Olympic History

I don't know about anyone else, but I love to watch the Olympics.  One of my favorite things is to learn the personal stories of the athletes: what have they overcome? is this the first medal for their country? what does it mean to them?

Most of us think that if it were us, we would want the gold medal, and only the gold medal, but many athletes are just happy to be there.  The gold medal may be beyond their reach, but just the fact that they qualified to compete fulfills their dream of being an Olympian.  Oscar Pistorius, the double amputee, had as many fans as Usain Bolt, "The Fastest Man on Earth."  The women from Saudi Arabia, the first to ever compete for that country, made a statement just by their presence.  Then there were those who won when they shouldn't have, Like David Boudia.  He barely made it into the qualifying round, and then squeaked by again into the finals.  Then something seemed to change, and he dived perfectly-every time.  Then there was Jamie-Lynn Gray, the American who won the women's 50m rifle competition, while the commentators repeatedly said that she had shot terribly all year and was even lucky to be there.  

What did we learn from all of these competitors?  That anything is possible if you really try.  If Boudia had given up after placing 18th in the qualifying round, he never would have reached gold.  Instead, he continued to try his best.  Perhaps it was because the pressure was off of him that allowed him to dive to beautifully, time after time.  Pistorius could have scrapped the Olympics and waited for the Paralympics where he excels, but he didn't.  He beat seven other able-bodied athletes in his quarterfinal round.  The winner of the finals was so impressed that he traded bibs with Pistorius.  He paved the way for other athletes who might not have the same advantages.  Who knows what we might see in the future?  

The 2012 Olympics was about setting records and creating history. If the U.S. women were their own country, they would have placed third in the medal count.  For the first time ever, every country sent a female competitor.  For the first time, there was a physically disabled athlete.  Not since Jesse Owens in the Berlin games in 1936 has an Olympic games carried so much meaning.  I hope that others can appreciate what they were witnessing: an Olympics that will be talked about for decades to come.

The Case for Climate Change

April is awareness month for many things: autism, prostate cancer, and global warming.  Many networks are showing how green they can be during the month of April, but if they can do it, why not go green the whole year?  The following is a research paper I did on climate change.  It is meant to inform and to dispel misconceptions people have about global warming, however please keep in mind that this does not go into deep discussion about all of the causes of climate change, it just argues that global warming is not a myth.  Enjoy!

In 1974, it was discovered that our ozone layer-the part of our atmosphere that filters ultraviolet radiation-was being depleted and that the cause was chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), which were found in aerosol cans, refrigerants and solvents (EPA, 2007).  After much research to study and observe the ozone (as well as to convince the public and lawmakers that we were directly contributing to the problem), the Montreal Protocol was made, which is a treaty that bans production and consumption of ozone depleting gasses (EPA).  Since then, the ozone depleting gasses have begun to decrease, and it is estimated that the largest hole-over Antarctica-will return to pre-1980s levels by 2075 (EPA).  Today, 191 countries are committed to the Montreal Protocol (EPA).  Despite this clear evidence that humans directly contribute to the breakdown of the environment (to our own detriment), many believe that global warming and climate change is a myth.  This paper will highlight both sides of the argument while ultimately providing irrefutable evidence that global warming is a real environmental danger.

The Dispute

            Aristotle said that all things which are made by nature are made for human beings (Mosser, 2010, sec. 2.4).  Many people have misinterpreted this as meaning that they can do with the Earth as they please (Mosser).  Others believe that the Earth should be cared for and maintained for our children (Mosser).  A Native American proverb says,

“Treat the Earth well. 

  It was not given to you by your parents,

  it was loaned to you by your children. 

 We do not inherit the Earth from our ancestors,

 we borrow it from our children” (Mosser, sec. 2.4)

One Side of the Debate

            It is believed that the industrial age- the era that brought forth machinery, automobiles and power plants-is what started the increase in greenhouse gasses (Environmental Defense Fund, 2011).  Earth’s history shows that small percentages of carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere can have a significant impact on the planet, and since the industrial age carbon dioxide levels have increased by forty percent (EDF).   Scientists estimate that if serious changes in the policies that control carbon dioxide emissions and the greenhouse effect are not made then the average global temperature could increase by as much as 11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100 (EDF). 

            The trouble with carbon dioxide is that it has such a long half-life. It takes decades to dissipate, so making positive change is slow.  Carbon dioxide, while making up 80% of greenhouse gasses, is not the only gas we need to worry about (O’Harra, 2011).  Methane (CH4), nitric oxide (N2O2), dichlorodifluoromethane (CFC12)-better known as refrigerant- and trichlorofluoromethane (CFC14)-also a refrigerant- round out the top five gasses affecting our ozone (O’Harra).   The chart below of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) 2011 greenhouse gasses index shows how much carbon dioxide and methane make up our pollutants, as well as the steady increase in recent years.

