Obesity and Sugar Substitutes

While obesity has become an epidemic among Americans, the food industry has found ways to reduce calories and sugar content in many products. A major method of doing so has been the use of artificial sweeteners. However, by replacing natural ingredients with artificial ones, I wonder if we really are progressing and improving nutritional value. While fake sugars significantly reduce caloric values, there are side effects to sweeteners that may be more serious and worthy of our attention. I found an article that details the dangers of sugar substitutes, where it is explained that aspartame, the main ingredient in Equal and NutraSweet, has had more complaints than any other food additive available to the public, and studies have shown that it can lead to damage to the central nervous system and genetic trauma. Even though the recepients, (rodents), were receiving extremely high amounts of the sweetener, these results demonstrate that this is a potentially dangerous substance that we are putting into our bodies. And while Splenda does not contain aspartame, it is calorie-free because it's chemical composisition goes unrecognized by the body and cannot be absorbed; however, some scientists predict that after a while, our bodies will recongnize it and digest it as sugar (no longer making it "calorie-free").
Sweeteners and other food subsitutes seem to be a short-term way to cut calories and lose weight. I think that in order for this country to truly progress and improve the obesity epidemic, the American life style has to change. Substitutes allow us to continue to eat the way we have been eating, but instead, we must change our dietary habits to live healthier lives. Obviously, this would involve excersise and healthy eating, and not simply cutting a few calories here and there, but I think this would improve the American people's general wellbeing.

Abortion Rights and Progress

As we study "progress" and what exactly progress is, I began to think about how people view abortion. Since the U.S. separated with Britain, increasing individual freedoms has been a definition of progress. And when it comes to abortion, it seems unlikely that the government would take away a woman's abortion rights, when in the past, the government has progressed and even gained support by giving people more freedom. Taking away someone's right to a choice seems to be regressive rather than progressive. However, I found an article that presented a different perspective. Catholic Bishops at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops General Assembly approved a statement saying that if the Freedom of Choice Act was enacted, they would consider it an attack on the church, because it would reduce religious freedom, and "Church leaders also said they are concerned that any expansion of abortion rights could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions or face loss of federal funding." I had never thought of abortion rights as an infringement on religious freedom. Still, the law would allow Catholic patients to decide whether or not an abortion is right for them, so really, I don't believe the law is reducing any individual religious freedom, just the freedom of a catholic institution to choose what it offers its patients. Even after seeing the Catholic perspective, I believe that the Freedom of Choice act is an important step in moving America forward.

Suze Orman: Balancing Dreams with Reality

This weekend I found an article in the Costco magazine titled “Balance dreams with reality” in which Suze Orman gives people some wise financial advice. One woman, Aurora, wrote to Suze asking: “Our dream is to own a McDonald’s restaurant. Our plan is to sell the house for a down payment. Do you think this is a good idea?” Suze warns, “I love dreamers, but your dream could become a financial nightmare. You are going to give up all that security for something that is risky.” When it comes to managing ones finances, experts such as Suze Orman advocate making safe decisions. During this economic crisis, it appears that people are being forced to sacrifice their dreams for the sake of financial security.
Idealism and realism both have their ups and downs in the financial world. While idealists such as Aurora may have been a main factor in causing the present economic crisis, as risky decisions can result in accumulating large debts, optimism and confidence motivate people to invest in companies, allowing companies to prosper. It is always difficult to know whether or not pursuing a dream is worth the risk, because, as Suze says, it could become a nightmare. But in order to improve the economic crisis, it is important we find the right balance between pragmatism and idealism.

Democracy in Iraq Too Idealistic

As the war in Iraq drags on, more Americans lose hope of establishing democracy in the violent and unstable country. The United States' original goal, to create a model democracy with a self-supporting oil industry and society in which women had rights and the people were free from security and financial challenges, today seems absurdly unrealistic.
As we began studying the formation of America's republic, I could not help but wonder how we expected to establish a democracy in Iraq when we still do not elect our own president by popular vote! However, as U.S. officials begin to look at the situation in Iraq more pragmatically, they admit that they had been too optimistic, and are "shedding the unreality that dominated at the beginning." The Bush Administration did not understand just how important it was to Kurds and Shiites that they be granted a higher status, and officials now say "We set out to establish a democracy, but we're slowly realizing we will have some form of Islamic republic." Not only are Kurds and Shiites expecting political privileges, but women's rights will not be as well established as the Administration had hoped, because the Iraqi government will have to accommodate Islam in order to ensure political stability.
The establishment of the Iraqi government is, in many ways, similar to that of the United States'. In the beginning, America's goal was democracy. However, officials decided this to be unrealistic, as positions of government could not be decided by popular vote, because the common people were ill-equipped to choose the best candidate. The original ideas were too idealistic, and to make sure the government would be stable, they had to be more realistic and make America a republic. In Iraq, while a complete democracy sounds great, the chances of it succeeding are very slim, and so the U.S. must forfeit some of its original plans for Iraq, because the now, the ultimate goal is a stable government with improved human rights.