City Planning and Collective Health

Dear Municipalities and City Planners Everywhere,

As you, no doubt, are aware, the American Medical Association has recently decided to classify obesity, a condition which affects a large and ever increasing segment of the population (approximately 35.7% of adults per the CDC), as a disease. As the vocabulary of being fat in america changes from a health risk or condition, a state or a symptom to a disease, there are a few different ways this can go. One way, the sadly most likely way, is that anyone with a BMI of over 30 gets further stigmatized and hounded for every little decision they make. The other way is that useful policy changes open up the door to treatment options previously unavailable, increase access to the necessary tools for combating the myriad underlying causes of obesity, and, possibly most importantly, a culture of fat shaming begins to trend to a culture of challenge in which an obese person's healthcare professional takes the time to talk to him or her about their predicament and look for the underlying factors potentially complicating reaching or maintaining a "healthier weight*."

Of course, as a municipality/city planner, this has nothing to do with you, right? Wrong.

As a woman who prefers to walk when possible, I am frequently disappointed, disheartened, and disturbed that in many areas that really should be pedestrian-traffic friendly- shopping areas, hotel and food districts, neighborhoods near busy streets- there is no safe means of walking from one place to the next. Sidewalks end before the street, six lane roads lack crosswalks, and pedestrians can either Frogger it across the road (maybe at the stoplight, maybe not- after all, the crosswalkless stoplight also has the turn lanes with which to contend).

Poor municipal planning endangers the people trying to stay active by choosing to walk instead of drive. It also creates a defeatist mentality wherein people who can walk assume that they can't because they don't feel they can trust that the entire way will be safe. So, instead of walking a mile to the post office, unsure if they'll end up dodging cars or not, they hop in the car, pollute the environment, and spend what could be active minutes sitting. But that mentality seeps into daily lives until two block trips are buckle up and go adventures for no reason other than having been trained to think that way.

So let's work on this. Sidewalks. Crosswalks. Ad campaigns to remind people that you've made it safe for pedestrian traffic. Work with your chamber of commerce to promote outdoor walking activities featuring local businesses.  Look at the cities with great public transportation and pedestrian infrastructure and emulate them. Be part of the solution.

Let's get out there and remove one more obstacle to health, because I don't think they're going to really let anyone call in fat to work or take their 10 weeks of  family medical leave to go to fat camp.

I don't agree that obesity is a disease, but if we're going to call it that, then we need to take the initiative as a society to fix it. City planners aren't responsible for the health of individuals, I'm not saying they are, I'm saying municipalities have the opportunity to do something tangible to help.

Sincerely,
An Obese Woman Who Prefers to Walk

*Healthy weight is an altogether complicated notion, because there really is such a thing as a healthy person who is also obese, well, there was until this week. Largeness does not necessarily mean high blood pressure, impaired mobility, cholesterol and blood sugar problems, and the conflation of these ideas is a huge part of the problem with the way in which our culture approaches health conversations.

Freedom From: The Failure of Majority Thinking

This morning, reading about Rick Perry's comments from yesterday regarding the Texas legislature's so called "Merry Christmas Bill" hit a nerve with me. To be specific, he said "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." Let that sink in for a moment.

The argument at the heart of his comment is that the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one's own religion, but not the right to not be infringed upon by the practices of others. Quick refresher time:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Swell. Now let's look at how the courts have interpreted that. In 1947, you know, back in the "good old days" that so many people hearken back to as a time when the country allegedly had a more firm grip on it's relationship with Jesus, in Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black expounded on the Establishment clause of said Amendment, explaining "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable." No, the Everson v. Board of Education was not the first instance* of the court's quoting Jefferson's "Separation between church and state" doctrine, but it is the germane instance, because it is the instance in which the court extends the First Amendment into state legal issues, and let's face it, Texas is a state.

It is also interesting to note that our fledgling nation also ratified the Treaty of Tripoli which clearly states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." This is pertinent to arguments regarding the government's relation to establishments of religion because there is often the underlying argument that our nation was founded on the basis of religion, but apparently, in 1797, some eight years after the United States Constitution went into effect and only six years after the Bill of Rights was amended to said Constitution, the same founding father's ratified a treaty further establishing that ours was in fact not a nation founded on religious principles.