           

            

                                                                  (NOAA, 2011)

     

            When people hear “methane”, they think of cows.  However, it is not the cows that are heating up our atmosphere.  According to the NOAA’s 2011 greenhouse gasses report, methane is 25 times more potent than CO2.  The other problem with methane is that the warmer the Earth gets, the more methane is released (O’Harra, 2011).  As the permafrost on the ocean floor gets warmer, there is a possibility that massive amounts of methane could be released into the atmosphere, which could in turn drastically increase the rate of global warming (O’Harra).        

            The increased gasses have not only increased the temperature of the earth, which has begun to melt the ice caps, but they have also changed the PH of the ocean, which is a threat to the ecosystems underwater (World Conservation Society, 2011).  The coral reefs are “bleaching”-or excreting the algae that makes them colorful- which is leaving the reefs white (WCS).  If the reefs are not stabilized, then all marine life-from sharks, to sea turtles to dolphins-will be affected.  The rising temperatures have also affected the migration patterns of multiple species of animals, making them search longer and farther for food and water (WCS). 

Heat causes coral to shed the algae, resulting in “bleaching.”

(Image retrieved from NOAA, 2011)

            If one is not an animal lover and does not care about animals and insects and their importance on the balance of the ecosystem, then they should consider how global warming affects them in a more obvious way.  Climate change has brought rising sea levels which are endangering islanders like those in the Bahamas, and has also brought an increase in serious hurricane activity (NAACP, 2011).  Global warming does not just mean that we will feel warmer weather; it means that all weather will be more extreme (Natural Resources Defense Council, n.d.).  The most obvious is drought and subsequent fires, but it is also contributing to more powerful hurricanes, a higher frequency of dangerous tornadoes, heavier rainfall and flooding, and more powerful snowstorms (NRDC). 

            A study commissioned by New York State Energy Research and Development Authority and conducted by scientists from New York State Universities, like Cornell and Columbia, was published November 2011, and it projects serious changes that could impact the state as soon as 2020 (Kaufman, 2011). The main concern is the rising sea levels (Kaufman).  As the ice caps melt, the sea level rises, endangering people who live near the shoreline.  The study estimates that nearly 96,000 people could be in danger of losing their homes (Kaufman). 

            Another concern is that drinking water could become contaminated as seawater enters the Hudson River (Kaufman, 2011).  As the temperature rises, even by a few degrees, the spruce and fir trees will die out due to fast growing weeds that thrive in the slightly warmer weather (Kaufman).  None of the state’s apples would survive, and the dairy farms will take a hit in production as cows feel the stress from the added heat (Kaufman).  The study concludes with recommendations that natural barriers be protected and building codes be changed now to reflect the future results of climate change (Kaufman).

Second Side of the Debate

            A professor at Cornell, Art DeGaetano argues that the New York State study can be interpreted in a positive way.  He points out that while many other areas of the country will suffer drought, New York will have a surplus of water, albeit at the expense of drinking water and loss of homes and other structures (Kaufman, 2011).  Kaufman (2011) quotes DeGaetano as saying, “It would be all bad if you wanted a static New York, with the same species of bird and the same crops” (para. 13).  DeGaetano goes on to say that New York can capitalize on the increasing droughts by selling their excess sea water (Kaufman, 2011).

            The American Policy Roundtable, a group that is trying to disprove global warming as fact or that it is a least blown out of proportion, uses old and inaccurate data to support their claims.  One such report is one done by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2001, which states that the environment is extremely sensitive to change, and that can make it difficult to calculate how the climate will change in the future (APR, 2007).  The APR interprets this to mean that it is impossible to what or how the climate is affected by people.  However, a report by the IPCC published that very same year (2007) concluded in that people are a direct cause of climate change, and that the change is significant and will impact our lives (EDF, 2011).  The APR goes on to claim that global warming could even benefit us and allow us to inhabit different areas of the planet (APR).

            Other arguments claim that changing our lifestyle to reduce global warming is just too expensive (APR, 2007).  The estimate is that 2.4 million jobs would be lost and that the average annual household income would decrease by $2700 (APR).  There is no mention of the jobs created to make green products, the savings in the cost to operate greener appliances, or how they are able to calculate the reduction of income per household.  They also blatantly lie about the projections of the Earth’s temperature and how even minor changes can affect the ecosystem.

            Peter Glover, author of Energy and Climate Wars (2010), calls the current campaign against global warming “hysteria” (Glover, 2007).  Glover says that CO2 is not a pollutant, but necessary for life.  He fails to make the distinction between the CO2 expelled by breathing, and pollutants from factories, automobiles, and other sources.  He also does not point out that too much CO2 can cause headaches, tremors, unconsciousness (Pittsburgh Geological Society, n.d.).  Having too much CO2 in the atmosphere also leads to a greenhouse effect, or in other words, global warming (PGS).

