Food Rules #3

One of the cool aspects of this book is that it gives you tips about how to shop and what to look out for while fighting a larger issue. This book is  in fact about the food you consume and why some of it may be very unhealthy for you but cloaked in banners of "health".  This is about gov't or someone compromising our health for the benefit of big business like Monsanto who controls most of the grain in the US. Many people seem to be confused about whether food is an issue in America. It is huge.  Michelle Obama is behind it and it is one her pet campaigns but also many other groups. There are dangerous additives to virtually all the products we consume and that we put on our bodies. From Obesity to the fake additives and dangerous carcinogens that are unknowingly added to our foods and given incompressible names, there is a problem in this country. Many people are ignorant to the fact that obesity is a huge issue in America. Many have the mindset that its not my problem so why should I care. We need to start caring. For those who are interested in politics then you know what the new Health care system entails. Not only do people with weight issues usually have other health problems, but for those who constantly indulge chemicals and disgusting products into their bodies they will eventually have health problems as well. The point im trying to make is eventually when you pay for their health care with your taxes you will care what they (and you eat). If your pay check  takes 50% of your pay so that everyone has healthcare you will care what people eat.   In the end we pay for all of the problems we have.

Food Rules #2

Eat Food
This is easier said than done. Today supermarkets have on average forty-seven thousand products. Is all of this really food? The industry doesn't want you to know the truth about what you are eating, because if you knew the truth then you wouldn't want to eat it. In Pollan's book, Food Rules, he explains the problems that supermarkets pose to American health and how food companies have never been so powerful in our history.  When shopping at the supermarket you should always plan on buying products from food sections along the perimeter of the store. What are these products? These are typically your dairy (milk, cheese, etc..), chicken, fish, and beef. These can actually be considered food. What Pollan warns us about is what kind of stuff are we eating when we decide to shop within the aisles.  When you go through the supermarket there is an illusion of diversity.  So much of our industrial food turns out to be rearrangements of corn, for ex: ketchup, cheese, Twinkies, batteries, and peanut butter. Were never truly eating real food. For example, if I take a package of "Rice A Roni" from my kitchen and look at the ingredient, only a few sound remotely normal. What is ferrous sulfate? Thiamin  monoitrate? Riboflavin? Niacin? When I read those ingrediants it sounds like im putting a chemistry project into my body. On occasion a package of "Rice A Roni" is ok to eat. But in America, much of our population depends on cheap, fast, prepackaged food, that they will buy in bunches because it doesn't go bad. Its when this food is consumed on a daily basis is when we have to worry because its making us sick.  Its shocking that the FDA wants to allow the sell of meat from animals without any labeling of where its coming from. In recent years we have seen numerous cases of ecoli and salmonella being in our food products. For instance the "Peter Pan" brand of peanut butter needed to be taken off the shelf because it was making Americans fatally ill. Ecoli has been found countless times in our spinach and even apple juice. The ingredients that go into the "food" we eat, doesn't do us any good.  It only makes us sick but very little is being done by the food industry to help the people because all they want to do is sit back on the countless amount of money we spend eating crap each year.

FOOD RULES

The book Food Rules by Michael Pollan discusses the reasons why American's deal with obesity and why our eating habits have to change. Michael Pollan is the author of five previous books, including In Defense of Food, a number one New York Times bestseller, and The Omnivore's Dilemma, which was named one of the ten best books of the year by both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Fact . Populations eating a remarkably wide range of traditional diets generally don't suffer from these chronic diseases. These diets run the gamut from ones very high in fat (the Inuit in Greenland subsists largely on seal rubber) to ones high in carbohydrate (Central American Indians subsist largely on maize and beans) to ones very high in protein (Masai tribesman in Africa subsist chiefly on cattle blood, meat, and milk), to cite three rather extreme examples. But much the same holds true for more mixed traditional diets. What this suggests is that there is no single ideal human diet but that the human omnivore is exquisitely adapted to a wide range of different foods and a variety of different diets. Except, that is, for one: the relatively new Western diet that most of us now are eating. What an extraordinary achievement for a civilization:to have developed the one diet that reliably makes its people sick! It has been shown that people who get off the Western diet see dramatic improvements in their health. In one analysis, a typical American population that departed even modestly from the Western diet could reduce its chances of getting coronary heart disease by 80 percent, its chances of type 2 diabetes by 90 percent, and its chances of colon cancer by 70 percent. If Americans made changes in their diet, and they don't even have to be major, we could see a total decrease in health issues that Americans suffer from every year. The health care industry makes more money treating chronic diseases ( which account for three quarters of the $2 trillion plus we spend each year on health care in this country) than preventing them. In an economy where we need to control our spending and where our money goes, an effort needs to be put in to not only treat disease and infection but help prevent. And all that is is just knowing what you're putting into your body and how this may effect you.

