Abraham Lincoln is most revered for being "The Great Emancipator" and given credit for his "stand" on racial "equality". Unfortunately, neither of these claims to fame hold to their full capacity when a closer look is taken at Lincoln's actions and words.
The one example hidden in plain sight is written in the Emancipation Proclamation itself. In this 1862 document, Lincoln unconstitutionally granted freedom to slaves in the Confederate states. And while he did this, he omitted granting freedom in the slave owning states of the Union of which he did have constitutional authority over. The Emancipation Proclamation specifically called out which states slaves were to be freed in, but it did not declare freedom to slaves in Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia, (or in New Jersey where slaves born before 1804 were "life long apprentices"), or any southern state (or county) already under control of the Union. The document asserted that the proclamation would apply only to those states "still in rebellion" by January 1st of 1863.
Another interesting piece of history involving Lincoln and slaves' freedom occurred in 1861 in the state of Missouri. After the battle of Wilson's Creek, John C. Fremont, the Union Army commander in the West, issued a proclamation freeing slaves in particular circumstances. President Lincoln ordered the proclamation to be reversed, thus denying those slaves freedom. He reportedly resented having the issue of slavery brought to the foreground in the midst of a war.
In 2006, an original letter dated March of 1861 was found, signed by Abraham Lincoln and addressed to the governor of the southern state of Florida ... it's content, consisted of a request to support the 13th amendment, despite Florida's secession. This version of the amendment would have permanently enshrined slavery by prohibiting any future amendments from granting Congress authority over a state's decision to allow slavery. The 13th amendment that we know abolishing slavery wasn't adopted until December of 1865, after Lincoln's death.
These actions reinforce many of Lincoln's own words, which are quite explicit in themselves.
Lincoln expressed support of racial equality when he said "...there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, - the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man... in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal,... and the equal of every other man." But he still expressed how he felt blacks were not equal when in the same speech, as well as a previous speech, he said: "I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races; that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot live while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race." He also goes on to say "...he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments..."
In 1862, Lincoln invited a group of prominent free black men to the White House to urge them to support sending black people back to Africa. During his argument, he said, "Your race suffers greatly, many of them by living among us, while ours suffers from your presence. If this is admitted, it affords a reason why we should be separated."
In an 1862 letter to the editor of the New York Tribune, Horace Greeley, Lincoln blatanly states his absolute indifference to slavery outside of his own moral judgement: "My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that." This letter was dated exactly one month before the Emancipation Proclamation was issued.
While Abraham Lincoln paved the way for blacks today, he did so purely out of what he felt to be political necessity. He believed in human equality, but was no advocate of racial equality or civil rights as we know them.
Sources:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/transcript.html
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/featured_documents/emancipation_proclamation/
http://www.slaveryinamerica.org/geography/slave_laws_NJ.htm
http://www.abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/Library/newsletter.asp?ID=64&CRLI=144
http://civilwar.cloudworth.com/local/3398.html
http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=JJJWPXFRT4pPZB2NBh34XnCrWmPscQJ5KpRzlgcfvJrl8xp8FG7R!-1632266300!2064305130?docId=5002005572
http://www.bartleby.com/251/pages/page358.html
http://www.bartleby.com/251/pages/page356.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,943970-2,00.html
http://www.etymonline.com/cw/lincoln.htm
http://showcase.netins.net/web/creative/lincoln/speeches/greeley.html
Monday, February 16, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
TV is a top priority?
"The Senate appeared close to agreement late Thursday on a bill to delay next month's planned transition from analog to digital television broadcasting to June 12 — setting the stage for a vote early next week.
Senate Republicans last week blocked Democratic efforts to push back the Feb. 17 deadline for the analog shutoff. The Democrats cited mounting concerns that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air broadcast signals won't be ready."
With all of the important issues we are facing at the moment, especially the economy, and Congress is wasting time fretting over whether or not people will be able to watch TV?!
