Eating Ethically

In conclusion, the fast food industry is manipulating the public; they give us inferior products and hide behind a curtain of mystery. Their products can lead to heart disease, obesity, and diabetes and aren’t these consequences that deserve to be kept in check?

If we can put tabs on alcohol and cigarettes, I can feel comfortable advocating control over fast food. In addition to this, the government should adjust subsidies on corn and perhaps provide incentives to organic farmers and local grocers. We need to discourage this fast-food mentality that gets applied to everything; a mentality that promotes mega-marts, preservatives, and homogeneous lifestyles. It endangers our mentality and our bodies.

I want to applaud the media for bringing these issues to light. Documentaries like Food, Inc., Supersize Me, and Fast Food Nation bring issues like this to light. However, it’s still not enough. The media has a responsibility to shine the light on these issues; they need to give the public the information to make an informed decision.

Spending a few more dollars on dinner can make such a huge difference. It’s a small commitment that provides a healthier lifestyle and benefits the planet and global community. If we all just ate a little less meat and replaced the meat that we do eat with a higher quality, free-range, grass fed alternative, we could take a huge step forward in regards to the environment. To be honest, it’s a lot easier than recycling.

Homeward Bound: Journey From Afghanistan

In the two previous installment of Homeward Bound: Journey From Afghanistan, I further discussed the reasons for the decline of American support for the war in Afghanistan. In the first installment, I discussed the role that time played in the decline of support for the war. In the second installment, I explained the role war controversy, such as war crimes, played in America’s decline in support. However, these are not the only reasons for decline in support. Another pressing issue, which affects support for the war is the recent state of the economy. With the United States continuing to fund a war in the midst of a recession, American support continues to drop. Many Americans would rather stimulate the economy as opposed to funding the war in Afghanistan.

Specialist in U.S. Defense Policy and Budget, Amy Belasco, presents the total figures for the war to the date of September 2, 2010 in a report entitled The Cost of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Other Global War on Terror Operations Since 9/11. From September 11, 2001 until September 2, 2010 the United States government has spent a cumulative $336 billion to fund the war in Afghanistan. Though this total is not as larger as the $751 billion spent over the same time period on the war in Iraq, it does raise the question as to whether this money could be put to better use at this time.

As the United States is suffering from one of its worse recessions, the need for government funding is great. According to a report by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, national unemployment, as of September 2010, was 9.6% a figure which insures that millions of Americans are out of work. That being the case, the money that is being pumped into the war in Afghanistan could very well be used to help the millions of Americans who have lost jobs as a result of the sluggish economy. Therefore, many Americans want the war to end and the troops to come home in order to help the economy get back on its feet.

To bring the war in Afghanistan to an end would mean less divisions of government spending. The U.S. government would be able to help more jobless Americans and even boost the economy. While many Americans want the war in Afghanistan to come to an end, the reasons why vary. Some believe that the war has been going on for far to long; others fear the dark possibilities that can come from remaining at war; and many more consider the war effort a strain on the economy. For these many reasons, Americans want United States soldiers to come back home. The time is now.

World of Dance acceptable outlet for provocative behavior?

In my previous blogs I stated the inappropriateness of dancing done by young girls aged 7-9. The first blog was about a video the girls had done to Beyonce's "Single Ladies." The other done by a few of the same girls to the song "My Boyfriend's Back." Both videos were outrageous, showing the talent of the young girls through mature eyes. Little girls should remain little girls. The maturity level based on the dance was nowhere near age level. The parents, let alone the choreographer should have never let these girls believe the way they are dancing and are dressed is acceptable.In Beyonce's music video, the backup dancers along with Beyonce are more covered than the 7,8, and 9 year old girls; Beyonce is 29.

The girls in the controversial videos have disgruntled the view of young girls in dance and the dance community. A dance studio owner named Katie Hignett stated, "I am disgusted that this smut receives high scores at competitions. It gives dance a bad name." Why should these young girls receive praise with high scores at competitions?  According to dance executive vice president, Larry Peters, for the Hozman group and the dance completion the girls did nothing wrong. “"It was the very first WOD event I had ever attended, and I can tell you the cheering and screaming you heard on the video was from other parents and dance teams that were just blown away by their dance performance and precision. There was NOTHING provocative about what they were doing."How can a grown man openly admit that? It really makes you think about just WHO the girls were performing to. If a grown man from the dancing community has nothing bad to say about the performance, who do the children go to know their actions aren’t appropriate? The amount of desensitization in the adult community, for example Peters, is what is wrong with this whole picture. If the choreographer and parents would have put their foot down against the inappropriateness of the situation there would be no controversy.