MTV Credited For Decline In Teen Pregnancy Rates

From the chaotic family dynamics to the aftermath of childbirth, MTV's hit show "16 and Pregnant" has illustrated that teen parenthood is not always an easy journey. These candid glimpses inside the trials of young parents apparently are making a mark on youth across America, as the series is being credited with helping to spur a decrease in teen pregnancy.
According to a new government study, U.S teen birthrates plunged dramatically in 2009 after a five percent increase from 2005 to 2007. And a report by National Campaign to Prevent Teen and Unplanned Pregnancy recognizes "16 and Pregnant," specifying that 82 percent of teenagers credit the hit show in helping them understand the challenges that come with unexpected parenthood.
Bill Albert, a spokesman for the National Campaign, believes that "16 and Pregnant" helps broaden insight into teen pregnancy. "Entertainment media is one of the nation's favorite punching bags, but we have to acknowledge that when we're talking about teen pregnancies media can be and often is a force for good, and that is particularly true when it comes to shows like '16 and Pregnant,' " he said.
While "16 and Pregnant" has received some media criticism for its apparent glamorization of its subject, Albert stands by the findings of the survey. "Some critics say these shows glamorize teen pregnancy, but our survey data shows that's not the case," he pointed out. "That not only do they not glamorize it, but teens who have seen it suggest it makes the realities of teen parenthood more real to them."
 I find it very interesting that the show has had such a strong impact on teenage pregnancy. When I first watched the show I found it to be yet another stupid MTV reality show that I felt glamorized these teenage girls and their boyfriends for having gotten knocked up. I still agree that the show glamorizes teen pregnancy as these girls have now become famous. Becoming famous by giving birth at age 16 and having it documented on MTV is totally ridiculous. I think the show is a waste of time, but if it actually has had an impact on a decline in teenage pregnancy then I support its entertainment only in an effort to show teens the challenges that come with unexpected parenthood.

Abortion

The pro-life argument is winning. The value of a human life has increased in the past decade. Society is recognizing how important a human life is, no matter how developed it is. Anti-choice people want to outlaw abortion, regardless of the woman's situation. They will stop at nothing to make it harder for women to access abortion. They even target the doctors who provide abortion care. Although this is extreme, it seems to be the path that many Americans who are pro-life seem to be supporting. Although support seems to be shifting to pro-life, I believe that the pro-choice argument is a better one. I believe it is a women's fundamental right to choose what she does with her body. Women, no matter what economic state they are in or what situation they have should be able to choose what they want for their future. But I still believe that the procedure must be done within a certain period of the birth stage, such as within the first 20 weeks.

I believe that a parent should be informed if the child is under the age of 18, but they do not have the right to consent to such procedure. I firmly believe that a women has the right to do what she wants to do with her body. The parents cannot be in control of this situation. Responsibility needs to be placed on the woman who is currenlty pregnant and wants to get involved in such procedure.

I believe that both parents should be notified. The mom especially, but the father should be notified too because he may be paying for  this procedure. If the father is not currently involved in the child's life then there is no need for his consent.

Illinois abortion laws strongly oppose abortion.  The state of Illinois position on abortion is evident on many of the restrictions the state imposes on women who want to get an abortion. For instance, Illinois prohibits certain state employees and organizations receiving state funds from counseling or referring women for abortion services. Illinois restricts insurance coverage of abortion for some individuals. Illinois allows certain individuals or entities to refuse to provide women specific reproductive-health services, information, or referrals. Illinois law restricts young women's access to abortion services by mandating parental notice. Illinois has an unconstitutional and unenforceable law mandating spousal consent before a married woman may obtain abortion care. All of these restrictions make it very hard for a women to be able to have an abortion in the state of Illinois. I am very pro-choice up to a certain date in the pregnancy and believe it is a fundamental right for women to be able to do what they want with their bodies. I find many of these restrictions ridiculous and are loop holes in the system of Roe v. Wade to prevent women from having abortions.  If I could change the laws I would make sure that women don't have to be put through all of these circumstances that make it difficult for them to have such procedure. I firmly believe in pro-choice, BUT it must be done within a certain time frame in the pregnancy. 

