LET THEM EAT CAKE
By Andy Malekoff © 2007
I recently learned that some schools have banned parents from bringing cupcakes into school for their children’s birthdays in an effort to decrease childhood obesity. Some parents agree and some object. Those who agree are encouraged by reports that the children don’t miss the sweet treats when they are replaced with healthy snacks and fun activities. Those who object to substitute foods and activities see an end to an age old childhood ritual.
What’s the big deal anyway? Cupcakes can be replaced with healthy snacks like rice cakes. I tried to stick a candle into a rice cake and the rice cake split in half. I tried it again and the candle wouldn’t hold. So I bought a container of low fat Jell-O, scooped it out and put it on top of the rice cake. I stuck the candle into the Jell-O and it stayed, although it did jiggle.
Some think that fun activities are good alternatives to cupcakes. I would steer clear of pin the tail on the donkey and bashing a piñata with stick, particularly if the piñata is an animal figure. I think pin the tail on the eggplant might work. Just think how things might have turned out for Michael Vick if he pinned the tail on an eggplant when he was a child.
I am in favor of anything that will help children to grow up healthy, physically and emotionally; anything that will help them to fit in socially and gain a real sense of belonging. Some call this latest movement to reduce childhood obesity “culinary correctness.” It is fun to joke around about this, just as it was fun when Ronald Reagan declared ketchup a vegetable some years ago when he and his budget director David Stockman took on school lunches during Reagan’s budget cutting days in the early 1980’s.
If depriving kids a couple trays of cupcakes each year will really help to keep them fit and trim I am all for it. And, of course I know that this is just one part of a grander plan for improving kids’ healthy development and an easy target to poke fun at. The reality, according to national studies is that between 5-25 percent of children and teenagers in the United States are obese and, according to some reports, on the increase.
According to experts, obesity is easier to prevent than to treat. Prevention focuses in large part on parent education that includes encouraging proper nutrition, selection of low-fat snacks, good exercise/activity habits, and monitoring of television viewing.
Specialists at the Mayo Clinic advise parents to, “Keep in mind that many overweight children grow into their extra pounds as they get taller. Realize, too, that an intense focus on your child's eating habits and weight can easily backfire, leading a child to overeat even more, or possibly making him or her more prone to developing an eating disorder.”
In the final analysis and if I had to take a stand, I say give the kids an extra lap or two during gym class on birthdays. And, let them eat cake.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
Sunday, December 23, 2007
Saturday, December 22, 2007
HEADLINE HATCHET JOB
Headline Hatchet Job
By Andy Malekoff © 2007
Early in December, 2007 there were several news stories about a man with a long history of mental illness who took hostages in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in New Hampshire. A headline on the front pages of the New York Post read: LOONY SEIZES HOSTAGES IN HILLARY’S OFFICE. For two consecutive days the New York Daily News printed headlines that read: WACKO BOMBS AT HILL’S OFFICE and NUT’S LIFE FROM HELL.
By now you know that the headlines were referring to an individual with a known history of serious mental illness. Had there been no such history then the derisive terms “loony,” “wacko,” and “nut” would have been a way of highlighting the lunacy of a desperate criminal act versus employing insulting stereotypes to label an individual with a mental illness. Although these headlines are about one man’s criminal act, the effect of the language in the headlines is to discredit all individuals with mental illness.
So, you may be wondering, what is the big deal? Or, you may be thinking that you are reading another tired diatribe promoting political correctness. After all, the man did do something undeniably crazy. Nevertheless, although juicy headlines sell newspapers, there is collateral damage when stigmatizing language about individuals with mental illness is used. The headline writers cannot hide behind the crime. Language that appears in the headlines of popular newspapers does influence people’s perceptions, attitudes and behavior. In this case they promote an undesirable stereotype and reinforce discrimination. The headline writers who write such headlines are the equivalent of schoolyard bullies except, in this case, the schoolyard is the entire New York metropolitan area and beyond, and the headline writers are more sinister and have more sway than the typical schoolyard bully.
Stigma experts Bruce Link and Jo C. Phelan from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, offer insights on how stigma evolves. First, human differences are labeled and assigned undesirable characteristics that lead to negative stereotypes. Labeled persons are then put in distinct categories in order to separate “us” from “them.” Finally, labeled persons lose status, and experience discrimination that leads to unequal outcomes.
Many individuals suffering with mental illnesses - children, teenagers and adults alike - have long histories of being at the butt end of cruel and stigmatizing taunts and jokes. Most people with physical illnesses, on the other hand, are beneficiaries of widespread understanding, sympathy and support. This is the reality despite the fact that neuro-imaging studies show physical changes in the brain are associated to mental disorders. Headlines that use terms like “loony” and “wacko” reinforce the notion that mental Illness is a sure sign of dangerous and irrational behavior, versus a disease with a biological basis. Headlines that employ such language also reinforce the idea that mental illness is something that is “all in one’s head” and can be controlled only if one has the moral fiber to do so.