"The Nielsen Co. said Thursday that more than 6.5 million U.S. households are still not prepared for the upcoming transition and could see their TV sets go dark next month."
Oh no! Whatever shall we do?
"The shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller, D-W.V., author of the bill to delay the switchover. "We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong — and leaving consumers with the consequences."
Except many consumers set themselves up for the consequences...
"In 2005, Congress required broadcasters to switch from analog to digital signals, which are more efficient, to free up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum to be used for commercial wireless services and interoperable emergency-response networks...
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the arm of the Commerce Department administering the program, is now sending out new coupons only as older, unredeemed ones reach a 90-day expiration date and free up more money for the program. The NTIA had nearly 2.6 million coupon requests on a waiting list as of Wednesday."
So it looks as if the main reason for the unpreparedness is none other than procrastination! Four years and millions of unused coupons later, and the consequences are being "forced" on consumers!
"Republicans in both the House and Senate have raised concerns that a delay would confuse consumers, create added costs for television stations that would have to continue broadcasting both analog and digital signals and burden wireless companies and public safety agencies waiting for spectrum that will be freed up by the switch."
Sounds like valid concerns to me! If the switch progresses as originally planned, not only do emergency-response networks get their much needed spectrum (a priority much higher than whether those without cable or satellite get to watch their much needed reality TV series), but extra costs for television stations are avoided, freeing up money to create more jobs and/or give current employees pay raises thus helping boost the economy (a much more important issue).
You know what else would help boost the economy? If all of the money spent by consumers for hardware required for the switch (a one-time purchase) was spent on, say, newspaper subscriptions... This would keep people in touch with current events, boost the newspapers so that they would need less (or hopefully none) of the bailout money that's being requested, as well encouraging literacy, yet another issue in this country much more important than television.
source: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090123/ap_on_hi_te/tec_digital_transition_delay
Senate Republicans last week blocked Democratic efforts to push back the Feb. 17 deadline for the analog shutoff. The Democrats cited mounting concerns that too many Americans who rely on analog TV sets to pick up over-the-air broadcast signals won't be ready."
With all of the important issues we are facing at the moment, especially the economy, and Congress is wasting time fretting over whether or not people will be able to watch TV?!
"The Nielsen Co. said Thursday that more than 6.5 million U.S. households are still not prepared for the upcoming transition and could see their TV sets go dark next month."
Oh no! Whatever shall we do?
"The shameful truth is that we are not poised to do this transition right," said Senate Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller, D-W.V., author of the bill to delay the switchover. "We are only weeks away from doing it dreadfully wrong — and leaving consumers with the consequences."
Except many consumers set themselves up for the consequences...
"In 2005, Congress required broadcasters to switch from analog to digital signals, which are more efficient, to free up valuable chunks of wireless spectrum to be used for commercial wireless services and interoperable emergency-response networks...
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, the arm of the Commerce Department administering the program, is now sending out new coupons only as older, unredeemed ones reach a 90-day expiration date and free up more money for the program. The NTIA had nearly 2.6 million coupon requests on a waiting list as of Wednesday."
So it looks as if the main reason for the unpreparedness is none other than procrastination! Four years and millions of unused coupons later, and the consequences are being "forced" on consumers!
"Republicans in both the House and Senate have raised concerns that a delay would confuse consumers, create added costs for television stations that would have to continue broadcasting both analog and digital signals and burden wireless companies and public safety agencies waiting for spectrum that will be freed up by the switch."
Sounds like valid concerns to me! If the switch progresses as originally planned, not only do emergency-response networks get their much needed spectrum (a priority much higher than whether those without cable or satellite get to watch their much needed reality TV series), but extra costs for television stations are avoided, freeing up money to create more jobs and/or give current employees pay raises thus helping boost the economy (a much more important issue).
