Filed under: News, Notes | Tags: health care, obama, Politics, president
Amid the utter chaos that is the health care debate, I recently read op-eds that voiced an aspect of this issue I believe needs much more attention: health. Take a look at the unhealthy trends and increasing obesity in our society, and you’ll see my point. How can you furiously argue over health care reform when you don’t take care of your own health? Can you really oppose rising health care costs when you are also contributing to them?
In a Sept. 9 New York Times op-ed, Michael Pollan cites a study that explains why the US spends twice as much per person as most European countries on health care: we’re fatter. He writes: “Even the most efficient health care system that the administration could hope to devise would still confront a rising tide of chronic disease linked to diet.” This is an relevant, crucial point, yet one that goes largely ignored.
Wasteful spending has become a catchphrase in Washington, and politics in general, yet the media doesn’t make a fuss about how three-quarters of health care spending goes to treat “preventable chronic diseases”–most of which are related to diet. There’s a big problem here. So, why don’t I recall Obama discussing the food industry during his speeches?
Though I don’t agree with Bill Maher on all fronts, he does get it right in his Sept. 18 post on the Huffington Post. He writes: “President Obama has identified all the problems with the health care system, but there’s one tiny issue he refuses to tackle, and that’s our actual health.” Until that issue comes up, until the food industry and diet problems are dealt with, health care will continue spending large sums of money that could just as easily be saved.
By focusing on the big insurance companies with high premiums and unaffordable policies, we’re tackling part of the problem, but not the heart of it. They are symptoms of the more deeply-rooted societal problem of diet, lifestyle and the country’s food industry.
I’m a person who likes to write everything down. I make list upon list for just about everything…I’ll even make lists for other people!
So, I decided to join Rebecca Thorman’s monthly goal meet-ups at Modite. It’s a group project of bloggers posting a list of monthly goals (and reviewing those from the previous month). It’s an interesting way to accomplish your own goals as well as learn about (and from) others. I know writing something down and putting it out there is a motivating factor for me.
So, here goes:
1. Blog (and write) more often.
2. Finally get around to writing another article.
3. Exercise at least once or twice a week.
4. Procrastinate less & manage time better.
5. Find the time to read for pleasure.
Let’s see if I accomplish anything!
With the relatively recent trend toward becoming “ecofriendly,” bottled water often becomes a topic of interest. Simply put, bottled water = waste. In fact, it produces up to 1.5 million tons of plastic waste annually. Furthermore, producing that plastic requires up to 47 million gallons of oil per year. And in the end, 80 percent of these plastic bottles are thrown away–not recycled (though, the actual process of recycling requires large amounts of energy). The likely prospect of a future in which majority of the plastic produced is still drifting around somewhere does not paint a pretty picture.
Yet, I think many people are indeed aware that bottled water is not environmentally friendly (whether they choose to act upon that awareness is, of course, a different story). But how many people realize how much a bottled water company can affect its local citizens and communities?
In a recent issue of Mother Jones magazine, Anna Lenzer looks into FIJI Water and the story behind its elitist, “untouched” water. Lenzer touches upon the contrast between the brand’s image and the conditions in Fiji: “‘We are Fiji,’ declare Fiji Water posters across the island, and the slogan is almost eerily accurate: The reality of Fiji, the country, has been eclipsed by the glistening brand of Fiji, the water.”
She goes on to discuss the water problems that face the island, which include:
…crumbling pipes, a lack of adequate wells, dysfunctional or flooded water treatment plants, and droughts that are expected to get worse with climate change. Half the country has at times relied on emergency water supplies, with rations as low as four gallons a week per family; dirty water has led to outbreaks of typhoid and parasitic infections. Patients have reportedly had to cart their own water to hospitals, and schoolchildren complain about their pipes spewing shells, leaves, and frogs. Some Fijians have taken to smashing open fire hydrants and bribing water truck drivers for a regular supply.
FIJI Water responded to Lenzer’s article stating, “We strongly disagree with the author’s premise that because we are in business in Fiji somehow that legitimizes a military dictatorship…As an active member of the Fiji community, FIJI Water is committed to enabling positive change by means of social investment, capacity building, and sustainable development.”
Though Lenzer lauds FIJI’s donations to water access projects, she says the military regime “clearly benefits from the company’s global branding campaign characterizing Fiji as a ‘paradise’ where there is ‘no word for stress.’” In fact, Fiji’s tourism campaigns use the bottled water in their promotions.
I found it quite interesting to see how closely intertwined the bottled water company and military regime are. And how much this one company affects Fiji’s economy.
