Government Interference in our Food Choices

           The recent actions by Mayor Rahm Emanuel of Chicago to ban certain popular vending machine items and Mayor Bloomberg of New York to limit the size of soft drinks has kindled the debate over the limits of government intervention in public and private health. Lost in the political and legal debate of these actions is the even more fundamental philosophical and ethical debate. Where does government intervention for the public good stop and the Nanny State begin? Based on current knowledge, the issue of isolated obesity does not warrant governmental intervention in the diet decisions of the adult individual, and government should serve primarily an educational role for minors and their parents.

            Malnutrition can be under-nutrition or over-nutrition. Statistics show a definite correlation between obesity and health issues, but the direct cause and effect may not be as dramatic as previously believed. That is not to say that malnutrition is not a concern. “You are what you eat,” is an old but accurate adage. If you eat healthy foods, you are more likely to be able to live a healthy lifestyle. Making good food choices is key to every healthy life style. With terrible food choices all around, it is hard to make the right ones constantly.

           According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), obesity is common, serious, and costly to deal with. More than one-third (35.7%) of adults of the United States are considered to be obese. Not only are you worried about your weight; you also need to be worried about your health. “Obesity-related conditions include heart disease, stroke, type 2 diabetes and certain types of cancer.” Along with acquiring health problems, you have increases of medical cost. In 2008, obese people were estimated to pay about $1,429 more than someone who was of normal weight, and overall U.S. medical costs associated with obesity were estimated to be at $147 billion (CDC).

            Although, the United States belt sizes are expanding, is it really right for others to intervene?

           (Governments point …. Obama care and government care is tax payer supported therefore we can for the good of the village tell you what to eat and going forward ban food we think is unhealthy for you and even withdraw healthcare if you continue to violate our directives)

           Does the government have such powers granted to them by the constitution to mandate health care and diet and restrictions against private business to sell us the food we want? Can pig farmers be restricted because bacon makes some people fat?

          Can milk producers and dairies be stopped making BLUE BELL!!!??  

Is living on Mars the Best Option?

Recently in class we were discussing overpopulation and perhaps colonizing Mars by at least 2023. After all, Mars shows some similar salt deposits that can be found in Rio Tinto Basin, Huelva. These salt deposits are coherent with water. Life on Mars has long been debated over its existence and potential existence (you can read about life on Mars here). While people are adamant about colonizing Mars, does anyone know about some of the potential harmful effects that it can cause?

Recently in my physics class we were discussing magnetic fields and an interesting picture was shown. 

This picture shows the earth's magnetic field protecting earth from most of the suns radiation. Even when the poles flip, the earth will still mostly be protected from the suns radiation.  However, when you compare this image to an image of Mars you will see something interesting. What is shown is less protection against the suns radiation. The fact that there is increased radiation on Mars, and thus an increased risk in cancer is even supported by NASA.

NASA has even begun a debate of whether it is safe enough to colonize Mars. Some have suggested instead of colonizing Mars, we should consider the possibility of colonizing the moon first. You can read about the benefits of colonizing the moon first here.

So my question to others is: Is living on Mars the best option or is there a suitable alternative? Furthermore, is colonizing a foreign planet necessary? 

Asia. Is it rising?

   Tonight's blog entry will be covering the westward movement of wealth and civilization towards Japan.  The author of article 4, Paul Kennedy describes this as a common occurrence that needs to happen.  Most Americans do not want to believe that this is happening, but it is statistically shown that it is inevitable.

 Kennedy describes different variants of the population's opinions:

 "[a] it is not really happening, and the twenty-first century will be America's century, despite all the statistical evidence and forecasts to the contrary; or [b] it is indeed happening, but there is nothing to worry about since America and Asia are natural and complementary trading partners so they will all get richer at the same time, as if members of some gigantic trans-Pacific Hanseatic League. This displaying a naivete about power-politics that is breathtaking;..."
                                                         Asia's Rise: Rise and Fall by Paul Kennedy
 

  My personal opinion is that both of the countries need each other economically within the trade sector.

 There has also been a shift in the military.  All of Asia is building up their naval fleets.  This is very worrisome not only for America but for Europe also.  Unfortunately America seems to have no type of strategy for this problem.