You know what else would help boost the economy? If all of the money spent by consumers for hardware required for the switch (a one-time purchase) was spent on, say, newspaper subscriptions... This would keep people in touch with current events, boost the newspapers so that they would need less (or hopefully none) of the bailout money that's being requested, as well encouraging literacy, yet another issue in this country much more important than television.
source: http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090123/ap_on_hi_te/tec_digital_transition_delay
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
An Inauguration no more historic than any other
Despite the many cries that this past presidential election was not about race, it was.
Throughout the entire campaign, "If you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist". As if the only existing trait about this man is his skin color.
Every article and newscast, "If elected, he will be the first African-American president...", "...the first black president..", "...the first African-American to be elected president..."
Why is his skin color continuously brought up if it has no relevance?
And this campaign, this election, this inauguration, are all being touted as such incredibly historic events...
If it was not about race...
If we are truly equal and skin color has no meaning...
Then this inauguration is no more historic than every one past.
He is not a "black man", but simply a man. And that is the point everyone is missing.
Throughout the entire campaign, "If you don't vote for Obama, you're a racist". As if the only existing trait about this man is his skin color.
Every article and newscast, "If elected, he will be the first African-American president...", "...the first black president..", "...the first African-American to be elected president..."
Why is his skin color continuously brought up if it has no relevance?
And this campaign, this election, this inauguration, are all being touted as such incredibly historic events...
If it was not about race...
If we are truly equal and skin color has no meaning...
Then this inauguration is no more historic than every one past.
He is not a "black man", but simply a man. And that is the point everyone is missing.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Do We Really Need More Vitamin D Supplements?
It has been recently reported that pediatricians are doubling the daily recommendations for vitamin D for all ages. This would make the daily requirements as 400 units for children and adults up to age 50, 800 units for adults aged 51 to 70, and 1200 units for those aged 71 and older.
Though evidence is not yet conclusive, the increased recommendations are based on research suggesting vitamin D's important role in disease prevention, including reduced risks in cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It has also been suggested that these increased recommendations have also been influenced by the continuance of the disease rickets.
Rickets, though commonly associated with a deficit of vitamin D, is a disease that is caused by malnourishment. When an individual is severely malnourished, the body will pull calcium and other minerals from the bones in attempt to balance blood levels, thus causing the bones to soften.
But the occurance of these problems don't necessarily mean our recommended intake is too low, and a lack of vitamin D isn't the only thing that will cause these things to happen. Our modern diets consist of many causes of these health problems...
Phosphoric acid, found in sodas and other carbonated beverages, will cause the body to pull valuable minerals (such as calcium and magnesium) from your bones to neutralize the acid and maintain the body's natural balance. These minerals are then excreted in the urine. Phosphoric acid also causes the body to reduce the amount of hydrochloric acid used in digestion which results in poor absorption of nutrients. When this is repeated over time, it results in a weakened bone structure, as well as other health problems. The low digestive acid can also cause a build up of harmful bacteria and parasites that lead a chain reaction resulting in the formation of cancer-causing agents.
Magnesium is often overlooked for it's crucial role in calcium absorption. If magnesium does not accompany vitamin D with the calcium intake, then the calcium is not properly absorbed into the system. Good sources of magnesium include whole grains, nuts, seafood, and legumes. Unfortunately, the modern western diet is deficient in most of these, especially whole grains. Dairy is commonly pushed on us for the calcium needed in our diets, but when one consumes large amounts of dairy yet not enough of whole grains or other sources of magnesium, an inbalance is then created leaving excess calcium in the tissues and an overall magnesium deficiency. Magnesium deficiency can result not only in poor calcium absorption (leading to weakened bones), but also heart disease.
A diet high in simple carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, etc) and sugar impairs the kidney's ability to reabsorb calcium and magnesium (as well as other important minerals) which causes them to be excreted through urine. Again, this causes minerals to be leeched from the bones to help maintain mineral blood levels. This type of diet is also widely responsible for the development of diabetes. The high blood levels of insulin produced by simple carbohydrates and sugar also create an environment favorable to existing and new formation of cancer.
