School Lunches are Making us Fat, so Let's Fix Them

School lunches are one of the main causes of childhood obesity because the lunches are so unhealthy. In fact, “Lunches averaged 800 to 900 calories -- much higher than federal guidelines -- and were loaded with salt” (Gaouette). Since lunches are this unhealthy, many parents, nutrition advocates, and physicians are going to Congress so that they can change the farm bill. The farm bill “sets the nation’s agricultural agenda every five years” (Gaouette). By changing the farm bill these people can make sure that students will have better cafeteria lunches. However, the rewriting of this bill was stalled last week in the Senate, which means that it might not be rewritten until next year. Still, advocates are happy because they believe that with more time they will be able to make a better case that the bill is causing the unhealthy food in schools. The Senate bill, right now, is a $288-billon bill that spends on more fruit and vegetables, but advocates think that the bill is more about subsidizing farmers, not eating right. In fact, these subsidies “make fast food less expensive than fresh fruits and vegetables” (Gaouette).

Thinking about the lunches that they served at my elementary school, or even at Chaminade, just makes me sick. Most my elementary school lunches, which I did not eat because my mom is a dietician, were tater tots, hamburger, and a small fruit cup (which no one really ate. Then I look at Chaminade, which is so much worse, students are eating greasy pizza with greasy french-fries that sometimes have salt flavoring. What does this all equal? This food equals fat, sodium, and obesity. Schools need to overhaul lunches completely, and hopefully changing the farm bill will help. I think the government is ignoring the facts about obesity because they have so many other things that they need to deal with overseas. However, this is an extremely important issue that needs to be faced right now. Now, farmers are making more money a year than the average American, but they are not helping our children. The Senate needs to focus on fruits and vegetables and make the school food healthier. If they do not, then the schools need to change all by themselves.

For more information: http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-na-farmbill25nov25,1,7067796.story

War-Crimes Trials Not Fair

There are upcoming war-crimes trials at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; however, there are problems about how these trials will occur. “The rules governing war-crimes trials here require defense lawyers and prosecutors to inform each other of witnesses they will call and evidence they will present at the military commissions” (Williams). However, the rules are vague on how much time is needed for the lawyers to inform each other of witnesses. The law does not make it necessary for the government to make witnesses available for pretrial hearings and it is okay for the witnesses to not be named or seen in the trial. “Defense lawyers for the terrorism suspects contend that the deck is stacked against them in preparing their cases. They say the administration officials running the tribunals can hide critical information and helpful testimony from the defense” (Williams). Last week in a case against in Canadian war-crimes suspect the United States withheld the name of an eyewitness that the U.S. had known about five years ago; the Canadians found about the eyewitness thirty-six hours before trial. This eyewitness contradicted everything that the Canadian lawyers were going to bring up; therefore, causing many to say that these trials are unfair. Also, “Affidavits sworn by bounty hunters in Pakistan who turned over more than 200 of Guantanamo's prisoners in exchange for sums upward of $5,000 are among the classified documents that neither defendants nor trial observers are allowed to see. That withholding of classified information from the defense and the public has resulted in many of the 305 prisoners here remaining in detention for nearly six years without knowing exactly what they are accused of or who made the accusations.” (Willilams).
I do not find the war-crimes trials to be fair because they are giving the side with more evidence more of an edge against the other side. Trials are supposed to be fair; the judge or the jury is supposed to see both sides of the case, the lawyers are given time to create a case, and lawyers need to show evidence to the other side with enough time for the other side to make a case. However, in war-crimes trials this is not happening and, in fact, the law is not doing what it is supposed to be doing. I do not think that it matters that the United States is benefiting from this because it is basically cheating to be able to win, with an unfair advantage, at the end. The article made the great point that this would not be allowed in a U.S. courthouse; then why is it allowed in the world? This situation needs to be rectified quickly, so people are not put in jail for war crimes or other situations when they might not even be guilty. What do you think?

For More Information Read Carol Williams's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-gitmo13nov13,1,6567733.story

Mayors Trying to Help the Environment

America’s mayors are trying to change the carbon footprint of their cities, however they are finding that doing this is quite hard. To help mayors, “Congress has included block grants in energy legislation now under consideration—up to $2 billion a year in a House bill” (Roosevelt). These grants will help train workers to make buildings that are more energy efficient and it will help teach them to “install climate-friendly energy systems” (Roosevelt). Last week 728 mayors signed the Climate Protection Agreement, which means that the mayors have “formally pledged to slash greenhouse gas emissions by their cities to 7% below 1990 levels by 2012” (Roosevelt). Also, “the mayors have set a goal to further cut their cities’ emissions by 80% by 2050—the amount most scientists say is needed to avoid potentially catastrophic climate change” (Roosevelt). However, “the Bush Administration has opposed the 1997 Kyoto Protocol [the agreement that launched the Climate Protection Agreement], saying that it would damage the U.S. economy—a stance that drew scathing criticism at last week’s summit” (Roosevelt). Still, though many cities are having a hard time trying to calculate the level of greenhouse gases from 1990.

I think that this article brings up a great point that I think we all should be doing in our lives. I think that everyone needs to step up and try to cut his or her use of energy. Although this may be difficult, I think that the mayors are doing a good job by being influences for the citizens. By trying to cut emissions by 7% from 17 years ago, I think that the country will be in really great shape. However, I am angry that the Bush administration is so against this policy because I think that this is one of the most important issues, not the most but one of the most. I believe that the Bush administration is more into their war spending then into how they are going to save the planet because they are not seeing immediate results. This policy is not going to occur overnight, but it will make a huge difference in the long run. I believe that besides trying to cut emissions we also need to find alternative resources so we will not be ruining the Earth.

To read more, read Roosevelt's article: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-na-mayors4nov04,1,1764128.story

Following "the Gipper" Won't Work

The Republicans are still surprised about how the 2006 midterm election panned out, so because of this they are structuring the 2008 elections so that does not happen again. Most candidates who want to receive the GOP nomination for the 2008 election have tried to remind voters of Ronald Reagan. They believe that by having being “the model small-government Republican” (Voegeli) they will get more votes. However, the author makes the point that being compared to Reagan would not be a good thing because “what they fail to understand is that Reagan himself was not a terribly effective Reaganite, and despite his rhetoric, his success at limiting government was itself pretty limited” (Voegeli). Instead of making the government small, as Reagan said he wanted to do, Reagan expanded the government. “The GOP candidates who suggest that they will succeed where Reagan failed are implying that the Gipper spent too much time on the sidelines during the contest against big government. The problem with this is not that it flunks the piety test but that it flunks the laugh test – Ronald Reagan was not just pretending to be a Reagan Republican” (Voegeli).

I think that the author of this editorial makes a great point about the GOP candidates and Ronald Reagan. Why would the GOP candidates try to compare themselves to Reagan when he failed at what he wanted to do? This reinforces the idea that maybe Reagan’s thought was wrong or too big and that the candidates should start smaller. I am not sure if I agree or disagree with this Voegeli’s idea because I did not see what happened in the Reagan administration nor have I seen the comparisons the GOPs have made. However, this editorial has forced me to think hard about what the candidates are trying to do and if it is worth it or not. By just reading the facts, I have realized that this decision to try to follow in Reagan’s footsteps will not work, for the fact that Reagan did not even follow what he wanted to do. I also think that if they try to out-do Reagan the government might just fall apart because I believe that Reagan realized that it would not work, which is why he did not do it.

For more information read William Voegeli's editorial from the Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/sunday/commentary/la-op-voegeli28oct28,1,3832529.story