So, let's think about what Rick Perry said. "Freedom of religion doesn't mean freedom from religion." But how can you have one without the other? Many early settlers in the Americas came here because some group in power was telling them how they had to conform religiously. Every kid in grade school learns how "mean" it was to make people who believed something different than the local Powers that Be, and so the brave little pilgrims set out to find a new land where they wouldn't be forced to do and believe what they were being told to do. As much as they were seeking a freedom to do their own thing, they were seeking a chance to get away from being told to do something else.

"But they weren't trying to avoid schools saying Merry Christmas," you might argue, and you'd be right. They were seeking freedom from being told that they had to believe in points of doctrine like transubstantiation and good works vs. grace. We all know what really happened though. Once here they started telling everyone that they had to believe the same things as all the other members of their villages. I'd like to think the initial drive for individualism was the only thing we, as a nation, inherited from those settlers,** but it appears the longest lasting impact is the drive to assimilate others.

That's what's Rick Perry's comments really mean. They mean "Because I am a member of the privileged majority, I have the right to impose my majority's beliefs on others because I have the power to make my ideas pervasive and silence dissenters." Consequently, the freedom FROM religion is as imperative as the perceived freedom to choose one's own religion. We seem to have come full circle, where state legislatures try to pass laws making it okay to tell kids, from the earliest ages and at the taxpayer's expense, that Christmas and thereby Jesus, and thereby Christianity should be part of his or her life. If you're a Christian, on the surface, it seems like that shouldn't be a big deal. Now let's change the players. Let's say instead a school wanted to start honoring Samhain, or display a large pentacle on the school grounds? Maybe there should be a Menorah in the hallway and the children could be greeted at morning announcements with the Muslim call to prayer.  Zarathustra could maybe use a poster in the hallway.  That would all be kind of awesome, don't you think? I do, in a private school in which parents have chosen to have their kids exposed to the religions of the world (which is also a great elective course in most colleges and universities, I highly recommend taking it).

That said, a lot of people would be upset if their kids were being inundated with non-historical but rather cultural actions indoctrinating them into a religion which was not their own. That sort of promotion by a government entity borrows the ethos of said entity and applies it to what is being taught and modeled. In effect, the "Merry Christmas Bill" means that the state of Texas wants to endorse religious statements, and it must be considered patently wrong to do so.

This isn't just about Atheists who don't want their child coming home from the school their property taxes support with some newfound cultural pressure to convert, but also about members of every religion who shouldn't be pressured into the religions which their teachers decided were the best to espouse. Minority religions and sects within major religions look to the First Amendment (and Fourteenth Amendment, which extends the Bill of Rights to the states) to protect their right not to have the majority's beliefs thrust on them just as much as the dreaded Atheists look to have their right to not cede fealty to anyone's deity.

Freedom from religion is an intrinsic component to freedom or religion, because freedom from precludes the coercive effect when a majority decides to use it's privilege to alienate the minority.

This is the land of the free, and Governor Perry has apparently forgotten that.


*The Supreme Court first used the phrase in 1878
** Interlopers really. There were already people here, you know, the ones converted at bayonet point.

Dress Code Distress

My daughter's school has a rule that grates on my nerves.
The students aren't allowed to dye their hair any unnatural colors.

NO

Her school even prohibited a girl from attending her after-the-end-of-the-school-year graduation event because she had blue hair. Interestingly, this rule wasn't enforced equally at that event, allowing another girl with pink streaks to participate. Then again, that other girl was popular, and the blue haired girl... not so much.
So why does it bother me?
It bothers me because I don't feel it is the place of any school board or administrative staff to tell me or my kid what color her hair can be. It bothers me because it smacks of rule making for the point of controlling someone, rather than rule making in order to ensure the health, safety, or education of the students.
I have similar problems with other points in the dress code, but this one specifically makes my brain hurt.