Curiously enough, aluminum exposure also increases bone deterioration as well as reduces the formation of new bone. Aluminum is leeched into our food from the containers we store and cook our food in. Aluminum is also found in excessive amounts in many vaccines.
Changing our diets would be the better suggestion to reduce cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and rickets than risking over-supplementing...
Ironically, too much vitamin D can also lead to heart disease... excessive vitamin D can cause the body to absorb too much calcium, which can lead to high blood calcium that can leave deposits in soft tissues such as the heart and lungs, reducing their ability to function. It is very rare to "overdose" on vitamin D purely from diet and sun exposure.
Those considered "high risk" for vitamin D deficiency include individuals with darker skin, people who do not get regular exposure to sun (like those living in colder climates), breastfed babies who (or their mothers) fall into a "high risk" category. This can be compensated through diet, and a lactating mother can increase her baby's vitamin D through her own diet.
Fish (including tuna) and shellfish are the best food sources of vitamin D, as well as fortified dairy products, egg yolks, and liver. Sunlight is a good source of vitamin D, as well, with exposure only needed a few times a week... the body stores vitamin D for future use. The risk of skin cancer is minimal given the small amount of sunlight needed. For those who live in climates that experience harsh winters, "sunlight" bulbs can be a useful (and less costly) alternative to supplements.
Supplements are not monitered or held accountable for their content. The contents are not always in sync with the label's claims. Changing your diet to a healthy, balanced diet that includes complementing nutrients is the best way to ensure adequate daily intake of any nutrient.
Though evidence is not yet conclusive, the increased recommendations are based on research suggesting vitamin D's important role in disease prevention, including reduced risks in cancer, diabetes, and heart disease. It has also been suggested that these increased recommendations have also been influenced by the continuance of the disease rickets.
Rickets, though commonly associated with a deficit of vitamin D, is a disease that is caused by malnourishment. When an individual is severely malnourished, the body will pull calcium and other minerals from the bones in attempt to balance blood levels, thus causing the bones to soften.
But the occurance of these problems don't necessarily mean our recommended intake is too low, and a lack of vitamin D isn't the only thing that will cause these things to happen. Our modern diets consist of many causes of these health problems...
Phosphoric acid, found in sodas and other carbonated beverages, will cause the body to pull valuable minerals (such as calcium and magnesium) from your bones to neutralize the acid and maintain the body's natural balance. These minerals are then excreted in the urine. Phosphoric acid also causes the body to reduce the amount of hydrochloric acid used in digestion which results in poor absorption of nutrients. When this is repeated over time, it results in a weakened bone structure, as well as other health problems. The low digestive acid can also cause a build up of harmful bacteria and parasites that lead a chain reaction resulting in the formation of cancer-causing agents.
Magnesium is often overlooked for it's crucial role in calcium absorption. If magnesium does not accompany vitamin D with the calcium intake, then the calcium is not properly absorbed into the system. Good sources of magnesium include whole grains, nuts, seafood, and legumes. Unfortunately, the modern western diet is deficient in most of these, especially whole grains. Dairy is commonly pushed on us for the calcium needed in our diets, but when one consumes large amounts of dairy yet not enough of whole grains or other sources of magnesium, an inbalance is then created leaving excess calcium in the tissues and an overall magnesium deficiency. Magnesium deficiency can result not only in poor calcium absorption (leading to weakened bones), but also heart disease.
A diet high in simple carbohydrates (white bread, white rice, etc) and sugar impairs the kidney's ability to reabsorb calcium and magnesium (as well as other important minerals) which causes them to be excreted through urine. Again, this causes minerals to be leeched from the bones to help maintain mineral blood levels. This type of diet is also widely responsible for the development of diabetes. The high blood levels of insulin produced by simple carbohydrates and sugar also create an environment favorable to existing and new formation of cancer.
Curiously enough, aluminum exposure also increases bone deterioration as well as reduces the formation of new bone. Aluminum is leeched into our food from the containers we store and cook our food in. Aluminum is also found in excessive amounts in many vaccines.
