State of the Union

I actually watched most of the State of the Union address last night... instead of the 4 or 6 minutes I usually put into it.

The reason was that Bush actually had to compromise a little this year. For the past 6 years, he could pretty much say whatever the Republicans wanted him to say since they had all the power.

This year, you could actually hear some cracking in his back as he tried to bend over backwards to steer clear of impeachment.

I especially liked his "20 in 10" proposal... limit the US gas use by 20% in the next 10 years. Great idea!!

Wait... weren't you the one who pushed through an energy bill with so many loopholes for energy companies and other entities that it more than offset the 1.8 mpg improvements you required for SUV's and "light trucks"... by 2011?

Well, regardless of your past "initiatives"... if you actually follow through with this proposal, it will help everyone in the world.

As for the Health Insurance Tax Reform initiative... or whatever you're calling it... I'm not so sure I like its current version. But I think it's a step in the right direction.

As it stand now, though, it seems that you would like the middle class to purchase health insurance for the poor. I don't have a problem pitching in to help them out, and lower health care costs for everyone in the process... but shouldn't the people who can help the easiest also lend a hand???

The middle class are the people who are losing ground the fastest in this country, and your proposal will help dwindle their spendable income just a little more. Plus, I don't know how it works in your large, rich, fortune 500 companies, but out here in the real world, it's quite rare for an employer to fully fund the cost of an employee's health insurance... unless of course you're part of a union that has negotiated for decades to make this part of the overall compensation package. So what I take from your proposal is that you'd like the union members and the middle class to "resolve" the current problem of 45+ million uninsured Americans, and lower themselves in the class wars just a little more...

You know what's sad... we're probably willing to do it. Because we're compassionate and patriotic citizens who are willing to go out of our way to help a fellow American...

Oh, and in case you missed the speech... here's a link to it on YouTube

It's my duty to inform you...

Your kid is obese. There I said it. It seems harsh, doesn't it?

But at some point someone has got to inform parents that their child is seriously overweight and that it could lead to medical issues, like diabetes or a heart condition, in the near (or distant) future.

And that's exactly what is starting to happen around the country. So far it's only hit a few states, but I'm pretty sure it's going to spread like wildfire. So the question is... is it the right thing to do?

That's a tough question.

First, we need to address the menu at schools. A big part of the reason that our youth are on average much larger than they were 30 years ago is the diet that they consume while outside of their parents' control. School lunches have rarely used Grade A ingredients... that's too expensive for the shrinking budgets that they have. But beyond that, due to the smaller budgets, our nations schools have become an excellent target for large corporations with products that aren't exactly the most health conscience.

Coca-Cola and Pepsi are the two largest companies that have contracts with so many schools that I'd be willing to bet they've lost count. Basically, they agree to pay the school a certain amount of money and a percentage of the gross intake by their vending machines. This gives the kids unrestricted access to sodas and other beverages that hold no nutritional value, yet plenty of empty calories, at any point during the majority of their day. This also happens with chips, candy bars, and plenty of other items that help kids balloon up.

Now, I'm not suggesting that the same kids wouldn't be eating the same things at home... they likely would be. But at least there the parents should have some control over the kids. So should schools be forced to change the items that they allow kids to consume? I don't really see a problem with that tactic.

But the current question is... Is there anything wrong with sending home a BMI score to the parents. Technically, the schools already measure weight and height... the BMI is just an extension of those measurements. Many argue that it hurts the self-esteem of the larger kids... I can see how that could be the case... but don't those larger kids already know that they are large? If their size didn't bother them, why should an arbitrary number?

Don't get me wrong... the LAST thing I want to do is give children complexes about their weight. They can already get those from any media source in the world. But I do feel that it's important for them to understand the implications of being overweight and learn easy steps to take to reduce their size. Ultimately, most children don't want to be overweight, but they don't realize how easy it can be to slim down. While it's true that many currently overweight children could never be a size 2 or whatever, there would be nothing wrong with them being more healthy and dropping 10 or 20 unnecessary pounds.

Ultimately, I feel that there are two things that have never been taught in schools, but are the most important things for young people to grasp... Personal Finance and Nutrition. These are the two things that EVERY person on this planet will need to deal with on a daily basis. Screw art... screw wood shop... teach our kids how to manage money so they don't get trapped by the credit card companies at age 18 and so they understand the importance of finishing high school and going on to some higher education... and teach our kids about what they are putting in their bodies... You'd be surprised how many kids would change their eating habits (or never develop bad habits) if you started teaching nutrition in kindergarten.