At the beginning of the school year, the assistant principal explained in an orientation assembly that it would be a distraction, then went on to joke that we wouldn't want to see him with green hair, and so it's only fair. I had to bite my tongue, because frankly, green might be an improvement.

Personal attacks aside, honestly, I don't understand how the color of any child's hair is going to detract from the learning environment any more than an interesting bow or complicated braiding style or up-do might.  The children are allowed to wear shirts of whatever color, even ones with pictures and writing.  One would think these things are more distracting.

Further, if the color of a student's *anything* is going to detract from the learning environment, perhaps one needs to address the real problem. If what is going on in the classroom is less engaging than the hair color little Melanie or Stanley have been rocking for a week, then the kids wouldn't be learning, even if Melanie kept her ginger and Stanley kept his brown.

Rules for the sake of squashing creativity have no place in schools, and I'm embarrassed that our local schools enjoy creating rules for the sake of exercising power.

What do you think, would purple hair make it impossible for learning to take place?

ABC Fail.

Having written earlier to ABC, via their contact form, to inquire as to why V is not available for streaming, I was directed to read a blurb which they have posted on their site in which they say that they're sorry that they are unable to offer said content online via ABC.com or Hulu anymore and wish they could.

Let me quote the email I recieved.
"Thank you for your feedback regarding the ABC TV network show, “V.”

For more information on watching full episodes, please read the notes on ABC.com:

Go to ABC.com
Go to the top of the screen and click on SHOWS
Go down the page to “V”
Click on that show.
Go down the page to the “V Extras Section”
Read the article titled:  “A note from ABC.com” 

So, I just sent this reply. It's possibly a bit more hostile than it should be.

"In writing to ask why there were no episodes available for watching online I received a response to read the note from ABC on the V site.
I have read said note, and now I ask, again, why are they not available?
It is disheartening that other content is available, but the meaningful content is not, and lack of a public reason for this decision reflect a disdain and disrespect for the loyal viewers.
I am very disappointed."

I don't know how to say this without anger.
I get that three and four years ago, I wouldn't have been able to watch any shows online, and the notion of not being able to stream television episodes the next day would have seemed like the farthest thing from an actual irritation.  I get that this is, in the grand scheme of things, not a big deal.
But to me, it is important.  It's important because I can watch bad low budget programming like "The Bachelor," on their site, or any of the increasingly sexually charged medical dramas like Grey's Anatomy or The Practice on their website, but programming which challenges us to ask questions about the soul, humanity, and what "the greater good" actually means, get relegated to "after school special" status in that you catch it or not, but can't expect to have a second chance.

I'm insulted that they gave us the classic deflection response.  We ask why? They say "Because." Maybe I'm overreacting, but I don't like to treated like someone who isn't smart enough to know that she hasn't received an answer.

So, I am up in the air as to whether or not I will watch the rest of the series. If I can't go back and catch what I missed, I don't see a point.  I'm the type who will wait and watch online or at a re-airing if I miss the first 15 minutes, because I want to understand what is going on and I respect the writers' and directors' work enough to want to enjoy the bits and pieces of foreshadowing and excellent storytelling they've put together.  No, reading a synopsis isn't enough, nor is trying to fill in the blanks and move on.

I don't want to say "I won't watch it anymore because it's not available on the internet" because I want the show to succeed.  But I don't see myself watching it anymore because I won't be able to fill in the blanks and at that point, a serial show with this much detail and subtlety loses much of it's appeal, whereas an episodic series wouldn't suffer so greatly by the break in storyline. I am not going to say that I won't watch it.

But I will say that I'm not going to watch anything else on ABC. Sure, I like to catch Desperate Housewives. Yes, I adore Nathan Fillion and love watching Castle. I also enjoy some medical drama, even though they dramatize pregnancy and birth and further contribute to the notion that these are life threatening conditions which helps create the environment in which women find it acceptable that 1 in 3 births in the United States occurs via cesarean section.

I won't be watching the Oscars.

Here's what I will be doing instead- I will be watching their competing networks and learning to like programming I can catch up on, delivered by networks which don't treat me like a 2 year old.