Death Penalty 3

There are many aspects of the stages in the Capital case that are designed to protect the rights of the accused.  The accused can't just be sentenced to the death penalty, there first needs to be sufficient evidence that this person could have committed the crime for a case to even exist. The accused is given a lawyer to defend him in court. He must plead his case and rebut the prosecutors statement in trying to prove him guilty. In the "Penalty Phase Trial" of the case, mitigating circumstances are looked over in order to give the accused the most fair fair trial possible. Mitigating circumstances are facts that do not justify or excuse an act or offense, but may reduce the degree or moral culpability, and thereby reduce the penalty. Ex: mental impairments, or deprived background, etc. The defendant has the opportunity if he loses his case to appeal to the U.S. Court of appeals, where his appeal will then be heard by a panel of three judges. These are just a few ways the Court system helps protect the rights of the accused. Without these aspect in a capital case it would be unfair to the defendant. I believe that the system is insufficient due to the statistic that since 1973, over 130 people have been released from death row with evidence of their innocence.
         Although none of the five ways to execute a convicted criminal on death row are humane, death by lethal injection is the most appropriate. I believe lethal injection to be the best method because the person being executed is knocked out due to drugs and usually does not feel the pain of death. Hanging, electrocution, and the gas chamber are methods that should be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment by the Eighth Amendment. The description of pain the executed feels during the process of these methods is morally unethical and very disturbing. If they are to be sentenced to death they should at least be put to death in a humane way that shows respect for life. For example, U.S. Supreme Court Justice William Brennan once offered the following description of an execution by electric chair : ... the prisoner's eyeballs sometimes pop out and rest on his cheeks. The prisoner often defecates, urinates, and vomits blood and drool. the body turns bright red as its temperature rises, and the prisoner's flesh swells and his skin stretches to the point of breaking. Sometimes the prisoner catches fire... Witnesses hear a loud and sustained sound like bacon frying, and the sickly sweet smell of burning flesh permeates the chamber. (Echenbarger, 1994) That is a perfect example of "cruel and unusual" punishment and should be banned along with hanging and the gas chamber from methods of capital punishment.
     From looking at the state by state death penalty data, I was able to find out some pretty interesting statistics.  There is a much larger amount of men on death row then there are women.  The difference between the amount of caucasian to african americans being put to death is very small. There are more whites being sentenced to death than there are african americans. California, Texas, and Florida are three states that have the most inmates being sentenced to death. Those are three of the largest states in America so it is possible to say that states with higher populations have a larger number of men and women being sentenced to death. Also states in the south have higher totals of inmates on death row. There are no juvenile statistics as of 2005 because of Roper v. Simmons. In this case the Court ruled that the death penalty for those who had committed their crimes as minors was cruel and unusual punishment and hence barred by the Constitution.
           The information posted by the Death Penalty Information center provided further detail into studies of race, the type of method preferred by states, and executions by region. The information here changed the way I thought about the death penalty in my previous response due to the statistics that were given about race. In my previous response that website showing the state by state death penalty date made it seem as if there is overall racial equality in the justice system. But from viewing the data put out of by the D.P.I.C. it seems as if there is inequality when sentencing black and white people to capital punishment. A comprehensive study of the death penalty in North Carolina found that the odds of receiving a death sentence rose by 3.5 times among those defendants whose victims were white. Also a study in California found that those who killed whites were over 3 times more likely to be sentenced to death than those who killed blacks and over 4 times more likely than those who killed Latinos. Public opinion of the death penalty was at 65% in May 2006. (Down from 80% in 1994). The same poll given by the Gallup Group revealed that when respondents are given a choice of life without parole as an alternate sentencing option, more choose life without parole (48%) than the death penalty (47%). A 2009  by the DPIC showed that police chiefs ranked the death penalty last among ways to reduce violent crime. Also considered death penalty to be the least efficient use of taxpayers' money. Looking at all the information I would say that the DPIC believes that the justice system in America in terms of capital punishment is not efficient and is biased. They are against the death penalty. The statistics they show in their report is convincing and gives good reason to believe that the death penalty should not be permitted.

 

    

DEATH PENALTY

Clifford Boggess should not have been executed for his actions. After being on Death Row for so many years he became a changed man. A  who let his faith take over his life and helped him come to terms with what he had done. If the death penalty is used to make an example of criminals who have done wrong, is it better to kill them or let them stay in prison for the rest of their lives?  Clifford Boggess changed over the course of time. One of the benefits of putting criminals in prison is that they are able to think about their actions and feel true remorse. Being on Death Row for so long helped Boggess think clearly about his crime and really helped him sort his issues out.  Thats why I think it's better to keep these men in prison and give them time to think about their actions and forgive themselves.  After listening to the victims families response to Boggess death sentence, it  did not appear that they found justice in his death. One of the relatives of the men who died said that after all this time Boggess had come to his senses and changed himself. He wasn't being truly punished because he accepted his death. It wasnt teaching him a lesson. He was fully prepared to die and had no problem with it. This is why the death sentence serves no justice to the family members. It takes so long when you have a person on death row that if they arent immediately killed then its not like they are learning their lesson.  I believe that a life sentence in prison is just as effective and better than the death sentence. How do we teach society it is not ok to kill by putting someone to death?