Same Sex Marriage

Most of society have issues with homosexuals marrying, but the question is why? Everybody is the same and should have the same rights.

Nearly 70% of the people in the United States oppose same sex marriage. Legalizing homosexual marriage would represent culmination of the nation's commitment to equal rights. As of right now the America is not treating everybody fair. Homosexuals should have the same rights as everybody else.

Same sex relationships is not something that just recently, in fact it has been around since the ancient Greece and roman times although the term homosexual was not created until 1869. The practice of homosexuality has not always been stigmatized, but accepted into many cultures. Why cant we accept other peoples happiness??

Allowing same sex marriage can provide guarantees of many important human relationships. For example if a couple has a medical emergency and they need a spouse to sign are the doctors going to tell the other spouse he/she cannot marry. This would also be a big problem if they are not married and they need a signature some where on dotted line and they are not able to sign. All I am trying to say is that people should accept one another for who they really are despite there differences. Whether gay, straight white, black etc. it should not really matter. If a person is really happy with there significant other then let them be happy. Ever body should have equal rights.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell

In the latest news, Congress came together and formed a meeting to discuss the ban of the policy Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). Also, the Pentagon has discussed the issue of openly recruiting gays. The decision has been made that the ban of the policy can be overturned if a recruiter discovers the sexuality of a recruit. The policy became known well under President Bill Clinton in the 90's. Now that attitudes have changed, federal judges have decided to declare the policy unconstitutional. On a more surprising note, the White House has made the promise to appeal the decision. For the first time in history, the United States military is allowing recruits that are openly gay. This major decision has opened up numerous opportunities and has answered many questions concerning those that were interested in serving their country. Not only does this brighten the future for most, but it also allows the rest of the nation to realize that military cohesion would not be disrupted. Anyone with the capabilities should be allowed to serve their country regardless of their sexual preference. As a precaution, gay recruits were sent to recruiting stations to test the policy to ensure their eligibility. Overturning the ban on the policy is a major aspect in the atmosphere of Congress. Although this may be a positive look for some of America, recruits have been asked not to come out just yet in case a judge decides to change his/her mind on the decision made by the Pentagon. As the court battle rages on, most are hopeful that the final decision allows most to continue serving readily in the military or open up career opportunities for others. The current ban on the policy has made most cautious as to how they might express their sexuality. Eventually, this battle will be over and a final decision will have to be made. Until then, President Obama has assured most that the defense authorization will be passed before Congress. Will the policy Don't Ask, Don't Tell be active again?

Miami Heat, Contender's or Pretender's? (part 3)

            With all of the hype surrounding the Miami Heat this off season, most sports fans want to know if this team is a legitimate threat to knock off the Los Angeles Lakers as the next NBA champions. There is a lot of controversy surrounding this team, there are too many egos, they don’t have enough supporting players, and they don’t have a coach with a back bone who can hold them together. All of these are great reasons to bet against the Heat, but will they hold up when the season finally comes around. There are some people that pose the argument that if the Celtics “Big 3” could do it in 2008, why cant the Heat? Just like the Heat, the Celtics brought together three superstar players to try to win a Title.  Although this worked out perfectly for the Celtics, there are a few main reasons why it will not work as well for the Heat. First, the Celtics were built with three veteran players that were willing to do anything to win. The Heat’s superstars are still in the beginning stages of their careers, which means that they are still all about themselves. One day they will wise up and play together, but this will not happen in the upcoming NBA season. The next reason that the Celtics were a success is the fact that none of their big three had ever one a Title. They had all been in the league for many years giving everything they had, but getting nothing in return. This fact tells us that they would have done anything just to win something before they retired. The Heats “Big 3” is a talented team with all the ability in the world to win a title, but although they might think they are, they are not willing do anything and to give up everything to win. So in the question of contenders or pretenders, the Miami Heat are most definitely pretenders for the 2011 NBA Championship.