The obesity debate rages on

Amidst all of the hubba hubba about Iraqi elections (which I'll probably end up getting back to in future posts), I noticed another interesting story on NBC Nightly News tonight dealing with child obesity.

Of course, we've all been told that somewhere around 2/3 of American adults are considered to be overweight (which is ridiculous as it is), however, I was almost sickened to learn that, according to the Texas Department of Agriculture, over 1/3 of school-age children in that state are overweight or obese. In the wake of this sea of pork chops and cheesecake, Texas lawmakers have decided to pass a bill that requires that a BMI (body mass index) rating to be displayed on school report cards. And the purpose being: inform parents of their child's overall physical condition, which will then proceed to (at least the lawmakers are hoping) scare the living crap out of parents who don't want their kids getting diabetes at the age of 10.

The only real problem here is: how are the parents supposed to help the situation if most of them are obese themselves? In fact, I would even go as far to say that they are at the root of the problem by allowing their kids to get so fat and out of shape. Why can't you just say no when they ask you for more brownies or mini-muffins? Why can't you tell them to go outside and play ball like kids used to do instead of sitting in front of the Playstation? Is that so hard to do?

However, even though the parents are mostly to blame, I do agree with actions taken by school districts (aka the big, bad, "telling everyone how to live their lives" government) to combat this national epidemic. The whole BMI on the report card thing might not be the best approach, but I do think that public schools need to take responsiblity for what kinds of foods they sell to kids. I mean, sure, in terms of school lunches, there are supposed to be federal nutritional guidelines, but most of the food I've ever seen served at my school still seems unnecessarily packed with fat and calories. Do we really have to have pizza as the main course twice a week? Or how about the infamous "appetizer boat," which consists of a generous helping of greasy french fries, mozzerella sticks, and breaded chicken nuggets thrown together into a cardboard tray. Mmmm...I just love getting triple bypass surgery. And of course, how could we forget the soda machines? Need I say more?

America, please, do yourself a favor and buy a friggin' treadmill.

Iraqi turnout stuns media

I can't even count how many times today on CNN I've heard a correspondent like Jane Arraf or Christine Amanpour say, "This is absolutely stunning and extraordinary," in reference to the number of Iraqis showing up at the polls. I think we are seeing an absolute blunder unfold on behalf of the mainstream media in all of their coverage on election preparation leading up to today. They kept trying to spell out the same equation, thinking they had it all figured out: Sunni boycott + insurgent threats = civil war over the election of a Shiite theocracy. It just goes to show how truly uninformed most people are about the political make-up of the country (the idea that Iraqi Sunnis and Shiites are bitter enemies is ludicrous to begin with). And perhaps the most important point to note was the severe underestimation of the bravery and resiliency of the Iraqi people, something that I never really doubted. The initial estimate for voter turnout was an "optimistic" 50 percent, which is something the Iraqi Election Commission supposedly came up with. Nevertheless, we now see figures well within the 70-75 percent range popping up (out of 15 million registered voters). This is indeed commendable, especially when considering our own national elections are carried out regularly with around a 50 percent voter turnout. Perhaps by teaching the Iraqis (and hopefully the rest of the Middle East) a thing or two about democracy, we will end up learning a thing or two in return about this sacred obligation that we call voting, which is often times sadly taken for granted.

Two historic elections

I think the world community has yet to realize the significance of what is happening right now in the Middle East, both in Iraq and the Palestinian territories. I just can't stand how many times I've seen speculation in the mainstream media that America's attempt to force Western-style democracy will ultimately be rejected by "a region that has little experience with anything but winner-take-all politics." -The New York Times

Sure, it's a risk, but then again, everything in the Middle East is a risk. In order for there to be change in the region, democracy is a must have. Just look at what happened in the Palestinian territories earlier this month. The election of Mahmoud Abbas as President of the Palestinian Authority is seemingly our best hope yet for a break in the stalemate between militant groups and Israeli forces. Not only is Abbas a moderate whom both the U.S. and Israeli governments are looking forward to doing business with, but his experience inside Arafat's Fatah organization gives him the credibility needed to make deals with militant groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad. Of course, any sort of deals made between opposite sides of the fence in the Middle East have a reputation of going to hell rather quickly. Nonetheless, by examining the principle of the matter, it is clear that the practice of democracy in the region is doing exactly what it is meant to do. That is, fully express the feelings and aspirations of a people sunk within the depths of destitude. Initial reports suggested that Abbas would have no chance in the election, especially among the younger generation of Palestinians. What a shock it must have been to analysts when he won a landslide victory. So what can be concluded from this? The Palestinians are tired of it all, that's what. They have enough brains to know which candidate has the best chance of bringing an end to all the meaningless bloodshed. And hopefully, in Iraq tomorrow, we will see a similar course of action unfold.

God save the school board

Apparently the Harrisburg, Pennsylvania school district is buckling under the pressure. The pressure from Christian fundamentalists, that is.

