January 14, 2009
-
1.14/2009
I think I'm starting to see a trend here...Although some public health issues are a result of people not being knowledgeable of their rights, many public health issues are directly caused by differences in economic status. Health insurance issues are clearly financial issues, cut and dry, unless they deal with pre-existing conditions in which the insurance agency does not want to insure.
Pretty much every environmental issue is caused by economic status. People are stuck in environmentally disadvantaged areas because they lack the financial capability of moving, or lack the power of lobbying. Sure, everyone can lobby, but it is generally the people who have the most money that have the most lobbying power. Many times elected officials do not listen to those who are the most marginalized. Politicians generally act fastest to help those with money, power (read: money), or high influence (read: money). In addition to this, much of a person's physical health can be attributed to their environment (especially physical issues concerning the lungs [i.e. asthma]). If you switched people living in decrepit, moldy buildings into mansions and switched those living in mansions to decrepit housing, I'm pretty sure you'd see a reversal in condition in the long term.
I'd like to be able to prove this theory with data, but there's no way in hell I'd be able to convince any funding source nor any institutional review board to let me test this. Even if I were allowed to test it, the results would include severe negative health outcomes for half of the participants involved. That's ethical thin ice right there.
A man can dream though.
There are a lot of things that kill me in life. One is video game related homicide. In both of these situations, I believe that Antwone's idea of personal responsibility is completely right.
Video game homicide sickens me for two reasons: It sickens me that someone cannot tell the difference between a game and reality. Secondly, it disgusts me that people could be that serious about a game, especially in the non-competitive sense. I mean, I could maybe, slightly understand why someone would get emotional and want to kill someone because they lost a huge competitive game. Maybe. (Although I don't think I would ever be able to understand the person actually committing the crime.) But, I don't think a mom taking a game away from her kid warrants even the thought of her death. That's ridiculous. (What's also ridiculous is that there was a gun somewhere in the house, not locked up, and the kid was clearly aware of this fact.) Another thing... I think it's pathetic that people try and blame the game for the actions of the individual. He didn't have a gun to his head, he chose to kill his mother simply because he didn't get his way.
Some people might argue that the game influenced him that violence was okay. I mean, come on... if we're going to play the influences argument, then cant you blame movies, books, news channels, music and other forms of media equally for showering this child with violence? Movies like The Matrix glorify violence. Anime does the same (i.e. Dragonball Z, Baki the Grappler, etc.). So does music, some books (i.e. Wanted) and some television programs. In addition to this there are also family influences and other influences external to the home. Despite these influences, I believe that the choice still comes down to the individual. I think that, in this situation, influences may push and pull you, but the decision is all on the person. No single influence could make the choice for him.
The second thing that I dont understand is obese and morbidly obese individuals who have no excuse to be overweight in the first place. Young people, who have not had children and do not have malfunctioning glands or organs, have no reason to be obese. How? Why? I don't understand it. Sure, I admit, part of the weight is environmental. Some people don't have access (proximity-wise or financially) to gyms to work out in or safe neighborhoods to jog in. My problem is that the other half of this equation is food consumption. People would be surprised at how much can be accomplished by eating smaller portion sizes. Honestly, I feel that portion sizes are more important than the type of food consumed.
Secondly, I've never really understood the need to get super-sized food, nor eat beyond full. Personally, I eat to live, not live to eat. I eat until I'm not hungry any more, which is not necessarily eating until I'm full. Eating, at least for me, is just something done to survive or decrease hunger. Although I like the taste of some foods, eating for me is not an enjoyable activity. I don't look forward to it, unless I haven't eaten for an obscene amount of time.
The problem of food and dieting is literally a mind over matter problem. It's a matter of self-discipline. That's all. People need to understand that they can and do influence what they eat and how much of it they consume. All it takes is a little work.
The moral of the story is self-control.
Recent Comments