Rep. John Lewis on the Inauguration

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

Obama Reverse on Abortion Likely

By Suzanne Malveaux
CNN White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President-elect Barack Obama is considering issuing an executive order to reverse a controversial Bush administration abortion policy in his first week in office, three Democratic sources said Monday.

Obama's second full day as president falls on the 36th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court decision legalizing abortion in the United States.

The sources said Obama may use the occasion to reverse the "Mexico City policy" reinstated in 2001 by Bush that prohibits U.S. money from funding international family planning groups that promote abortion or provide information, counseling or referrals about abortion services. It bans any organization receiving family planning funds from the U.S. Agency for International Development from offering abortions or abortion counseling.

The "Mexico City policy," commonly referred to by critics as "the global gag rule," was devised by President Ronald Reagan in 1984 at a population conference in Mexico City.

President Bill Clinton lifted the ban in January 1993 as one of his first acts as president, but President George W. Bush reinstated it in his first executive order on January 22, 2001, the 28th anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

At the time, critics -- including Planned Parenthood -- called the move a "legislative ambush."

Bush defended the action, saying then: "It is my conviction that taxpayer funds should not be used to pay for abortion or actively promote abortion."

Obesity isn't the Government's Problem

When it comes to hot topics obesity isn't one of that readily rises to the top. However, obesity is a topic being debated in America today. The government thinks obesity, an over weight person, is a big problem in the Unites States today. The government say's that obesity should be stopped and that schools and restaurants should start serving healthy food. However, when someone becomes obese it's not the restaurants fault. Jeffry Axelrad, in the article "Ad Restrictions diminish kids Rights to Freedom of choice," states "Kids should have the choice to choose what they want to eat whether it is healthy or not." All men have been given the freedom to choose. One of the few choices kids get to make is what they want to eat. In Nebraska the legal adult age is 19 years old. Until kids turn 19, their parent's have control over them. Deciding what they like is one of the few freedoms they do have. Also Axelrad states that "Attempting to change kids' eating habits through restrictions on their exposure to food marketing efforts is a thoroughly distasteful, puritanical crusade." Even as FDA is trying to stop obesity the people do not want to change their eating habits though they know that the meals have high calories. People choose to go to restaurants and they choose to order high calorie foods. It's not right for the government to make restaurants and schools stop serving foods that sell just because the kids are making unhealthy food choices. If the government legislates this they are taking away customers and profit from the restaurants. According to the NPD group, 73% of adults 18 years and older did worry about the calories they were eating. Even so, fried food sales just keep growing (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Chief Officer of Link Incorporation states that "There's no way in hell consumers will change their habits now," (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Bad habits are hard to break and with the way the economy is going right now it is unwise to try and change the way people eat. So many businesses are going under that we should be trying to avoid anything that could throw the United States economy into the Great Depression II. American's these day's, especially teens, are stubborn as molasses and refuse to eat anything they don't like. It is a waste of time and money to try and fix obesity now when the economy is so bad. Coen of Coen company in Pacific Palisades, California states that "food companies have to make every marketing dollar work in their competitive battle, and there is no question that most chains are better off when they offer people what they want and advertise that fact to them." (Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report). Now businesses need to do what they can to stay on the top. They do whatever they can and sell whatever they need to too keep their costumers coming back again. In the United States the people are free to make the choice on what they want to eat. It is wrong for the government to take control of the American peoples eating habits at restaurants and schools when the people in America were promised freedom.

Lil BK

Works Cited

Axelrad, Jeffrey. "Ad Restrictions Diminish Kids' Right to Freedom of Choice." Sirs. 24 Feb. 2005. 14 Jan. 2009 .

Cebrzynski, Gregg. "Policy Pros, Marketers Question FDA's Anti-Obesity Report." Sirs. 12 June 2006. 14 Jan. 2009 .

How Americans Say Bush Will Go Down In History

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