It is shameful that the editors of major metropolitan newspapers choose to exploit isolated criminal acts to promote negative stereotypes and reinforce stigma in people with mental illness. Clearly, simply telling the truth and informing readers about a desperate criminal act is less important to them than taking the opportunity to exploit and discredit people suffering with mental illness, through malicious name calling that reinforces fear, mistrust and stigma.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
By Andy Malekoff © 2007
Early in December, 2007 there were several news stories about a man with a long history of mental illness who took hostages in Senator Hillary Clinton’s campaign office in New Hampshire. A headline on the front pages of the New York Post read: LOONY SEIZES HOSTAGES IN HILLARY’S OFFICE. For two consecutive days the New York Daily News printed headlines that read: WACKO BOMBS AT HILL’S OFFICE and NUT’S LIFE FROM HELL.
By now you know that the headlines were referring to an individual with a known history of serious mental illness. Had there been no such history then the derisive terms “loony,” “wacko,” and “nut” would have been a way of highlighting the lunacy of a desperate criminal act versus employing insulting stereotypes to label an individual with a mental illness. Although these headlines are about one man’s criminal act, the effect of the language in the headlines is to discredit all individuals with mental illness.
So, you may be wondering, what is the big deal? Or, you may be thinking that you are reading another tired diatribe promoting political correctness. After all, the man did do something undeniably crazy. Nevertheless, although juicy headlines sell newspapers, there is collateral damage when stigmatizing language about individuals with mental illness is used. The headline writers cannot hide behind the crime. Language that appears in the headlines of popular newspapers does influence people’s perceptions, attitudes and behavior. In this case they promote an undesirable stereotype and reinforce discrimination. The headline writers who write such headlines are the equivalent of schoolyard bullies except, in this case, the schoolyard is the entire New York metropolitan area and beyond, and the headline writers are more sinister and have more sway than the typical schoolyard bully.
Stigma experts Bruce Link and Jo C. Phelan from the Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University, offer insights on how stigma evolves. First, human differences are labeled and assigned undesirable characteristics that lead to negative stereotypes. Labeled persons are then put in distinct categories in order to separate “us” from “them.” Finally, labeled persons lose status, and experience discrimination that leads to unequal outcomes.
Many individuals suffering with mental illnesses - children, teenagers and adults alike - have long histories of being at the butt end of cruel and stigmatizing taunts and jokes. Most people with physical illnesses, on the other hand, are beneficiaries of widespread understanding, sympathy and support. This is the reality despite the fact that neuro-imaging studies show physical changes in the brain are associated to mental disorders. Headlines that use terms like “loony” and “wacko” reinforce the notion that mental Illness is a sure sign of dangerous and irrational behavior, versus a disease with a biological basis. Headlines that employ such language also reinforce the idea that mental illness is something that is “all in one’s head” and can be controlled only if one has the moral fiber to do so.
It is shameful that the editors of major metropolitan newspapers choose to exploit isolated criminal acts to promote negative stereotypes and reinforce stigma in people with mental illness. Clearly, simply telling the truth and informing readers about a desperate criminal act is less important to them than taking the opportunity to exploit and discredit people suffering with mental illness, through malicious name calling that reinforces fear, mistrust and stigma.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
Friday, November 23, 2007
WORKS IN PROGRESS
WORKS IN PROGRESS
By Andrew Malekoff©2007
In 1964 movie producer Michael Apted conducted and filmed interviews with fourteen seven-year-old children from diverse backgrounds living all across the United Kingdom. Seven Up is the first in a series of films that have been produced in seven year intervals over the past four decades. I recently watched the latest installment - 49 Up.
Imagine having your life portrayed on film for public consumption at regular intervals for as long as you live; facing questions about your work and family, your successes and failures, your joys and disappointments. Imagine having to dig deep to consider and then share with the world whether or not your hopes and dreams have been fulfilled.
In the beginning of the early episodes the film presents viewers with a maxim attributed to Jesuit missionary Saint Francis Xavier, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” In an interview Apted says that he believes that there is a core personality at seven years old that doesn't dissapear. Some of the children he interviewed were raised in privileged surroundings and boarding schools and others in poverty and group care. Yet their early socioeconomic status did not necessarily predict stability or happiness in later life.
Following Seven Up, each successive film includes interspersed clips from previous ones, enabling viewers to see the individuals mature from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood and beyond. Many, but not all, get married and become parents. Some separate, some divorce and some remarry. Many speak to the challenges of marriage. Their physical maturation is presented before our eyes in a sort of time-lapse photography style, accompanied by the music of childhood dreams, adolescent angst and adult realities. Older age awaits them (and us) and is only a few multiples of seven ahead. Having lost contemporaries of my own by their age, I found it remarkable that this random sample of fourteen people were all still living at 49, although we are just now beginning to see signs and symptoms of ailing health among the group.
