
• According to the Congressional Budget Office, in 2005, the top 20 percent of households paid 86.3 percent of income taxes while the bottom 80 percent paid a collective 13.7 percent of the income tax burden. The top 1 percent of households paid 38.8 percent of income taxes.
• Looking at all federal taxes, in 1990, the bottom 80 percent of households paid 42 percent of the tax burden while the top 1 percent of households paid about 16 percent. By 2005, the share of all federal taxes paid by the bottom 80 percent of households had fallen to 31 percent, while the share paid by the wealthiest households had risen to nearly 28 percent.
• A recent Tax Foundation study found that in 2004, the nation's tax and spending policies redistributed more than $1 trillion in income from the top 40 percent of American households to the bottom 60 percent of households.

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/23319.html

 

posted by Captain Planet

01/03/09: President-elect Obama's Weekly Address

Congressional Predictions for 2009