Why are we fat?

Those who study these things report that, as a nation, Americans are fat.

• Is that true?
• If so, why? and,
• Can or should we do something about that?

Statistics suggest that more Americans are overweight than ever before.  Moreover, general observance and anecdotes back up those statistics, so it seems that the we are fat.

"Why" is always going to be an individual answer if total accuracy is your goal.  But for the purposes of this discussion, general habits and behavior will be the focus.  Two primary reasons for obesity and being overweight suggest themselves:

1. Over-eating; and
2. lack of sufficient exercise.

And it is likely that a combination of the two would have the most impact.  Certainly there are individuals who have medical challenges that cause increased body mass, but generally it is clear that more food (or bad choices of food) and less exercise are the cause.

But...what are the root cause(s) of those factors?  Again, observation suggests three major causes:

1. Television;
2. development of the two income family; and
3. The internet.

The advent of Television in the late 1940's was the beginning of a quantum shift in children's attitude and interest in physical activities.  Oh, it didn't show up immediately; children and teenagers had developed habits over the years of playing baseball, football, basketball, hockey in the winter, and other activities such as dodge ball, hide & Seek and others that exercised their growing bodies and those habits stayed with them.  But parents with children born in the early 1950's and later found that it was easier to get housework done and get some needed "down time" if their children weren't out running around, getting hurt and into trouble in the neighborhood, but instead watching "educational" programs on the Television.  And if the kids stayed quiet and out of harms way even as the found that they could switch the channel to watch cartoons...well, how harmful could that be...it was make-believe.

Following World War II, men came home to a nation where women had gotten used to working, earning money outside the home, to a nation where new and better products were available and a general desire to own a home and live better than before.  So men got jobs too, and grandparents watched children during the day. On weekends parents "caught up" on household matters and acted as parents once again.

That wonderful new thing...Television...turned out to be a soporific tool for young children not available before.  So, little by little, parents weren't heard commanding their children to, "go out and play, it is a beautiful day!"  Instead they were content to enjoy the peace and quiet of the house, bothered only by the occasional need to tell the kids to"turn the sound down" on the television.  

Of course, there was still (and that continues today) the "gym period" at school.  But that doesn't really provide physical activity, as studies report that on perhaps 20 +/- minutes of activity occur since most of the time is spent standing around as the upcoming activity is being described and teams and/or pairings are set up.  Gym periods were and are only a light reminder of the intense sports and exercises that used to be the norm at recess (no longer much in existence), after school and on weekends.  So Gym is of little effect and/or consequence.

Those "television children" grew up be parents that did not exercise themselves and certainly were less and less likely to make their children do any different.  Meanwhile, the
"two income" family became the norm, leading to less consideration being given to meal preparation; tv dinners, take-out meals became more ubiquitous, and kids home from school found lots of high calorie snacks in the refrigerator to eat while the sat on the couch watching....wait for it....television.  They were NOT going out over the neighbor's kids house to play sandlot baseball or shoot hoops.  No...none of that was or is happening today.

For years, the only exercise some kids got was when they had a report due for school and had to...gasp...walk or travel to the library and research the subject.  

But even that tiny bit of exercise was about to be made elective. Because now the Internet came into existence.  Now neither child or adult had to leave the easy chair or the chair in front of the personal computer.  Exercise?  Why?  For what purpose?  Besides, life is becoming more complicated and more things have to be learned, so eliminating running in the park (or even walking) puts more stress on one's time...so that takes a back seat (and often doesn't remain in the vehicle).

The Internet and the television became more highly developed, so it then gave birth to the "smart phone" (although that confuses me, as I have had one for more that 15 years and it still hasn't made me any smarter).  Now both kids and adults don't even have to meet to talk; I caught my two grandsons texting each other across the same room!  I have a friend who, when he visits his children and grandchildren, confiscates the kids phones as he arrives and only gives them back as he is packing to leave, telling them that they are going to learn how to converse with him and each other person to person with their voices and looking each other in the eye.  After a painful day, he says the begin to enjoy it...and he has hopes that they actually may be able to negotiate their way through a job interview at some time in the future.  But I wonder if some will even be able to do that...or maintain concentration on anything for more than 45 seconds.

But...getting back to the subject...our parents AND we took the easy way out even while intending, perhaps, to do the right thing.  We failed to balance our desire that our kids learn (from educational programs) with their need to develop their bodies to carry their brains through a long life...and that inevitably led (and continues to lead) to shorter life spans and increased pain and discomfort during the latter years.  

For some time I have thought that most families (both adults and children) would benefit from shutting down all forms of electronic access for a week each month...maybe even on at least one weekend day each week...and instead schedule outdoor physical activities (games, hikes, walks) to coincide with face to face conversations.

I know many families who even now require that all phones be muted or turned off and left in another room while the family has dinner at the table and combines the dinner hour with conversation.  That should be an "always" thing...for all of us.

If we don't work to change our ways, I fear the the fictional "Matrix" as seen in the movie of the same name will become a very unpleasant and unenjoyable reality.  However, if today's parents recognize the benefit of, and the need to, reverse this process, it can be reversed.  But it means making a conscious and consistent effort to push children away from the computer, the cell phone and the couch to make them "go out and play."  It means getting other parents with children of the same age on the same page,getting together in the park and letting (perhaps, in the beginning) making them get involved in pick-up games of dodge ball, hide & seek, flag and touch football, baseball.  NOT organized, like Little League and the such...although those are great.  It is the non-athlete who needs to add physical activities to an otherwise seductive sedentary life style.  Jogging, hikes are good too.  And this all has the advantage of also refreshing the mind and actually making the time in front of a computer more productive.

I sincerely hope that just thinking about all of this will cause at least a few to take the steps to truly show a way to save (or at least better benefit) our wonderful children.