             John Stossel claims that he does not believe global warming could be as catastrophic as they say, but yet be cured by driving a Prius (Chiu, 2008).  In a 2007 article entitled, “The Global Warming Myth?” Stossel actually suggests that nuclear energy would be more practical than wind or solar power, seemingly forgetting the inherent danger of nuclear power plants and Chernobyl (2007).  He calls the windmills used for wind energy “bird-killing Cuisinarts” (Stossel, p.2).  Stossel (2007) says that moving from fossil fuels to greener energy options would “decimate” the economy, yet he also says it would just be easier to “build dykes and move back from the coasts” and that farmers can simply move their crops north, or plant different ones (p.2).  It appears that to Stossel, it is better for millions of people’s lives to be ruined by doing nothing than to make a few adjustments now.  Oh, that’s right.  We can all just afford to abandon our homes, jobs and businesses and move.

            Stossel shares his belief with skeptic Walter Happer, a physics professor who denies that humans are contributing to global warming or that global warming is even occurring (Brusca, 2009).   Happer claims that scientists Stephen Pacala and Robert Socolow-the very ones who won the Nobel Prize for their research on stabilizing carbon dioxide gasses-are being paid by oil companies to push their “propaganda” (Brusca).  What Happer doesn’t say however, is that the Marshall Institute, the very one he is on the board of directors of, is funded by ExxonMobil (Brusca). 

What can we do?

            How can we help slow down global warming?  First, we need to educate ourselves on the realities of global warming and the impact it has.  The EPA suggests switching five of the most used light bulbs to energy efficient bulbs (2011).  It is estimated that if everyone did this, then the greenhouse gasses prevented would be equivalent to that of ten million cars taken off the road (EPA).  Plus, while the initial cost of the bulbs is more, they cost less to use and need to be replaced less often, saving you money in the long run.  Switch to energy efficient appliances when necessary (ie. when it is time for a new one)-many states or electric companies offer rebates on energy efficient appliances, and many of the new appliances cost less than $30/yr to operate.

             Use sustainable resources when available.  Use shredded denim for insulation and bamboo flooring on that new addition, or recycled glass countertops in that updated kitchen.  Consider solar energy.  It appears expensive on the surface, but it actually comes out cheaper.  Not only does it replace your electric bill, but often the panels put energy back into the meter, so that you get a refund from the electric company. 

            Repair leaky faucets and toilets immediately. One running toilet can waste as much as 200 gallons of water a day (EPA, 2011).  Reduce the water used on landscaping by watering in the early morning, giving the soil a chance to absorb it before the water gets evaporated by the heat later in the day.  Composting food and yard waste not only cuts back on trash taken to the landfill, but is also better fertilizer and chemical free. 

Conclusion

            The evidence of global warming and climate change is all around us. We cannot ignore what is happening before our eyes. Denying that global warming is occurring does not make it so. It is time to stop burying our heads and do something about it. We saw how we can make a difference when the hole in the ozone was discovered and environmental policies were changed. What we do directly impacts our environment and it is up to us to do so in a positive way.

              

The image on the left is the ozone hole over Antarctica in 2000, and on the right is the same ozone hole in 2006. The difference in size is visible. Scientists attribute this directly to the Montreal Protocol-proof that we can change the direction of climate change (EPA, 2007).  (Image retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://news.cnet.com/2300-11395_3-6111282.html?tag=mncol )

References

American Policy Roundtable, (2007). Arguments against global warming, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.aproundtable.org/tps30info/globalwarmup.html

Brusca, R., (2009, January). Professor denies global warming theory, The Daily Princetonian,       Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2009/01/12/22506/

Chiu, L., (2008, June). Denying global warming with John Stossel, IwatchNews, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.iwatchnews.org/2008/07/31/3088/denying-global-warming-john-stossel-gclid=CL_jntSHs6wCFQR9hwodz0IuvA

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), (2011). Basics of global warming, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011             from http://www.edf.org/climate/basics-global-warming?s_src=ggad&s_subsrc=climatechange&gclid=CKPXza6zsKwCFQVihwodXjU28g

Environmental Protection Agency, (2011, April). Climate change-what you can do, Retrieved Nov. 27 from http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/home.html

Environmental Protection Agency, (2007). Montreal Protocol questions and answers, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from http://www.epa.gov/ozone/downloads/MP20_QandA.pdf

Kaufman, L., (2011, November). From shore to forest, projecting effects of climate change, New York Times, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/17/nyregion/climate-change-to-affect-new-york-state-in-many-ways-study-says.html

Glover, P., (2007). Ten myths of global warming, Global warming hysteria (cooled), Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.globalwarminghysteria.com/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

Mosser, K., (2010) Philosophy: A concise introduction, San Diego, Ca. USA: Bridgepoint             Education, Inc.

NAACP, (2011). Climate justice initiative, Retrieved Nov. 11, 2011 from           http://www.naacp.org/programs/entry/climate-justice?