Changing our diets would be the better suggestion to reduce cancer, diabetes, heart disease, and rickets than risking over-supplementing...
Ironically, too much vitamin D can also lead to heart disease... excessive vitamin D can cause the body to absorb too much calcium, which can lead to high blood calcium that can leave deposits in soft tissues such as the heart and lungs, reducing their ability to function. It is very rare to "overdose" on vitamin D purely from diet and sun exposure.
Those considered "high risk" for vitamin D deficiency include individuals with darker skin, people who do not get regular exposure to sun (like those living in colder climates), breastfed babies who (or their mothers) fall into a "high risk" category. This can be compensated through diet, and a lactating mother can increase her baby's vitamin D through her own diet.
Fish (including tuna) and shellfish are the best food sources of vitamin D, as well as fortified dairy products, egg yolks, and liver. Sunlight is a good source of vitamin D, as well, with exposure only needed a few times a week... the body stores vitamin D for future use. The risk of skin cancer is minimal given the small amount of sunlight needed. For those who live in climates that experience harsh winters, "sunlight" bulbs can be a useful (and less costly) alternative to supplements.
Supplements are not monitered or held accountable for their content. The contents are not always in sync with the label's claims. Changing your diet to a healthy, balanced diet that includes complementing nutrients is the best way to ensure adequate daily intake of any nutrient.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Are You Serious?!
So. There's this t-shirt from Planned Parenthood. One color with simple text across the front. It says "I had an abortion".
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=248331
Are you serious? Apparantly some people feel the need to be proud of this. Why? Did I miss the memo that said that being completely irresponsible was fashionable? Seriously....Personally, I feel that there isn't an exusable reason for abortion. No matter what. Period. (We'll discuss rape and "medical reasons" at a later date).
Other than the reasons of rape or "medical reasons", having an abortion means this and only this:
You are a completely irresponsible person.
You have a total inability to deal with the consequences of your own actions.
"But we were being responsible!! I was on the pill and he wore a condom!" Sorry. But you're wrong. If you really did not want to become pregnant, then you would have abstained from having sex. Have oral sex, have anal sex, keep your pants on... These are the responsible ways to avoid a situation you know you do not want. Pregnant and don't want to be? Maybe you should have thought about that before having sex. Wait nine months and you won't be pregnant anymore. Then give the child to a responsible couple who actually want a child.
"But I am dealing with the consequences of my actions. I'm getting rid of it." Ok, no. Making something just "go away" is not dealing with anything. It's simply that, making it "go away". Dealing with the consequences of having sex (pregnancy) would mean staying pregnant, taking care of yourself as any pregnant woman does, and giving birth. Then you complete it all by either taking care of the child properly or giving it to someone who will.
Oh!! And the whole feminist standpoint of it all... "It's my body and it is my choice to do with it what I want." I'm sorry, last I checked, an abortion destroys the baby, not you. So. It is not your body. It is your baby's body. And you are a complete failure as a woman when you choose not to provide for that baby. Biologically, it is your job to create offspring and care for them. Get over yourself.
Today's society is immature, irresponsible, and self-centered (in the bad sense)... Everyone needs to just GROW UP.
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=248331
Are you serious? Apparantly some people feel the need to be proud of this. Why? Did I miss the memo that said that being completely irresponsible was fashionable? Seriously....Personally, I feel that there isn't an exusable reason for abortion. No matter what. Period. (We'll discuss rape and "medical reasons" at a later date).
Other than the reasons of rape or "medical reasons", having an abortion means this and only this:
You are a completely irresponsible person.
You have a total inability to deal with the consequences of your own actions.
"But we were being responsible!! I was on the pill and he wore a condom!" Sorry. But you're wrong. If you really did not want to become pregnant, then you would have abstained from having sex. Have oral sex, have anal sex, keep your pants on... These are the responsible ways to avoid a situation you know you do not want. Pregnant and don't want to be? Maybe you should have thought about that before having sex. Wait nine months and you won't be pregnant anymore. Then give the child to a responsible couple who actually want a child.
