Nutrition Considered in Farm Bill

This week I read an article from the LA Times about the farm bill being passed through congress and how it should be altered to provide more nutritious meals for public schools to help prevent obesity. The farm bill sets the nation’s agricultural agenda every five years. The urge by parents, nutrition experts and physicians, to rewrite the bill delayed it until next year. This will give the advocates more time to educate people in wanting to revise this bill. In previous years, the issue associated with the farm bill was over subsidies, but now nutrition has become a major concern. The $288 billion bill would spend more on fruits and vegetables. Ann Cooper, a food coordinator at schools in Berkley, claims “If we want to significantly impact the long term health of our children, we need to change the food in the center of the plate, the entrée. The farm bill negatively impacts the entrée by subsidizing food we don’t necessarily eat, like corn and soy. There’s so much fat hidden I these highly processed foods that end up on our kid’s plates”. Senators Lautenberg and Lugar want to expand a pilot program that began with the 2002 farm bill that provides elementary schools with fresh fruit and vegetables for snacks. The program, which started in four states now serves 175,000 students in 14 states.
I believe that it is a good idea to revise this farm bill because obesity is a significant problem in our society today and will impact the lives of future generations. I believe school meals should be nutritious because some poor students may not get the nutrition they need at home so anything that would help is important. It is also important that money goes towards healthier food instead of subsides for farmers who do not produce foods that are healthy.

Freedom of Speech Taken Too Far

Please excuse this late post, I was on Kairos :)

This week I found a current even that has to do with the protection and violation of the first Amendment of the Constitution. A Kansas church was preaching that U.S. combat deaths in Iraq are God’s just punishment for America’s tolerance of gays and lesbians. A federal jury in Baltimore ordered Westboro Baptist Church to pay $11 million in damages to the family of a Marine killed in Iraq. Members of the church had picketed outside of the funeral of a soldier carrying offensive signs that read “Fag troops” and “God hates you”. The jury found that the protestors were liable for invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. This ruling does not conflict with the first amendment because it does not require anyone to put up with intentional insults or trespassing on private property.
The family of the soldier did have the right to collect damages from the church because they were trespassing on a private ceremony and stating things that they knew would intentionally harm other people. It is one thing to have a different view from others around you and express it. But to provoke others with your beliefs at inappropriate times, such as a funeral, should not be allowed. People use the first amendment as an excuse to say whatever they want and cause offense to others, but a line should be drawn of when it’s not appropriate to make these kinds of comments.

Think You're Not Organized? Check out the Reagan Library

So we've all been to the Reagan Library at least once for a school fieldtrip. You might recall seeing the array of items presented to Reagan as gifts over the years of his presidency. They all looked so valuable and cared for behind the glass, but apparently they weren't being watched that carefully, considering that the library is uable to find our account for tens of thousands of valuable mementos. About six months ago, an archivist was accused of stealing from the collections and was fired. Of particualr interest is whether the artifacts that are unaccountd for include pieces from a large collection of ornamented Western belt buckles given to Reagan over the years by admirers who knew of his attachment to his ranch. The audit found that the Reagan library was unable to properly account for more than 80,000 artifacts out of its collection of some 100,000 such items, and "may have experienced loss or pilferage the scope of which will likely never be known". It also found numerous storage lapses, such as artworks stacked on top of one another, and sculptures and vases unwrapped and lying on their sides on open shelves, in an area prone to earthquakes. National Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper said the agency welcomed the audit and was taking its findings very seriously. Part of the problem is that the presidential libraries originally did not have the same strict preservation guidelines used by most museums.

I think that it is pretty embarassing how bad the organizational system at the Reagan library was. Not being able to account for 80,000 out of 100,000 is quite the accomplishment, but not one I would brag about. There should definately be some kind of regulation in how national artifacts should be stored and identified so that this does not happen again. I honestly dont think that missing belt buckes is a national disaster, but I do understand that they have emotional value and should be taken care of.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-reagan8nov08,1,6698948,print.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&ctrack=2&cset=true

Newest Issue of National Importance: ALIENS!!!!!