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), (2011). NOAA annual greenhouse gases index (AGGI), Retrieved Nov. 26, 2011 from http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), (n.d.). The consequences of global warming on weather patterns, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fcons/fcons1.asp

Pittsburgh Geological Society (PGS), (n.d.). Concentrated carbon dioxide in Western Pennsylvania, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from http://www.pittsburghgeologicalsociety.org/carbondioxide.pdf

O’Harra, D., (2011, November). Methane a growing threat to Arctic’s changing climate, Alaska    Dispatch, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/methane-growing-threat-arctics-changing-climate

Stossel, J., (2007, April). The global warming myth? ABC 20/20, Retrieved Nov. 27, 2011 from             http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=3061015&page=2

World Conservation Society, (2011). Climate change and wildlife, Retrieved Nov. 12, 2011 from             http://www.wcs.org/conservation-challenges/climate-change/climate-change-and-wildlife.aspx

Keep Your New Year's Resolution in a Safe Way

As we begin the new year, many people are making resolutions to lose weight.  It is important to be at a healthy weight and most of us struggle to be there.  One thing we have to make sure we do is to stay away from fad diets, miracle pills, and insane exercise regimens.  Most of these impact our heart and can cause serous long term damage.  This essay focused on childhood obesity but the guidelines about portion and proper diet cut across all ages.  Please pay particular attention to the section on carbs and protein about one-third of the way through.

            Obesity in children is a growing concern for parents, doctors, and society. Being obese is about more than wearing a larger pant size. One is considered to be obese when their body mass index (BMI) is at least 30%, and this leads to dangerous health complications (Cochran, 2007). An obese person can expect to experience respiratory and cardiovascular problems, liver disease, PCOS (polycystic ovarian syndrome) or other fertility difficulties, joint discomfort, or type 2 diabetes (Lee, n.d.). One of the issues today is that as more and more children become obese, they are also developing type 2 diabetes. The intent of this paper is to show that there is a correlation between the rise in childhood obesity and the increase of children developing type 2 diabetes.

              An overweight child does not necessarily lead to an overweight adult. This is partly due to the fact that as the body goes through the changes of adolescence, the rate of the metabolism fluctuates (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). However, many obese adults were overweight children, probably due to food and exercise choices made for them as a child (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). As they got older their metabolism slowed down, but they did not make changes to their diet, resulting in weight gain. One misconception about families who are overweight is that there must be a genetic link so it is out of their control, but this may not be true. It is more likely that the family is overweight because they share the same eating and exercise habits (Edelman, 2008).

            It is estimated that 30% of children ages 2-19 measure into the category of obese- a number that is triple the obesity rate in 1980 (Cochran, 2007). The problem has become so serious that the government has become involved, developing a program called The President’s Challenge. This is a physical fitness test that includes a walk/run, curls-ups, pull-ups, shuttle run, and v-sit-reach (www.presidentschallenge.org). More recently, some states, including California, have used The President’s Challenge as a guideline for mandatory student fitness tests. California specifically issues them to fifth, seventh and ninth graders (http://www.cde.ca.gov/ta/tg/pf/ ).The goal with these tests is to measure a child’s ability, as well as encourage daily physical activity. Even though the physical fitness tests were made mandatory in the 90’s, obesity in children has continued to rise. Some states have taken it further by removing vending machines from the schools, or replacing the chips and soda with water and healthy alternatives.

            How are these children getting so large? While there is a biological factor, nutrition is the main contributor (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). Studies show that even though there has been a reduction in whole milk consumption, there has been an increase in animal protein intake, and also a steady decline in vegetable consumption (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). Put plainly, children are eating fewer vegetables, and more meat and dairy. One of the problems is that even though our society is fixated with low-fat, non-fat, lower calorie foods, children continue to gain weight. It is believed that children need the whole milk, full fat, high-carbohydrate  foods because that is where their bodies pull their energy from (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). This does not mean fatty cheeseburgers and bowls of ice cream, but the natural fats found in milk, nuts, and vegetables like the avocado.

            Carbohydrates get a bad rap because when we don’t work it off through exercise it turns into sugar, but people don’t realize this glucose is what your body uses to get energy (American Diabetes Association, 2000). Children are constantly in motion, so their body uses the carbohydrates, and burns through it faster than an adult’s. When adults try to change a child’s diet by introducing a low-fat, high animal protein diet, they are changing the way their body breaks down and uses food. You are removing their energy source, which encourages inactivity (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). Even overweight infants showed a higher intake of protein, and lower intakes of fat and carbohydrates than their thinner, healthier counterparts, indicating that the main cause of obesity in young children is too much protein (Burniat, Lassau & Cole).

            It is believed that these low-fat, high protein diets in infancy are resulting in high plasma-inulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) concentrations, which causes an increase in muscle mass, and suppresses human growth hormone. (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). Unfortunately, it can also lead to fat depositing in the abdominal area, which creates a strain on the cardiovascular system (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). This same study concludes that the high animal protein diet that leads to IGF-1 plays a role in the development of metabolic disorders, including insulin resistance (Burniat, Lassau & Cole).