"But I am dealing with the consequences of my actions. I'm getting rid of it." Ok, no. Making something just "go away" is not dealing with anything. It's simply that, making it "go away". Dealing with the consequences of having sex (pregnancy) would mean staying pregnant, taking care of yourself as any pregnant woman does, and giving birth. Then you complete it all by either taking care of the child properly or giving it to someone who will.
Oh!! And the whole feminist standpoint of it all... "It's my body and it is my choice to do with it what I want." I'm sorry, last I checked, an abortion destroys the baby, not you. So. It is not your body. It is your baby's body. And you are a complete failure as a woman when you choose not to provide for that baby. Biologically, it is your job to create offspring and care for them. Get over yourself.
Today's society is immature, irresponsible, and self-centered (in the bad sense)... Everyone needs to just GROW UP.
Sunday, January 4, 2009
Wear Your Seatbelt
Risks are everywhere... and it's not uncommon to take precautions to reduce those risks, even if those precautions only reduce part and not all of the risk...
Women take birth control to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
Men and women use condoms to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of disease and pregnancy.
People lock their car doors to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of having their car stolen.
Children and adults wash their hands frequently to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of spreading illness and disease.
Parents vaccinate their children to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of childhood and other serious diseases.
These examples are precautions that most people take rather seriously... There's another precaution mothers can take that reduces (though does not eliminate) many risks, and continues to do so into adulthood, that many mothers ignore....
Breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of a multitude of health problems for infants, toddlers, and children, including diabetes, allergies, mental illness, respitory infections, ear infections, certain cancers (including breast and reproductive cancers), childhood obesity, dental cavities, urinary tract infections, among many others... even death (infant mortality rate is much lower among breastfed babies including the reduced risk of SIDS) ... and as pointed out earlier, these reduced risks last well into adulthood...
Breastfeeding has also been shown to reduce the risk of serious health problems for the mothers, including post-partum hemorrhaging, post-partum depression, breast and reproductive cancers, and osteoporosis, among others.Unlike the majority of other precautions we take, breastfeeding reduces multiple risks.
So it’s a little funny that many mothers who choose not to breastfeed often use rationalized reasoning based on only one or two instances from their own limited experiences: “my mother was breastfed and she still got breast cancer” or “my friend breastfed her son and he had alot of ear infections”... Nevermind that there’s never complete information in these rationalizations (for example, that friend may have only breastfed for a few months, or the mother may have been on estrogen therapy after a hysterectomy), but quite often these women are the same women who faithfully relied on birth control despite knowing one or more women who became pregnant while on it or still lock their car doors religiously despite knowing someone who (or themselves) has had their car broken into or stolen despite the locks.Why is so much faith put into precautions that have single purposes but so little (to none) put into one that offers so much? How does one or two instances of only one or two of the risks not prevented by breastfeeding override the rest of the extensive list of risk reductions?
Though we know not every adult and child using their seatbelt or carseat will walk away from or even survive a car crash, we are still conscientious in using them each and everytime we get into a car...
As parents, we want to do everything in our power to keep our children safe and healthy...Make sure you and your children wear your seatbelts.... and make your best effort to breastfeed.
Women take birth control to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of pregnancy.
Men and women use condoms to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of disease and pregnancy.
People lock their car doors to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of having their car stolen.
Children and adults wash their hands frequently to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of spreading illness and disease.
Parents vaccinate their children to reduce, though not eliminate, the risk of childhood and other serious diseases.
These examples are precautions that most people take rather seriously... There's another precaution mothers can take that reduces (though does not eliminate) many risks, and continues to do so into adulthood, that many mothers ignore....
Breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding has been shown to reduce the risk of a multitude of health problems for infants, toddlers, and children, including diabetes, allergies, mental illness, respitory infections, ear infections, certain cancers (including breast and reproductive cancers), childhood obesity, dental cavities, urinary tract infections, among many others... even death (infant mortality rate is much lower among breastfed babies including the reduced risk of SIDS) ... and as pointed out earlier, these reduced risks last well into adulthood...
Breastfeeding has also been shown to reduce the risk of serious health problems for the mothers, including post-partum hemorrhaging, post-partum depression, breast and reproductive cancers, and osteoporosis, among others.Unlike the majority of other precautions we take, breastfeeding reduces multiple risks.
So it’s a little funny that many mothers who choose not to breastfeed often use rationalized reasoning based on only one or two instances from their own limited experiences: “my mother was breastfed and she still got breast cancer” or “my friend breastfed her son and he had alot of ear infections”... Nevermind that there’s never complete information in these rationalizations (for example, that friend may have only breastfed for a few months, or the mother may have been on estrogen therapy after a hysterectomy), but quite often these women are the same women who faithfully relied on birth control despite knowing one or more women who became pregnant while on it or still lock their car doors religiously despite knowing someone who (or themselves) has had their car broken into or stolen despite the locks.Why is so much faith put into precautions that have single purposes but so little (to none) put into one that offers so much? How does one or two instances of only one or two of the risks not prevented by breastfeeding override the rest of the extensive list of risk reductions?
Though we know not every adult and child using their seatbelt or carseat will walk away from or even survive a car crash, we are still conscientious in using them each and everytime we get into a car...
As parents, we want to do everything in our power to keep our children safe and healthy...Make sure you and your children wear your seatbelts.... and make your best effort to breastfeed.
Friday, January 2, 2009
Is It Really Unrealistic?
Television and related media has become such a large part of modern-day society that when the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) placed recommendations that children under the age of 2 years not watch any television, there was a suprising backlash from parents across the country.
While most parents who disagreed with the recommendation simply chose to ignore it, some vented their disagreement to friends, and others wrote entire books on the topic using whichever research interpretations supported their personal opinion... one example is the author of the book Into the Minds of Babes, Lisa Guernsey, who was more than unsatisfied with the response "just turn off the TV".
Though I have not yet read her book (and when I do, I will not be spending my money on it), I have a pretty good idea of what it consists of considering the nonsense I have read from her in interviews printed in multiple parenting magazines.
Nonsense? "But she uses research," you say?
In one interview she comments "The AAP is trying to send a signal to parents that we have to think about what time in front of TV may be replacing, like love and nurturing", but research published in the academy's own official journal, Pediatrics, says otherwise. This published research suggests more concern for health and development.
A study published in the October 2005 issue of Pediatrics found that television viewing was associated with irregular sleep schedules in infants and toddlers, which coincided with studies finding the same effect in adolescents and adults. Regular sleep is key to good health and proper development in young children. Another study published in the April 2004 issue of Pediatrics concluded that exposure to television at one and three years of age was associated with attentional problems at age seven. This was found even after taking into consideration a large number of important variables. Yet another study found in the February 2006 issue of Pediatrics came to the conclusion that time spent watching television was negatively related to time spent with parents or siblings, and negatively related to time spent in creative play, even when viewing was with a parent. The concern for this is not for love and nurturing in that warm and fuzzy sense, but, as stated in the study, that "parental interaction is necessary for proper neurologic development among very young children." Creative play is also essential in proper learning and development in children.
In one interview this author says "This recommendation is unrealistic for most families. It means you can't use TV to entertain your child while you cook dinner or check your email." In another (more recently published) interview she says "But the reality of daily life with young kids bumps against the AAP recommendation. I have a newborn baby and a 2-year-old. I found that by the end of the day, my 2-year-old clamored for something else, and I had this newborn with me, so I couldn't exactly keep the newborn away from the screen if i was going to be in the family room with my 2-year-old."
