WAR! HUH! WHAT IS IT GOOD FOR? (Absolutely Nothing.)


Recently on the news, I saw a poll taken in Iraq that posed the question to the Iraqi people. The question was this: “Do you think that U.S. troops should leave Iraq?” Though not all said that the troops should leave immediately, an overwhelming 99% of responses indicated that within the next year, they would like to see most of the U.S. troops gone from their country.
This is understandable, considering that since the beginning of the “War on Terror,” more than 27,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. We, as American citizens, have seen countless pictures of Iraqi prisoners of war being beaten and tortured, held against their will and terrorized with no means of protecting themselves or fighting back. It seems to me, given these statistics, that forcing our style of government and our military onto another people is not so much fighting a war against terrorism, but terrorizing a country full of people who do not have the resources to defend themselves against a military power such as ours.
It is also important to look at the war from the perspective of the American soldiers. More than 2,200 American soldiers have been killed since the beginning of the war in Iraq, and 16,000 more have been wounded. Such tragic and unnecessary deaths can only cause uproar in the U.S.- hundreds of protests showing objection to the Iraq war have occurred since 2003, and in the United States, there is a general dissent and disapproval for the continued occupation in Iraq.
The war on Iraq is also taking its toll on the American economy. According to top officials, the military is now spending more than 5.8 billion dollars monthly. More than $230 billion has been spent on the war since it first began. This money that is being spent carelessly, so carelessly that millions of dollars have been misplaced, on a war that does not need to be fought, that is not the responsibility of the United States to wage, is money that could help millions of Americans find healthcare and that could have been used to better the education systems. While the AIDS epidemic is ravaging Africa and world hunger is at an all time high, the US is spending billions of dollars on new aircraft to bomb Iraq. Is this right? While hundreds upon thousands of children die every day, in every country in the world, from disease, hunger and malnutrition, we have spent enough money in Iraq to ensure that every child in the world could have received immunizations for the next 77 years. How can this be ethical?
Since President George W. Bush announced the end of “major combat operations” in May of 2003, which in turn removed Saddam Hussein from office and opened the way for free elections in Iraq, US troops have remained in Iraq. If the people of Iraq do not wish for American occupation of their country and no real progress has been made since 2003, then what are we still doing there? I believe that it is necessary that the US begin removing troops from overseas. Not all at once, mind you, but a steady, fixed number of soldiers should return home to their families and loved ones within the next year. Occupation in another country, the murder of thousands of innocent people, and the forced governmental hold on Iraq does not seem so much to me like it is opening the way for democracy in a country which does not care to receive help, but more like invasion and conquest.


Sources:
http://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11966
http://nationalpriorities.org/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=182
http://www.iraqbodycount.net/
http://www.antiwar.com/casualties/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-lampley/the-ultimate-deception_b_2838.html

UHH, MOMMY?


If you were to get a tattoo on your hip, and your parents came to you and confronted you about it, what would you say? “It’s my body, I have a right to do whatever I want with it!”, right? One of the great things about living in the United States today is that each person has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his own body and his own possessions. So why is it then that so many think that women should not have the right to have an abortion?

I understand that many believe a human fetus to be a life form. I don’t argue this. However, I do believe that in most cases in which the mother considers an abortion, a child is better off not ever coming into existence than being born into a family with a single mother who will not be able to support it. Say that a young woman gets pregnant. She does not want the baby, but she decides not to have an abortion. She is a smoker and drinks heavily, but since she does not care about the child in her womb, she does not go to any great lengths to quit these habits or keep herself healthy or even to make sure that the child is getting the proper nutrition that it needs. The child is born nine months later, but with serious health issues that have arisen out of the habits of the mother and from never visiting a doctor. Is this baby any better off just because it was born? Is this life better than no life at all?

Getting pregnant is not just as simple as “I didn’t use contraception.” According to womensissues.com, 54% of women who obtain abortions each year used contraceptives during the month that they became pregnant. Anybody who has ever taken a sex-ed course in school knows that all forms of birth control are not one hundred percent effective. But that does not mean that all women in the world who do not plan to have children are never going to have sex. They are.

And for all those pro-lifers out there, here’s a question. Why is okay to have an abortion in cases of incest and rape, but not otherwise? Whether the woman was willing or not, the fetus still will be terminated. Why is it okay to kill a child sometimes, but not others?
According to the womenissues.com website, 88% of abortions occur within the first six to twelve weeks of pregnancy. More than 6% of all abortions occur due to great risk to maternal or fetal health. Is abortion still wrong if someone would die in order for the baby to live? Why should a mother be forced to do something that will end up costing her her own life? I understand that there are a lot of religious beliefs that some seem to think make abortion morally wrong. But I have done my research-there are religious websites that explain that not only is there nowhere in the bible that says that abortion is wrong, but there are in fact quotes in the bible that explain that a man is not actually living until “the breath of life” is actually breathed into him. Also, according to womensissues.com, 43% of women who chose to abort identified with the Protestant religion, and 27% with Catholicism.