            Nutrition goes beyond eating right at meal time. Many children (and adults) partake in binge eating- consuming large amounts of food in a short period (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). Not just snacking mindlessly as they watch television, although they do plenty of that as well, binge eating occurs when the person feels depressed (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). They have learned to use food to fill an emotional void. This is most likely a learned behavior from their parents, who may have offered cookies for a boo-boo, or ice cream for a broken heart. Many obese children who prefer fatty foods have parents who also eat fatty foods, and are simply modeling the behavior of their parents (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). The more fatty, high- protein food they eat, the less energy they have, and they are therefore less likely to participate in vigorous physical activity.

            As mentioned above, type 2 diabetes can be a risk factor of obesity, and as more and more children are becoming obese, more of them are being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes (Cochran, 2007). There is a difference between type 1 and type 2 diabetes. Type 1 was previously called Juvenile Diabetes, because most cases were diagnosed while the patient was a child, but anyone can be diagnosed with it at any age (Edelman, 2008).  Type 1 diabetes is an autoimmune disease in which the pancreas stops producing insulin, requiring lifelong insulin injections, or the use of an insulin pump (Edelman).  Type 2 diabetes is when the body becomes insulin resistant, a result of an intake of high calorie, high fat, and high sugar foods, and as such can often be reversed through proper diet and exercise (Edelman). Many people with type 2 diabetes wind up in the vicious circle of needing to control their weight to control their diabetes, but the health complications from the disease prevent them from exercising.

            Most children with type 2 diabetes are diagnosed about the time they reach puberty (Barnett & Sudhesh, 2009). During adolescence, there is a 30% reduction in insulin production, which is normally counteracted by an increase of growth hormone, but if the hormones have been suppressed by IGF-1, therefore creating more body fat, then the body may be more sensitive to insulin (Barnett & Sudhesh). Since puberty involves many hormonal changes, and a well-balanced diet helps to counteract these changes by providing the body with the necessary vitamins and nutrients, this could explain the high instances of children with poor eating habits being diagnosed with type 2 diabetes during this time. The graph below shows the number of children developing diabetes from 2002 - 2005 by age group.

< 10 years                                       10–19 years

NHW=non-Hispanic whites; NHB=non-Hispanic blacks; H=Hispanics; API=Asians/Pacific Islanders; AI=American Indians

 (CDC, 2011)

            Some of the dangers of type 2 diabetes parallel those of obesity: stroke, heart disease, high blood pressure, and neuropathy (American Diabetes Association, 2000). But diabetes has its own risks.  A diabetic has a more difficult time recovering from seemingly benign cuts and scrapes because they carry a higher risk of infection, and because they are at greater risk for cataracts and glaucoma, they can become blind as they age (American Diabetes Association). Many diabetics also suffer from kidney disease, or die from ketoacidosis (DKA), a condition that occurs when the body starts using fat for energy instead of glucose from carbohydrates (American Diabetes Association).

            So what can we do to help our children? We must adjust our children’s diet to their changing developmental needs. The best way to do this is by helping them to maintain a well-balanced diet. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends breast milk for infants for at least 24 months, adding in fruits and vegetables at around 6 months of age (WHO, 2007). As infants turn into toddlers, whole fat milk and whole fruits and vegetables (not juices, sugary fruit snacks, etc.) can be introduced- and remember that a child’s stomach is not a large as an adult’s (http://www.ccfc.ca.gov/Help/ntp.asp). This is where learning about portion control comes into play. (As a general rule, a child’s stomach is about the size of his/her fist.) Don’t offer the sugary stuff -or even better, don’t buy it at all. If it’s not available, they can’t eat it. Offer two healthy choices like grapes or an orange, instead of grapes or chips. The Mayo Clinic recommends the following protein/carbohydrate guidelines for toddlers:

Ages 2 to 3: Girls and boys

Calories	1,000 to 1,400, depending on growth and activity level
Protein	5 to 20% of daily calories (13 to 50 grams for 1,000 daily calories)
Carbohydrates	45 to 65% of daily calories (113 to 163 grams for 1,000 daily calories)
Total fat	30 to 40% of daily calories (33 to 44 grams for 1,000 daily calories)
Sodium	1,000 milligrams a day
Fiber	19 grams a day
Calcium	500 milligrams a day

(Mayo Clinic, 2009)

             As a child’s rate of growth slows down, adjust their diet accordingly. Around puberty, there is another spike in hormonal and growth development, and this will again require another change in diet. Since the nutritional demands begin to differentiate around this time for males and females, the diet of one child will not be the same as another’s. Caloric intake varies depending on rate of growth, but the carbohydrate/protein ratio generally remains the same; about 4:1 (Mayo Clinic, 2009).  As we enter adulthood, men need more fiber than women, although it is important in controlling cholesterol and sugar levels, as well as the digestive tract for everyone (Mayo Clinic, 2011). Most of your protein should come in the form of plant protein (beans, lentils, soy, etc.), seafood should come in second with a recommendation of twice a week, and a lean cut of meat should make up the least amount (Mayo Clinic, 2011).