I refer to these statements as absolute nonsense because not only have mothers been accomplishing many more household duties than just making dinner for all centuries before television was invented, but also because I myself have had a 2-year-old and a newborn baby.
To say "my two-year-old clamored for something else" in reference to screen time is to create an excuse with accountability placed on the wrong individual. The parent is who clamors for "something else" in this case... a toddler does not naturally clamor for television, it is learned. What a toddler naturally "clamors" for is exploration, a change of scenery, to practice new skills, and the ability to manipulate surroundings.
Is it really unrealistic to face your newborn away from the television while you watch after your toddler has gone to bed? Is it unrealistic to have your toddler dance with you as you dance the wailing newborn to sleep? Is it unrealistic to give pots, pans, and spoons to your toddler to "cook" with along side of you while making dinner, or to fasten him or her into a booster seat at the table with crayons or watercolors? Is it unrealistic to take a book from the library or look online to find ideas for that "something else" your toddler needs?
Is it really unrealistic to just turn off the TV?
While most parents who disagreed with the recommendation simply chose to ignore it, some vented their disagreement to friends, and others wrote entire books on the topic using whichever research interpretations supported their personal opinion... one example is the author of the book Into the Minds of Babes, Lisa Guernsey, who was more than unsatisfied with the response "just turn off the TV".
Though I have not yet read her book (and when I do, I will not be spending my money on it), I have a pretty good idea of what it consists of considering the nonsense I have read from her in interviews printed in multiple parenting magazines.
Nonsense? "But she uses research," you say?
In one interview she comments "The AAP is trying to send a signal to parents that we have to think about what time in front of TV may be replacing, like love and nurturing", but research published in the academy's own official journal, Pediatrics, says otherwise. This published research suggests more concern for health and development.
A study published in the October 2005 issue of Pediatrics found that television viewing was associated with irregular sleep schedules in infants and toddlers, which coincided with studies finding the same effect in adolescents and adults. Regular sleep is key to good health and proper development in young children. Another study published in the April 2004 issue of Pediatrics concluded that exposure to television at one and three years of age was associated with attentional problems at age seven. This was found even after taking into consideration a large number of important variables. Yet another study found in the February 2006 issue of Pediatrics came to the conclusion that time spent watching television was negatively related to time spent with parents or siblings, and negatively related to time spent in creative play, even when viewing was with a parent. The concern for this is not for love and nurturing in that warm and fuzzy sense, but, as stated in the study, that "parental interaction is necessary for proper neurologic development among very young children." Creative play is also essential in proper learning and development in children.
In one interview this author says "This recommendation is unrealistic for most families. It means you can't use TV to entertain your child while you cook dinner or check your email." In another (more recently published) interview she says "But the reality of daily life with young kids bumps against the AAP recommendation. I have a newborn baby and a 2-year-old. I found that by the end of the day, my 2-year-old clamored for something else, and I had this newborn with me, so I couldn't exactly keep the newborn away from the screen if i was going to be in the family room with my 2-year-old."
I refer to these statements as absolute nonsense because not only have mothers been accomplishing many more household duties than just making dinner for all centuries before television was invented, but also because I myself have had a 2-year-old and a newborn baby.
To say "my two-year-old clamored for something else" in reference to screen time is to create an excuse with accountability placed on the wrong individual. The parent is who clamors for "something else" in this case... a toddler does not naturally clamor for television, it is learned. What a toddler naturally "clamors" for is exploration, a change of scenery, to practice new skills, and the ability to manipulate surroundings.
Is it really unrealistic to face your newborn away from the television while you watch after your toddler has gone to bed? Is it unrealistic to have your toddler dance with you as you dance the wailing newborn to sleep? Is it unrealistic to give pots, pans, and spoons to your toddler to "cook" with along side of you while making dinner, or to fasten him or her into a booster seat at the table with crayons or watercolors? Is it unrealistic to take a book from the library or look online to find ideas for that "something else" your toddler needs?
Is it really unrealistic to just turn off the TV?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)