People really aren’t exaggerating when they say, “technology has changed everything.” It quite literally has. And I don’t mean the invention of the wheel or light bulb. Recent technologies have transformed communication so vastly, and I’m not sure if it’s all entirely good. We’ve become so dependent on email, instant messaging, cell phones & text messaging–we don’t even need to see people in-person anymore. Now, I’m no exception: I panic when I haven’t checked email for a few hours & can’t imagine life without it. I text and feel lost without my cell phone. The fact that I have a blog is a testament to my Internet dependency. We are all products of the technological era.
But, I still think there’s something to be said for seeing a person face-to-face. Sitting across the table with a cup of coffee, lounging around the house, walking outside, etc. You get the idea. Hugs and handshakes are nice, and we may be oh so “advanced,” but an instant message that says, “*hug!*” hardly has the same effect as a real one.
Of course, I, by no means, am saying that we should all defenstrate our laptops (I could barely handle temporary separation from my MacBook when I gave it to the Apple Store Genuises). But being in the presence of another person, interacting with the real, human, person–and not a screen–can be nice sometimes.
In fact, Dentyne has been trying to promote this for a while, too, with their “make face time.” ad campaign. Here’s an example:
(In case you can’t read the tiny font on the first one, it says: “power down. log off. unplug. have mercy on your thumbs. browse the world wide something else. send some not-so-instant-messages. undo. hit cancel. be together. make face time.”)
Also, if you go to www.dentyne.com, you’ll see a message that telling you that you have 3 minutes before the site shuts down–which they say is enough time to browse all the links. The point being, after 3 minutes, go do something else & make face time.
Their site says, “We’ve got nothing against the Internet, but when people are surfing the Web, they’re missing the best part of life–being together.” And I think that’s completely true. Sometimes we need to step away from the laptops, BlackBerrys and iPods and just go knock on a friend’s door.
One of the fundamental life lessons often echoed in books, movies and TV shows is: life is not just black and white, but rather, various shades of grey. This real-world application of the tonal scale makes its way into morals of stories and sighs about the difficult decisions we face.
Yet, in a sense, we often disregard this idea completely. We live in a society that imposes choice. Yes or no. Right or Wrong. You’re either with me or against me. But if the lessons parents teach their children say that there is no straight and easy answer, no distinct line, why do we insist on creating that line?
I, by no means, intend to turn this into a heated debate about abortion, but I think the issue presents a good example. The debate is always pro-abortion (or “pro-choice”) versus anti-abortion (or “pro-life”–a term I dislike). The answer does not necessarily have to be either/or. I respect everyone’s opinion about such a sensitive issue, and am only using this example to make a point. When circumstances change, one could argue that you should adapt. Shouldn’t at least part of the decision-making process give consideration to the particulars of a situation? Everyone is different and so is every situation. Whatever happened to: “To each his own”?
A similarly divisive, but arguably more historic, debate is nature versus nurture. Now, I seem to have a hard time believing that only one of these influences has made me the person I am today. Yes, some things are inherent in genetic code. By nature. Yes, our upbringing has a large effect on many aspects of our lives. Thus, nurture. Why choose an extreme? Why not compromise?
Can it be that a universal concept is also obsolete? Or, hard to come by, at least.
The widespread news coverage of political flip-flops also follows this trend. The second a candidate changes his or her mind, all hell breaks loose and the candidate becomes “indecisive” or “unsure of where he or she stands.” He said he would support the bill, but now he’s against it. Why can’t he just make up his mind?! Granted that much of the media criticism may be appropriate and well-deserved, there is also another perspective. Certainly, many circumstances can change in the period of a few years, or even a few months. Might these changes lead to changes in a person’s stance on an issue? Yes. If you promised your friend you would go shopping together, but in the last minute there was a massive storm, or your child’s carpool fell through, or your sick neighbor asked you for a ride to the hospital, wouldn’t you re-prioritize a little? Surely, you wouldn’t go shopping at the expense of abandoning your child on an empty soccer field. If these are just everyday occurrences, then political matters on a large scale, too, may, at times, require some reorganization. Now, I agree that our leaders should not be indecisive. But they should be accommodating and adapting.
We have grown to love sitting at one extreme and glaring at those who sitting on the other end. They said don’t kill the messenger, the middleman, but we always get the urge. When we see someone sitting on the fence, we want to push them off. Hurry up & pick a side already! But why? Why not compromise? Maybe the person who coined the term “happy medium” was on to something.