            Finally, we need to focus on daily physical activity. Children used to play outside, every day, until dusk, but now, most children spend an average of 23 hours a week watching television (Burniat, Lassau & Cole, 2002). Combine this with 35 hours a week at school, and we have children who are sitting for up to 58 hours per week. Some complain that the lack of exercise is a societal issue, due to the rapid growth of urban communities, and reduction in safe places to play (Dalton, 2004). However, with the advances in technology, we can dance to hip hop music videos in our living rooms, either with a DVD or gaming system. We can choose to park farther away from the store, instead of right up front. Anything we can do to increase our daily activity would be beneficial. Regardless of whether we work out at a gym, or walk a few extra yards to the store, our energy intake needs to reflect our energy output (Burniat, Lassau & Cole). We should not be eating the same amount of food as a cyclist during the Tour de France if we are simply watching it on television.

            Since high fat, high animal protein diets lead to obesity, and type 2 diabetes is a result of obesity, parents can keep their children from a lifetime of health issues by demonstrating proper nutrition and daily physical activity. Children rely on their parents to buy food, and by buying healthy and eating healthy in front of them, parents not only have better control over what their children eat, but also more control over their child's health.

American Diabetes Association (2000). Type 2 Diabetes in Children and Ad o l e s c e n t              Diabetic Journal, Retrieved from http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/23/3/381.full.pdf

Barnett, T., & Sudhesh, K. (2009). Obesity and Diabetes, Second Edition. Hoboken, NJ, USA: Wiley.

Burniat, W., Lassau, I., & Cole, T. J. (2002). Child and Adolescent Obesity: Causes and Consequences, Prevention and Management. West Nyack, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press .

CDC (Centers for Disease Control), (2011). New cases of diagnosed diabetes among people younger than 20 years of age, United States, 2002–2005, 2011 National Diabetes Fact Sheet, Retrieved from http://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/pubs/estimates11.htm#3

Cochran, W., Md. (2007). Pediatric Obesity FAQs, Hamilton, On, Can: B.C. Decker.

Dalton, S., (2004). Our Overweight Children: What Parents, Schools, and Communities Can Do to Control the Fatness Epidemic, Ewing, NJ, USA: University of California Press

Edelman, S. Md. (2008). What is the Difference Between type 1 and type 2 Diabetes? Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Health/DiabetesOverview/story?id=3843306

Lee, R., Md. (n.d.). Risk factors of being overweight or obese and what you can do, Texas             Obesity Research Center, Retrieved from http://hhp.uh.edu/obesity/docs/Risk-factors-of-being-overweight-or-obese_12.10.10.pdf

Mayo Clinic, (2011). Healthy diet: End the guesswork with these nutrition guidelines, Retrieved from http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/healthy-diet/NU00200

Mayo Clinic, (2009). Nutrition for kids: Guidelines for a healthy diet, Retrieved from             http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/nutrition-for-kids/NU00606

WHO (World Health Organization), (2007). What is the recommended food for children in their very early years?, Retrieved from http://www.who.int/features/qa/57/en/

Inequality in Marriage

Gay marriage is not just a hot topic in America, but in my family. The side that believes in equality is often silent against those who do not. We love each other and so we often choose not to discuss things that cause friction to "keep the peace." When I was given an assignment to write about an ethical and social issue, I debated whether or not to write about this. It has been on my list of possible topics in nearly every class, so I decided it was time to voice my own opinion.  After all, the other side thinks nothing of voicing their own. For me, what it comes down to is equality. I hope that you enjoy my paper, or that it at least makes you think.

There is much controversy surrounding the issue of Gay Marriage and giving same-sex couples equal rights under the law.  The strongest argument against the right to marriage is that marriage is perceived as a religious institution, but is this argument even valid in a country that demands separation between church and state, and whose citizens do not want the government to have authority over their personal lives?  Gay couples are treated as second class citizens, and are not granted the same rights under the law as “traditional” couples are.  If we are to have “justice for all”, as our pledge of allegiance states, then it is time for laws and attitudes regarding gay marriage to change.  Two consenting adults should be allowed to marry each other, regardless of sexual orientation, and to make laws to the contrary is in violation of their right to equal and fair treatment (Legal Information Institute, 2010).

            Marriage allows medical privileges that are not available to same sex couples.  Hospitals in states that do not have same sex marriage do not recognize domestic partnerships nor recognize them as immediate family, therefore, the partner does not have rights over medical treatment, and in some cases, is not even allowed to visit the hospitalized partner (Polikoff, 2008).  In Polikoff’s (2008) book, Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage, she writes about several couples who have experienced this traumatic separation.  Same sex couple Bill and Robert were registered in San Francisco as domestic partners, but when Bill was hospitalized in Maryland while on vacation, Robert was forbidden to see him, even though Robert had power of attorney over Bill’s medical care.  Against his wishes, the hospital placed a breathing tube in Bill’s lungs, and he died two days later (Polikoff, p.159).