Why are Journalists an endangered species?

When at Syracuse University more than half a century ago, I wanted to be in Radio as a broadcaster.  One of the prerequisites for such a profession was the ability to write good news stories.  Syracuse at that time had, and perhaps still has, a Journalism School that was considered one of the best in the country...as well as a reputation for turning out folks ready to perform well in both Radio and Television.

At that time, "reporters" were looked up to by most (as long as they were not targeting you); they worked at being objective, thorough and factual.  At that time opinions and judgement was confined to the "Editorial" pages of a newspaper.  Even Radio and Television stations clearly announced and labeled "editorial commentary" as such before and often even upon the completion of that.  News anchors such as Walter Cronkite would finish the news portion of the broadcast, pause, and then offer some version of, "We'd like to offer this editorial (or opinion) about ...." indicating what the subject of the comment would be about, and closing with the clear statement that what you had just heard was an editorial offered by the news department (of whatever station or network the program appeared on).

You could pick up competing newspapers with different political or social agendas and get the same news with the only difference being if you read a morning or an afternoon paper, and that was just because there were more details in the afternoon papers on the morning "breaking" news.

Those professional journalist reporters would give you all the facts of a given story but leave it to each reader to decide for themselves whether the story was about "good" or "bad."  It was both the readers' right AND their obligation to decide on the worth, value and labeling about each and every story on the "news" pages.

I spent two semesters being shown and learning how to write a story about anything and everything by supplying the "5 'W's & the 'H' " ( Who, What, Where, Why, When, and How).  I've been asked why it would take two semesters, a whole year of classes and assignments, to learn to do that.  The answer is that you had to do this quickly and accurately without the use of adjectives.  Thank about doing that in your own life!  Most things we see happen around us we automatically "adjectivise" (my own made up word).  We see things as "funny" or "sad," or "good" or "bad."  Rarely do we say to another, "something happened to me today"...usually we say, a funny thing happened to me today."  And we rarely tell anyone anything with ALL the facts as I listed above.  So the time is spent developing the discipline to get the entire litiney of an event, and getting them accurately so the person hearing or reading your recital ends up with a Full, Accurate, and Complete understanding and stands ready to make their own individual judgment about what happened.

In the 1950's and 1960's a reporter who did not keep his or her stories objective and accurate became known as unreliable, and disrespected by his or her peers and, for as long as they remained employed, his or her editors...and usually assigned to unimportant stories where mistakes or missing information didn't hurt the newspaper very much.

Today I challenge anyone to pick up a newspaper, listen to a radio news program, or watch a television hard news program and not notice: 1. missing facts; 2. inaccurate assertions; 3. adjectives; and 4. even judgments thrown at you as a done deal.  You have been told in advance by the person providing the "story" what to think about it and what to feel and do as a response.  You are being indoctrinated; the value(s) have already been assigned and communicated to you.  If you are a busy person just checking in on what is going on, you may not even be aware of this "directive as to what to think and how to value" what you have just heard.

Aside from the natural annoyance and, perhaps, anger arising from this discovery of how you are being "talked down to," you may start to ask yourselves..."how did things change from what used to be...and why?"

May I suggest that there are two major (and I am certain there are other contributing elements) factors:

1. The Educational System as it exists today in America; and
2. The ubiquitous presence of the Internet.

Mass education in the United States has always been based on the Prussian model which taught basic arithmetic, reading and writing as well as teaching them group discipline so as to make children useful and governable employees and citizens when they reached their majority. Until the 1960's, this tendency toward indoctrination was offset and even defeated by the moderating effect of parents who would discuss what their children learned in school, adding the element of questioning what was taught and solving problems in a manner once described as "thinking outside the box,"  that is...looking at what was taught not for itself, but asking oneself, if not the teacher, why is this being taught.

After World War II this changed for two basic reasons: First, the "keep up with the Jones-es" attitude led to more mothers entering the work force for a second salary to pay for more and better "stuff" and also to pay for higher education for the children, eliminating much of the time and directing parents away from questioning their children about what they were learning.  Falsely, parents turned to presuming that the schools were teaching their children rather than indoctrinating them to accept commands, suggestions and governance instead of questioning and delving in the purposes of those commands, suggestions and governance; second, Progressives in the era of Teddy Roosevelt continuing from that period had slowly but inexorably taken virtual control of our entire educational system(s).

Formulated in Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals," they had taken advantage of parental concern for earnings rather that their children's education to first shade their teaching and then to bring in texts that emphasized a preference for governmental and authoritarian direction as being in the interest of the entire country.  The largely unstated trade-off was individual freedom and thinking not aligned with what was taught (alternative label: indoctrinated).  This is now evident not only in grades 1 through 12, but in University and College settings, as non-progressive thinking, speaking and attitudes are virtually silenced if not expelled from campuses.

The second major factor for the disappearance of professional journalism is the Internet.  Combined with the laziness of the general public and their willingness to accept and not question what is presented, the competition for readership, ratings and/or viewership has resulted in speed at the expense of accuracy, and shear volume of noise over truth.

The editors who once looked at accuracy, depth, absence of adjectives and completeness as the qualifiers, and never considered putting out anything else are no more...replaced with those who hold the same title but value profit, speed and their own personal and business agenda(s) of political and societal nature, and see no fault in turning what we once looked upon as organizations that informed us to organizations dedicated to Public Relations and Propaganda.

We get the government that we deserve.  It doesn't matter is we knew what we were doing or choosing; consequences aren't voided because of stupidity, carelessness, or even saying, "I'm sorry."  That same reasoning applies to the media that still (falsely) claim to serve us; that we, like a drunk at a bar, demand more and more simply insure that the consequences are certain.