Many believe that there are other alternatives to having an abortion, and I agree. What about adoption? Why doesn’t the mother just carry the baby through until it is born, then put it into the hands of a loving family who will be able to love and care for it? It seems like a logical solution to the problem. But it may not be that simple. More than 21% of all women who have abortions choose to do so because they cannot afford to have the child and support it. This means also that they will most likely not be able to afford the thousands of dollars worth of doctor’s visits and multivitamins and will not be able to take a leave of absence from work in order to rest and make sure that the child will be healthy until she delivers. Nearly a sixth of abortions occur because the woman is too young to carry the child. If a girl gets pregnant at sixteen, will her body necessarily be mature enough to carry and protect the child?
I do not believe that having an abortion is the decision of the father of the baby. If the man had to carry the child for nine months and go through labor and endure all of the risks associated with having a child, then he also would have the right to choose whether or not to have his child.
I do not believe in abortion as a form of birth control. I think it is wrong for any woman to have dozens of abortions. I do, however, believe that if any woman wants to have dozens of abortions, she has a right to do so. The argument about abortion in the US needs to be less about the unborn child, and more about the things that would happen to the mother and the child were that child to be born. It is the right of every citizen in the United States to decide for himself what to do with his own body. Perhaps if more unqualified mothers had chosen to abort their babies once they realized they could not support them, there would be far less babies in trashcans downtown. Maybe abortions are just doctors killing babies, but certainly in a more humane way.


"All the articles on this subject that I have read have been from men. They denounce women as alone guilty, and never include man in any plans for the remedy." The Revolution, 4(1):4 July 8, 1869 –Susan B. Anthony


Sources:
Http://womensissues.com/cs/abortionstats/a/aaabortionstats.htm
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/blasphemy.html
http://www.rightgrrl.com/wquotes.html

The Fast Food Diet

Recently, McDonalds has announced that it will release new packaging for most of its products beginning after the Olympic games of 2006. In order to improve the image that indeed, McDonalds food can be healthy, bar charts and other nutritional information will be displayed relating the calorie, fat and sodium count of their food to the daily recommended values for those and other nutritional information. Over the past years, McDonalds has worked to promote the idea that they are, at least in some cases, a healthy alternative to home-cooked meals. Premium salads, low-calorie dressings, non-beef sandwiches, and alternatives to French fries, such as side salads and sliced apples, have been available on menus across the world for those wishing to watch their intake of fatty and unhealthy foods.

For years, especially since the release of the documentary entitled “SuperSize Me,” hundreds of lawsuits have been filed against McDonalds and other fast-food restaurants in the United States, claiming that the food purchased at such restaurants make people obese. Though most of these lawsuits have been dismissed, the image of McDonalds has suffered dramatically. Through all of these lawsuits, however, McDonalds has stuck to its belief that their food is part of “an active, healthy lifestyle.”

The Center for Science in the Public Interest, which is a health promotion faction that aims to increase health awareness to the public, believes that this step made by McDonalds is a valuable step toward giving consumers better dietary information. However, they also believe that they should provide nutritional information on the menu boards inside the stores and in the drive-thru’s.

Personally, I believe that McDonalds has done more than is necessary to raise awareness about eating healthily. I have been an employee of McDonalds for over three years, and during my employment there, I have witnessed the comings-and-goings of countless “health food” options on the menu. Between fruit and yogurt parfaits, side salads, premium chicken salads, apple dippers, fruit and walnut salads, low calorie dressings(which, by the way, are used because all profits are donated to charities), bottled water, milk, and apple juice, grilled chicken sandwiches and fish sandwiches, there is a plethora of non-fat foods available. A number of these foods are even available for a dollar or less, for those who are on a budget. Because these foods are displayed prominently on the menu boards, both in and outside of the store, there is absolutely no reason that any customer would be more likely to choose a greasy food than a healthy food.

