New York Times op-ed contributor Colson Whitehad offers a light-hearted humorous look at another Obama-inspired presidential first: The Skinny Black Guy.
The question of whether Obama is “too skinny” to be elected president was first plastered on the cover of the Wall Street Journal in August — yes, really! The assumption apparently being that not only do the Joe the Fatty Sixpacks of the nation cast their votes based on who they’d like to have a beer with, but who’d they also like to eat their way through a buffet with. This is, despite the fact that lefties Bill Clinton and Al Gore were both lampooned as lard-eating colossal fatties. Other slightly less ridiculous parallels between weight and politics soon emerged, such as the suggestion that the nation’s fattest states were more likely to support McCain and the nation’s thinnest Obama, and a revealing look by the New York Times on past presidential heights and weights.
Whitehead’s is a more tongue-in-cheek look at what can we expect from a “Skinny Black Guy White House.” For another, more depressing look at the weights of political candidates (and their spouses) and why they somehow matter, check out this New York Times article from last fall.
Despite poll and pundit predictions the past few weeks giving Barack Obama a healthy lead, recent electoral history kept me cautiously optimistic on his chances. And then Ohio was announced as a blue state and I knew it was all in the bag — no Republican has ever won the presidency without the Buckeye State. Even my low-information-voter sister calling and angrily insisting that Obama would be sworn in on the Koran couldn’t damper the swell of absolute excitement/joy/hope/relief that arose as I watched our nation make history. One hundred forty-five years after Lincoln emancipated slaves in America and 44 years after the Civil Rights Act outlawed racial segregation, our national finally has an African-American president. I’m still trying to wrap my mind around it and I’m overjoyed that, in some small way, I helped to make that happen.
Godspeed to you, President-elect Obama, and to all of us.
I read with heavy heart of the death of Barack Obama’s 86-year-old grandmother, Madelyn Dunham today. She died peacefully of cancer, family members report. Obama and sister ask that donations be made for the search for a cure for cancer in lieu of flowers. In a related post, reader Amy asked for suggestions on which cancer foundations to donate to. Recommendations follow after the jump. Read the rest of this entry »
A note for U.S. voters who have yet to vote, Ottermatic has posted a very important election protection PSA. If you encounter any problems in voting today or tomorrow, call 866-OUR-VOTE to report it.
Obama rally highlights and photos follow after the jump (videotape to come), but first a quick poll. Regardless of who you’re supporting, is the election making you as crazy as its making us? We usually don’t watch a lot of TV through the week, but in the past couple months, we’ve been watching hours upon hours of news programs each night, including my new favorite, the Rachel Maddow Show. I’ve always hated math with a passion, but FiveThirtyEight? One of my new favorite sites. How about you?
I just found out about the blog Margaret and Helen (h/t Feministing). The two octogenarians met in college 60 years ago, formed a fast friendship and despite their Texas-Maine geographic distance, now co-blog. But these aren’t your typical cookie-baking, Bingo-playing, scarf-knitting sweet old senior citizen grandmas with a touch of dementia. They’re fresh, they’re sassy, and their formidable years gives them all the license they need to speak their still sharp-as-a-tack minds. And even if you don’t agree with their politics, you gotta admire their spunky body- and age-positive online store offerings.
When I’m 80-years-old, I just hope I’m not drooling in my oatmeal. Hats off to Margaret and Helen.
Health care is an issue of concern for many readers here, which is why I offered my endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama’s health care plan over that of Sen. John McCain’s earlier this month. Trailing on the heels of its outstandingly-crafted presidential endorsement of Obama, the New York Times now offers a compelling and critical look at the health care plans offered by both candidates and why, despite its limitations, Obama’s plan emerges the better one.
General assessment:
We believe that Mr. McCain’s plan, which relies on reshaping the tax code, is far too risky. It is likely to erode employer-provided group health insurance and push more people into purchasing their own insurance on the dysfunctional open market, where insurers often reject applicants with pre-existing conditions.