"The district is believed to be the only one in the nation to require students to hear about intelligent design -- a concept that holds that the universe is so complex, it had to be created by an unspecified guiding force." Full story

Now, me personally, I'm a religious person, like most Americans. Then why do I seem to have a problem with this? I think it's because, put simply, it's not science. Teaching intelligent design (which is really just a non-denominational version of Biblical creationism) in school, which is supposed to gurantee a seperation of church and state, seems kind of awkward and unnecessary. For one thing, it has no place in a science classroom. In a social studies classroom, yes, there is a lot to learn about American history that has to do with the conflicting beliefs of evolution and creationism. But to expect science teachers to present this to students is pretty ridiculous. This seems to be just another ploy by the Christian right to shelter their children (and most likely other peoples' children) from anything that might cause them to question their faith. If that is the case, then maybe it's time for them to get a new pastor, or a new faith, because obviously one of the two doesn't seem to have all the answers.

Bush on racism

The text of the speech can be read in its entirety here.

It's quite well written to be sure, with an abundance of references to God, freedom, and the glorious days of America's infant past. However, the major thing that bothered me was Bush's little bit about ending racism. It's almost a known fact that the Bush presidency has had one of the worst relationships with the African-American community in recent memory. Here's a little excerpt from washingtontimes.com:

King Day bash
"ABC's Peter Jennings decided to use Martin Luther King Day to showcase how President Bush has a 'difficult relationship' with black Americans, as illustrated by how 'he got only 9 percent of the black vote four years ago and 11 percent in this election,' " the Media Research Center's Brent Baker reports at www.mediaresearch.org.
"The piece by reporter Dan Harris featured blacks who denounced Bush. One man asserted: 'If I was a schoolteacher, he'd have an F.' Another complained: 'We're spending billions of dollars on that war. And then, we have citizens of our nation, our prosperous nation, who don't have health care.'
"Harris elaborated: 'In his first four years, Mr. Bush angered many blacks by supporting a lawsuit against affirmative action, and by refusing to speak to the NAACP.' Harris failed to mention how the NAACP ran TV ads in 2000 blaming Bush for the dragging murder of James Byrd. Harris relayed how a former congressman contended that Bush's appointments 'matter far less than' his lack of effort to combat discrimination."

I mean, seriously, affirmative action is one thing, but to REFUSE to meet with a credible organization like the NAACP throughout the entire span of his first term? I sincerely hope that someone catches him on that one. Ah, presidential hypocrisy at its best...

Bush on liberty

I didn't really get the chance to see Bush's inaugural speech today (hopefully there will be excerpts on the news tonight, but I managed to read a little about his remarks here beforehand), but from the sound of it, I think Bush was definitely playing the JFK card when he said, "The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world." Of course, I wasn't alive in the 60's, but I do recall Kennedy saying similar things in regards to the Communist bloc. Isn't it interesting how presidents piggy-back off each other? Politics as usual.

The only difference here is that we are dealing with an entirely new enemy, one that is not organized to the same extent as the Soviet Union once was, which makes it harder to deal with directly. We don't have any direct line with our enemy the way we did during the Cold War. No embassies to spy on or hotlines to Osama. But then again, I don't really see Bush on the phone with Osama anyway, even if there was some kind of jack installed in his cave.

The thing here is, there's this whole debate on whether the Islamic world could even "handle" democracy to begin with. Just take a look at this. It's pretty clear to me that many of these conservative Muslims in the Islamic world that speak out against democracy are only doing so because they associate the word itself with the West, which they see as corrupt, secular, immoral, and worse of all, pro-Israeli. So it is not so much that democracy is incompatible with the Islamic religion (in fact it is quite the opposite), but that it is incompatible with current Arab prejudices. And how does one go about getting rid of those? Hmm...well, for a start, Rummy can step down as SecDef and apologize for Abu Ghraib. But, like I said, that's just a start.

Welcome to PokornyPundit!

Greetings to all citizens of the Blogosphere!

Isn't the Internet great? I couldn't believe how quick it was to set this baby up. I was almost positive that I would get caught up in a plethora of online registration windows. Guess that shows how much I know about this whole blogging deal.

Anyways, I'm a high school student who also happens to be editor-in-chief of my school paper, so it's a fair bet that I have a passion for journalism. I seem to have a lot to say about the news I read, so why not be productive (is that the right word?) and start a blog? Oh, and I forgot to mention that I'm actually getting credit (hopefully) for doing this as part of an individualized research project. But that aside, this should prove to be a very interesting and educational experience.

You know, it kinda feels like the day before starting a new job. Hell, enough of those top bloggers spend in excess of 5 hours a day on their precious little journals; they might as well be part-time jobs. What does that say about America these days (or the rest of the world for that matter)? The fact that there are people, a good number of them mind you, who are willing to spend that much time in front of a computer and not get paid a nickel for it. Oh well, I guess I'm being hypocritical here because, in a way, I've just joined their ranks...