McDonalds employees are trained to direct questioning customers toward the toll-free 800 number or the free pamphlets located inside of every dining room. I personally find it ridiculous that any person would blame another for their own eating habits. I believe that if a person thinks that McDonalds food makes them fat, they ought to stop eating it. There is nothing that indicates that French fries and Big Macs are addictive, so there is no argument that one must continue to eat “unhealthy” food. Firstly, eating anything, even foods like apples and tofu, can be hazardous to your health if it is eaten excessively. An apple a day keeps the doctor away, right? Well, maybe, but 20 apples a day surely won’t. Secondly, even at places, like Subway, for example, that claim to be full of low-fat foods and where people happen to lose hundreds of pounds every day, fattening foods are plentiful. Take, for example, the12 inch tuna sandwich. 1060 calories and 2060 grams of sodium. Plus a cookie, 220 calories and 200 grams of sodium, and of course, a bag of Lays. That’s 300 calories and 760 grams of sodium, for a total of 1580 calories and 3020 grams of sodium for a single meal, whereas at McDonalds you can get a #1 (that is, Big Mac, medium Fry, and medium Coca-Cola) for a grand total of 1120 calories and 1240 grams of sodium. So where does the problem lie?
Here is an example. A middle-aged man comes into McDonalds every single day, twice a day. He orders a small coffee and a fruit salad for breakfast around eight o’clock in the morning, then around seven in the evening, he orders a double cheeseburger without the bun and with lettuce, and a small diet coke. He explained to me once, when I asked him about the whole “no bun, please” thing, that he had been n the no-carb diet for a year and a half, and that thus far, he had lost 100 pounds. Wow. Then, I have a customer who comes in nearly every day, quite a bit younger than the other man, and orders his favorite: a large sized #4 (which is, for all you less McD’s savvy, a double quarter pounder with cheese meal) and 2 apple pies. He is quite obese. Of course, I don’t know exactly why he is obese, but I contribute his weight to his unhealthy eating habits. Heart attack, anyone?
In conclusion, I believe that McDonalds is going far beyond the necessary by providing in-your-face nutritional information on the wrappers of food. Those who eat unhealthily will continue to eat unhealthily, whether they are presented with cold, hard numbers or not. If someone doesn’t realize that eating a #4 every day is bad for his health, then reading a package won’t help him. Healthful, cost-friendly food is displayed on nearly every surface at McDonalds, and trivial lawsuits placing blame on innocent (at least to some degree) companies is a waste of everyone’s time. I know, from personal experience, having been instructed to promote the new fruit and walnut salads when taking orders, that even when offered a healthy (and tasty) alternative to a greasy meal, most will not take advantage of it. As said by Dr. Louis Sullivan, the former Secretary of Health and Human Services to the United States, I believe that McDonalds has come up with a “creative approach that is scientifically sound and communicates complex information in a clear and accessible way.” Obesity is a major problem in the United States, and though, clearly, putting nutritional information on fast food won’t solve that, but at least some major corporations in America are taking serious steps toward raising awareness.

Source: “McDonalds to Post Nutrition Information on Food” by Dave Carpenter of the Associated Press. 10/25/2005.

SWAMPED


Healthcare for the poor and the elderly has been diminishing steadily over the past years, as the baby-boom generation continues to retire and the poor continue to remain poor. However, healthcare for these groups have recently become more and more important as hurricane Katrina devastated the lives of thousands near the Gulf Coast.
Before Hurricane Katrina hit the coast, expected Medicaid cost to the United States was $329 billion, an amount, which when split between the government and the individual states, will end up being the single largest expense that the states will have. This incredible sum is not due, however, only to rising healthcare costs and rises in the cost of prescriptions, but also to the fact that health insurance itself has steadily risen, encouraging less and less companies to offer healthcare benefits to their employees.
Since its origination in 1966, Medicaid has increased its beneficiaries by thirteen times its original standing. The standard health insurance policy for one family has recently reached ten-thousand dollars, causing many small companies to no longer offer benefits to their workers. It is however, still important to offer healthcare to the poor, so the government has taken on a total of 52 million recipients, a number which has increased by nearly thirty percent within the last 5 years.
Prior to recent natural disasters, Congress had been planning to cut $10 million from the Medicaid program within the next 4 years, but once Katrina hit New Orleans, plans have altered slightly, due mostly to the fact that it is nearly impossible to deny aid to the thousands who had their homes and jobs washed away and fled into nearby states. Currently, nearly all of the people who lost their jobs as a result of the wrath of Katrina will qualify for Medicaid.
Although Katrina devastated the Gulf Coast and much of the American economy, it has, at least in the short run, extended the benefits of Medicaid to a great number of needy Americans. The fact that a victim of Katrina, Maude Jordan, slept on top of her refrigerator in her home in New Orleans for three days before help arrived in order to avoid the flood and was denied eligibility for Medicaid after all of her possessions were swept away, only shows the problems that still remain in the Medicaid system. Rather than cutting millions upon millions of dollars from deprived and disadvantaged Americans in need of monetary assistance, time should be spent altering the system which decides eligibility of the poor. It is unethical for a family who makes forty thousand dollars a year to be able to claim Medicaid coverage for the care of their children when hundreds of thousands of Americans have no jobs and no possessions, except for in some cases, a refrigerator, and are denied coverage for themselves and their families.
Gaps in the coverage of Medicare also contribute to the high cost of Medicaid and the abandonment of those in need of care in desperate times. Since Medicare does not cover the cost of most nursing home care, Medicaid picks up the slack. However, sometimes even the wealthy can get coverage from Medicaid to cover the cost of their care. The selfishness of some Americans, and also the lack of necessary scrutiny over the distribution of governmental funds for the poor and the elderly, contribute to uneven and often times unfair treatment of the poor.


Source: “Swamped”. The Economist, September 22, 2005.