             This separation extends to shared children who are hospitalized.  The non-biological parent may not be allowed access to the sick child, or to make medical decisions regarding the child’s care.  A domestic partnership or civil union does not provide the same legal rights as marriage does.  Same sex couple Julie and Hilary had a baby through artificial insemination (Polikoff, 2008).  When Julie had a difficult labor and complicated delivery that resulted in the baby going to the neonatal intensive care unit, Hilary was not allowed to visit the baby because she was not a parent or immediate family (Polikoff, p. 159).  A person should not be cut off from their loved one because the law does not allow them to marry.

            What happens when a partner dies?  If they were married, then assets and benefits would go to the spouse.  But what about a couple who is not allowed to marry, but has been together for thirty-five years?  Same sex couples do not have a right to Social Security when their higher earning partner dies, no matter how long they have been together (Polikoff, 2008).  The social security system does not provide the same benefits to same sex partners as it does to married couples.  Even ex-wives of men who die receive social security if they were married to the deceased for more than ten years before the marriage dissolved, yet a same sex couple who has spent a lifetime together is left destitute if the wage earner dies (Polikoff).

             When there is a wrongful death, either by accident or murder, only the surviving spouse can file a wrongful death claim against the accused (Polikoff, 2008).  When Diane Whipple of New York was mauled to death by her neighbor’s dog, her partner of seven years, Susan Smith, was not at first going to file a wrongful death claim against the neighbor because the law did not allow her to do so (Polikoff, p.194).  A judge stepped in and ruled that the law was unconstitutional because Sharon and Diane were not permitted to marry (Polikoff).  A person guilty of taking someone’s life, either by accident or on purpose, should not be allowed to sidestep financial responsibility because the victim was in a same sex relationship. 

            Marriage provides parental and survivors’ rights that civil unions do not.  Some states have created what is called a “second-parent adoption”, which is a legal adoption that does not require the biological parent to give up their parental rights (Mohr, 2005, p. 60).  This allows same sex partners to both be considered legal guardians.  In states that do not have this policy, if a couple separates after raising a child (or children) together after thirteen years, the non-biological parent loses all rights to the child (Mohr).  When a couple separates, the biological parent gets the children, no matter who was staying at home with them.  The couples also do not have a right to child support.  The non-biological parent can simply walk away (Polikoff, 2008). 

            If a relationship is divided by a wage earner and a homemaker, and the wage earner dies, the children being raised only receives survivor’s death benefits if they are biologically related (or adopted under the second parent adoption statute) to the wage earner (Polikoff, 2008).  Even if that state does not recognize domestic partnerships, they do have to abide by the second-parent adoption. This is why it is important to have second-parent adoptions and same-sex marriage nationwide. That way, if a family moves to a different state after the marriage takes place, they cannot be denied benefits simply because the new state does not recognize their marriage as legal.

            Many people argue that marriage is a religious institution and feel threatened by the idea of giving same-sex couples the same privileges that marriage offers.  In 2004, a rally titled, “Mayday for Marriage” was held in Washington D.C., where over 200,000 people came together to defend their definition of marriage, which is one man and one woman (Rimmerman & Wilcox, 2007).  The large group consisted of Jews, Christians of all denomination, and Catholics (Rimmerman & Wilcox).  Even though these religious groups have different views on many government policies, they agree on the subject of gay marriage: it should be illegal.  They cite the Defense of Marriage Act of 1996, which officially defines marriage as a legal union between one man and one woman (Rimmerman & Wilcox).  Before then, some municipal offices approved same sex marriage licenses, and in Hawaii, one couple sued the state when they were not granted a marriage license in 1990 (Rimmerman and Wilcox).  The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled in the couple’s favor.  The DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) however, permits states that do not allow same sex marriage to ignore a legal marriage conducted in a different state, which means that outside Hawaii, their marriage is not recognized (Rimmerman and Wilcox). 

            Supporters of the DOMA believe that allowing homosexuals to marry threatens their own marriage somehow (Montgomery, 2008).  The reality is that the biggest threat to marriage is divorce, and currently fifty percent of marriages (opposite sex marriage) end in divorce.  Some are afraid that churches will be required to perform same sex marriage, however, because if the first amendment to the constitution, no government can force a church to do so (Montgomery).  If we claim that marriage is a religious institution then why do we allow people of all faiths to marry, including atheists?  If believing in God and being religious was a requirement for marriage, then many people would not qualify.