Just when we thought we had enough issues to deal with such as health care, education, immigration and taxes, we have one more thing to think about, UFOs. Tuesday night, Dennis Kucinich was questioned about his claim that he saw a UFO over Washington, as documented in his godmother's daughter's new book. He replied "I did" and went further by commenting that the government should "come clean" on the Roswell matter. This is referring to a supposed UFO crash in Roswell, New Mexico in 1947. Not that he was doing so great before, but claiming to have seen aliens can't possibly help your presidential campaign, unless you are appealing to the nutty "I have been abducted" crowd. But believe it or not, he is not the first presidential aspirant to report seeing a UFO. According to media acounts, in 1973 when Jimmy Carter was the governor of Georgia, he filed a report with the International UFO Bureau (ahhh i cant believe this actually exists!) in Oklahoma City, saying that he saw an "unidentified glowing object" FOUR YEARS EARLIER ing Leary, GA. Why did he report it so late? I have no idea. But he's not the only one. Ronald Reagan believed he had seen UFOs at least TWICE! These reportings were kept secret by Reagan's staff because they did not want to make him look bad. This is entirely understandable. I do not see why any aspiring politician would want to claim that they have seen aliens. It only makes them look insane or extremely gullible, neither quality one would want for a leader. Overall, I found this article pretty entertaining and hope you did too. :)
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-ufo1nov01,1,3756597.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-sci-watson26oct26,1,4606263.story?coll=la-headlines-nation
(link to article i got the info from in my last post) :)

Dr. James Watson: Father of DNA and....a racist?

So, we've all heard of James D. Watson, one of the men who discovered the structure of DNA. Well, apparently hes still alive, and he's gotten himself into some trouble. Last week he was suspened from the Cold Spring Harbor Labratory by the board of directors after making a "racist" comment. He had so many wonderful accomplishments, his colleagues were sad to see him go, but felt it was an appropriate time for him to leave. It all started when Watson went to Europe to pubicize his new book "Avoid Boring People" (my my what revolutionary advice Dr. Watson). During the interview, Watson said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours whearas all testing says not really." He continued by saying "there is no firm reason to anticipate that the intellectual capacities of peoples geographically separated in their evolution should prove to have evolved identically." As one could imagine, he was faced with tons of criticism. Watson did apologize saying that "this is not what I meant" but it was too late and he was forced to resign.
I thought that this article was very interesting and there are different factors that need to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Dr. Watson is 79 years old. I am not saying that he has gone crazy because I'm sure there are 79 year olds who have there senses about them and are still sharp, but you have to wonder if this comment can be forgivable because of his age and he did not really understand what he was saying, and how it would be interpreted. To refute this point i just made, for the fun of it, Watson said this while promoting his new book, which must let you know he still is a sharp thinker. So one has to wonder, is this just a senile crazy old man or has he made some groundbreaking scientific discovery that intelligence does not evolve equally? Americans of course would refuse to believe this because it totally destroys the ideal the country was founded on, equality. Will people start using this statement, made by a valid Nobel Prize winner, as an excuse to be racist? People do have the right to free speech, and they have heard the opinions of great scientits, what will this all lead to?

Democrats' Plan for Children's Healthcare

This week I read an article in the Los Angeles Times about the Democrats’ attempt to push a children’s healthcare plan through congress. Recently Bush vetoed such a plan, which brought much objection. A coalition seeks to expand the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, which was created for the poor. In order to override Bush’s veto, the coalition would need to convince House Republicans to pass it because it needs 2/3 majority. The new bill would expand SCHIP to cover more uninsured children in mostly low income families but also in some middle class families. Republicans who object say that the bill goes too far because it would offer government assistance to people who could already afford private coverage. This is just an issue that Democrats are pushing for while Republicans choose to ignore it.
I think that it is a good idea for the government to implement some form of health care for children of low income families. It would be expensive and impractical, however, to make the plan include health care for children who could already previously afford it. This addition to the bill would only make it harder to pass through Congress, so I don’t know why it is being pushed.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-kidshealth15oct15,1,852350.story?coll=la-news-politics-national