I was also surprised to learn that only one person dropped out (after 21 Up) and especially after hearing several reflect on how painful it is to be a part of the series. They talked about the difficulty of having their lives (and families) intruded upon, being placed under a public microscope and, to add insult to injury, being subjected to random (mis)interpretations and judgments by strangers based on edited celluloid snippets of their lives.
Some of them recognize the contribution and importance of their ongoing participation in the project. I think that their sacrifice is a gift to the rest of us. Their lives portrayed at seven year intervals over forty-two years and counting, offer us a message of hope. By laying their lives on the line they demonstrate, in graphic terms, just how resilient human beings are and how powerful family life is.
What about Saint Francis Xavier? Is his contention correct? : “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man [or woman].” At first glance, when I look back at myself at seven, I find little to predict what has become of me today. I cannot quite remember myself at seven. There is no filmed documentary available of anyone asking me questions about my life and my future in 1958. The best I could do was to dig up old report cards. In one of them my first grade teacher Mrs. Finkel wrote, “Andrew tends to go to extremes lately. He is either the best boy in the class, or he creates mischief by loud laughter.” In her next report she upgraded me and wrote, “Splendid worker.”
If I look closely at myself at seven and fourteen and twenty-one I can find some clues that lead me to where I am today. But the clues don’t appear to me in a straight line. The path is a crooked one with many twists and turns and detours. When I look at my own sons, now 18 and 22, it is good for me to remember this, to remember that like me and the Seven Up kids they are and will continue to be forever works in progress.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
By Andrew Malekoff©2007
In 1964 movie producer Michael Apted conducted and filmed interviews with fourteen seven-year-old children from diverse backgrounds living all across the United Kingdom. Seven Up is the first in a series of films that have been produced in seven year intervals over the past four decades. I recently watched the latest installment - 49 Up.
Imagine having your life portrayed on film for public consumption at regular intervals for as long as you live; facing questions about your work and family, your successes and failures, your joys and disappointments. Imagine having to dig deep to consider and then share with the world whether or not your hopes and dreams have been fulfilled.
In the beginning of the early episodes the film presents viewers with a maxim attributed to Jesuit missionary Saint Francis Xavier, “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.” In an interview Apted says that he believes that there is a core personality at seven years old that doesn't dissapear. Some of the children he interviewed were raised in privileged surroundings and boarding schools and others in poverty and group care. Yet their early socioeconomic status did not necessarily predict stability or happiness in later life.
Following Seven Up, each successive film includes interspersed clips from previous ones, enabling viewers to see the individuals mature from childhood to adolescence to young adulthood and beyond. Many, but not all, get married and become parents. Some separate, some divorce and some remarry. Many speak to the challenges of marriage. Their physical maturation is presented before our eyes in a sort of time-lapse photography style, accompanied by the music of childhood dreams, adolescent angst and adult realities. Older age awaits them (and us) and is only a few multiples of seven ahead. Having lost contemporaries of my own by their age, I found it remarkable that this random sample of fourteen people were all still living at 49, although we are just now beginning to see signs and symptoms of ailing health among the group.
I was also surprised to learn that only one person dropped out (after 21 Up) and especially after hearing several reflect on how painful it is to be a part of the series. They talked about the difficulty of having their lives (and families) intruded upon, being placed under a public microscope and, to add insult to injury, being subjected to random (mis)interpretations and judgments by strangers based on edited celluloid snippets of their lives.
Some of them recognize the contribution and importance of their ongoing participation in the project. I think that their sacrifice is a gift to the rest of us. Their lives portrayed at seven year intervals over forty-two years and counting, offer us a message of hope. By laying their lives on the line they demonstrate, in graphic terms, just how resilient human beings are and how powerful family life is.
What about Saint Francis Xavier? Is his contention correct? : “Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man [or woman].” At first glance, when I look back at myself at seven, I find little to predict what has become of me today. I cannot quite remember myself at seven. There is no filmed documentary available of anyone asking me questions about my life and my future in 1958. The best I could do was to dig up old report cards. In one of them my first grade teacher Mrs. Finkel wrote, “Andrew tends to go to extremes lately. He is either the best boy in the class, or he creates mischief by loud laughter.” In her next report she upgraded me and wrote, “Splendid worker.”
If I look closely at myself at seven and fourteen and twenty-one I can find some clues that lead me to where I am today. But the clues don’t appear to me in a straight line. The path is a crooked one with many twists and turns and detours. When I look at my own sons, now 18 and 22, it is good for me to remember this, to remember that like me and the Seven Up kids they are and will continue to be forever works in progress.
This article was originally published in the Anton Community Newspapers, Long Island, NY.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)