            Some believe that homosexuality is a disease, and therefore should be treated as such.  Even the Pentagon once had homosexuality listed as a mental disorder and in 1996 reclassified it as a “condition” (Associated Press, 2006).  In an article written for the Christian Research Institute, Joseph Gudel (n.d.) claims that the American Psychological Association’s 1973 decision to remove homosexuality as a mental disorder was made in part due to “militant homosexual groups” rallying outside the APA’s national meeting, and calls the decision, “the medical hoax of the century” (Gudel).  The APA counters saying that homosexuality has no correlation with psychopathology (APA, 2008).  Furthermore, the APA goes on to state that the prejudice and violence displayed towards gay people has long term mental affects (APA).

            Presidential candidate Rick Perry compares homosexuality to alcoholism, and has committed to reverse legislation supporting gay rights, which includes signing an amendment that would override laws in states that currently allow gay marriage (Stein, 2011).  Although the republicans consistently argue for less federal government involvement, and more individual state rights, Perry intends to take away a state’s right to pass laws on same-sex marriage.  He is not alone in his beliefs; six of the eleven 2012 Presidential candidates who have taken a stance on gay marriage are against it, and several of those plans to take steps to overturn new legislation that allows gays to serve openly in the military, and to make current same sex marriages illegal (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org). Candidate Mitt Romney claims that allowing same sex marriage will destroy the education system (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org). Candidate Newt Gingrich does not even want to allow gay to adopt children (http://2012.presidential-candidates.org).  All of the candidates cite the Bible as their source when arguing against homosexuality, however, making a sweeping decision based on religious views is in direct violation of the constitution, which states that no government can tell us which religion to practice.

            The topic of same sex marriage not only divides the candidates, but it also divides those who consider themselves to be practicing Christians.  The view most often expressed is one against same sex marriage, however, there are Christians-even some churches-that support it.  The United Church of Christ, a national denomination with over 1.3 million members, passed a resolution in 2005 which stated that everyone, regardless of gender, deserved equal rights to marriage (Dewan, 2005).  The church supports marriage equality because, it says, that to do otherwise is discrimination and violates a couple’s civil rights (Dewan).  In the same article which is titled “United Church of Christ Backs Same-Sex Marriage”, Reverend Thomas (2005), the president of the denomination, says that "We will not run from one another, because if we run from one another we run from Christ" (para. 14). 

            Homosexuals are currently being treated in a way similar to how mixed race couples were treated in the past.  Until 1948, thirty states had laws that banned marriage between interracial couples (Egelko, 2008).  There was a belief that marriage between a mixed-couple was inferior to that of a white couple.  We need to recognize that love is a basic human right, and that everyone should be treated with dignity.  Keeping a same sex-couple from marrying is telling them that they are “less than” and that they have no value.

            While marriage can be viewed as a religious covenant by many couples, it is important to remember that not everyone practices Christianity.  We either need to change the meaning of marriage, or the importance of the legal implications behind marriage.  Our laws state that the government cannot impose its religious beliefs upon its citizens.  Race, religion, and sexual orientation should not be a factor when it comes to marriage, and it is time to get rid of antiquated laws, and grant the human right to love, marry, and live your life with whom you wish. 

References

American Psychological Association (2008). Sexual orientation and homosexuality, American       Psychology Help Center, retrieved Oct. 23, 2011 from  http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/sexual-orientation.aspx

Associated Press, (2006, November). Pentagon Changes Listing of Homosexuality as Mental Illness, Fox News, Retrieved Oct. 22, 2011 from  http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,230102,00.html

Dewan, S., (2005, July). United church of Christ backs same sex marriage, The New York Times, Retreived Oct. 23, 2011 from  http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/05/national/05church.html

 Egelko, B., (2008, March). California Supreme Court takes up same sex marriage, The San Francisco Chronicle, Retrieved Oct. 2 2011 from http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/04/7463

Gudel, J., (n.d). Is homosexuality an illness? Christian Research Journal, Retrieved Oct. 23, 2011 from http://www.equip.org/articles/is-homosexuality-an-illness-

Legal Information Institute, (2010). Civil rights, Retrieved Oct. 22, 2011 from          http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/Civil_rights

Mohr, R., (2005). Long Arc of Justice: lesbian and gay marriage, equality, and rights, New           York, NY, USA: Columbia University Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford  Online Library

Montgomery, P., (2008, June). Myths about gay marriage, People for the American Way Foundation, Retrieved Oct. 22, from http://www.alternet.org/sex/88470/

Polikoff, N., (2008). Beyond (Straight and Gay) Marriage: valuing all families under the law,        Boston, MA, USA: Beacon Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford Online Library

Rimmerman, C., & Wilcox, C., (2007). Politics of same-sex marriage, Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press, Retrieved Sept. 30, 2011 from the Ashford Online Library

Stein, S., (2011, August). Rick Perry signs anti-gay marriage pledge before mingling with virulently anti-gay activist, The Huffington Post, Retrieved Oct. 2 from             http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/26/rick-perry-gay-marriage_n_938125.html