…Mr. Obama’s plan is the better one because it would cover far more of the uninsured, spread risks and costs more equitably and result in more comprehensive coverage for most Americans. We fear Mr. McCain’s plan would jeopardize employer-based coverage without providing an adequate substitute. At a time when so many employers are reducing or dropping coverage, that is not a risk that the country can afford to take.
And speaking of the election… The news is awash with disturbing reports about attempts to disenfranchise and discourage voters — see Time or Rolling Stone for more. Not to sound like Uncle Sam’s nagging mother or anything, but the best time to ensure your voting eligibility isn’t when you get to the polling station, it’s now. Take a few minutes to visit CanIVote.org to verify that you are registered to vote and that your name and address are filed correctly. You can also find out where to vote, which is equally important. In Ohio, for instance, if you vote at the wrong polling station, your vote isn’t counted at all. And lastly, be aware of your state’s “passive electioneering” laws, which include the wearing of T-shirts or buttons supporting a candidate or cause within or near polling stations. Many states have laws in place banning this and will turn voters away from voting because of it.
Okay, hopefully this is the end of the election campaign-talk. I’ll be so glad when this is all done and over with!
Lots of interesting health news in the headlines this week.
Many in a proponent of Health at Every Size is familiar with the work of one Dr. Stephen Blair, an epidemiologist at the University of South Carolina and director of research at The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research. Blair is one of the leading researchers in the “fitness, not fatness” movement, which finds that irrespective of whether a person is overweight or normal weight, the risk of death and disease is much lower in those who are physically fit, than those who are unfit. What many HAES-promoters might not know is that it is Blair’s research that formed much of the basis for the new physical activity guidelines announced this month by the federal Department of Health and Human Services. According to the New York Times:
The basic recommendations — including the core guideline that Americans should get about 150 minutes of moderately intense activity per week — have not really changed from the ones announced in 1996 by the surgeon general’s office. What is different is the emphasis on the variety of activities — including daily chores — that can reap the profound health benefits of exercise.
The Times story goes on to define in greater detail the different recommendations for older folks, children and those just starting a fitness regime, as well as great suggestions on how to maximize your physical activity for optimum health.
Much has been made of the fact that the McCain-Palin campaign spent some $150,000 on clothes and even another nearly $5,000 on make-up and other beauty products for the Alaska governor and Republican running-mate. Yet thousands of dollars more were spent outfitting the First Dude and the Palin children, including $295 on clothes for six-month-old Trig Palin. According to Politico, the site that first broke the story, the Republicans’ main campaign and fundraising organ spent tens of thousands at high-end stores, such as Saks Fifth Avenue in St. Louis and New York (49,425 dollars) and Neiman Marcus in Minneapolis (75,062 dollars).
The moose-hunting , aerial-wolf-shooting supermom has gone from packing heat to now taking heat. A sampling of responses… Read the rest of this entry »
New York Times columnist Olivia Judson poses the question: “Could obesity in a pregnant woman influence the eventual political outlook of her child?”
Yes, really. Believe me folks, I don’t think I could make this stuff up if I tried.
While Judson concedes the two might not be linked at all, she still suggests one possible connection:
Obese women have different hormonal profiles from women of normal weight. This is, in part, because fat cells themselves release hormones. Some of these affect appetite control and metabolism; others affect blood pressure. Fat cells also release estradiol, a form of estrogen. So when an obese woman becomes pregnant, her fetus is exposed to various “fat” hormones. Whether these hormones shape someone’s personality is unclear. But since exposure to hormones in the womb affects personality in so many other cases, it strikes me as possible that it could here too.
This observation comes on the heels of another observation of the body politic: Nine of the 10 fattest states show strong support for McCain, while eight of the 10 thinnest states support Obama.
Are there any merits to any of this? Is it all complete nonsense? You decide.
