The Latino community has been impacted by the obesity epidemic, and Hispanic preschool children are at a higher risk of being overweight or obese. Back in 2006, a study published in the American Journal of Public Health found the following:

“Thirty-two percent of the white and black tots were either overweight or obese, vs. 44% of the Hispanics.

Children were particularly at risk if their mothers were obese. So were those who still took a bottle to bed at age 3, as did 14% of the Hispanic youngsters, 6% of the whites and 4% of the blacks.”

So given the state of our community’s fat issues that start hindering us from the get-go, it was a little surprising for me to learn that Latino organizations such as the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity, the National Hispana Leadership Institute, and the League of United Latin American Citizens, along with the National Hispanic Medical Organization have been recruited by a coalition, Americans Against Food Taxes, to oppose taxes on sugary and fast foods. These organizations are arguing that taxes on these foods would disproportionately affect the poor.

I wasn’t the only one surprised:

“Public health analysts were surprised to find that the list included the National Hispanic Medical Association, which represents 36,000 Latino doctors and focuses on health issues such as obesity-related diabetes that’s hitting Latino youth especially hard.

Nearly all the Hispanic groups, including the Medical Association, had received beverage industry money in the past or have industry representatives on their governing boards.”

Once again, our advocacy groups have been tainted by the money coming from industries that contribute to our health problems. We have seen this with the alcohol industry and their continued sponsorship of organizations like MALDEF and NCLR.

I’m neither for or against a fast food or soft-drink tax, but I do think that it is worth exploring, as a way to offset the costs of health care. The evidence that such a tax would help curb unhealthy habits is not very conclusive, but continuing to accept money from food companies that produce goods that aren’t of much nutritional value muddles the messages of organizations like Hispanic Alliance for Prosperty and LULAC.

My thought is that the food and soft-drink industry is salivating at our growing population and growing hunger and thirst for their products. They want to make sure that we have been effectively bought off so that we will oppose taxes on sodas and convenience foods. Frankly, all of us would be better off eating more unprocessed foods, which can actually be cheaper when purchased at local farmer’s markets and produce stands. I just don’t see a benefit to promoting the “crap food” industry any more than is already done. This issue is particularly timely given First Lady Michelle Obama’s kick off of the “Let’s Move” campaign to conquer childhood obesity. But what are your thoughts?

Senator Kennedy, who is battling brain cancer, was suffering from kidney stones the day he delivered his speech. He literally left a hospital bed in Denver to address the convention. His speech addressed how he plans to work on legislation for President Obama that would give all Americans access to health care comparable to that available to members of Congress. Considering that approximately 25% of all Latino adults in the US have no regular health care provider, this is an important issue for us, and Senator Kennedy’s leadership will be instrumental in making quality health care a reality. You can watch the Senator’s tribute and speech here:

I am struck at how robust and energetic he looks despite being ill. Dare I say that a sick Ted Kennedy looks stronger than a healthy John McCain, and both men are close in age. I also am impressed with Kennedy’s level of service and commitment to the people that he did make this appearance despite his own health struggles. His own fight makes his health policy advocacy especially poignant.  

Michelle Obama’s speech was great because she addressed how her home life shaped her own public service and the common goals and dreams that she shares with her husband, the Democratic nominee. She also praised the work of Senator Clinton for putting cracks in the glass ceiling. Her speech wasn’t very policy oriented, but her goal in introducing her family and her husband was to tell their story and how their experiences as a family have shaped who they are today.   

One more thing, aren’t the Obama children charming? I think that it will be great to have children in the White House again to remind the policy makers who work there that they should strive to shape policy with the future generations in mind.

Fast forward about a week, and Bill O’Reilly, the outspoken Fox News host, makes the following statement about Michelle Obama in reference to her recent comments about being proud of America, “I don’t want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there’s evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels. If that’s how she really feels — that America is a bad country or a flawed nation, whatever — then that’s legit. We’ll track it down.” To my knowledge, none of the presidential campaigns have come out and addressed this remark head-on. O’Reilly’s producer has explained that the remarks were made in repudiation of anyone attacking Michelle Obama. Regardless, the use of the term “lynching” in reference to anyone, but especially an African-American, is deplorable.

Why the double standard? David Shuster was suspended for his “pimp” remarks, but Bill O’Reilly doesn’t have to apologize or suffer any consequences. I find both remarks offensive, but why does hurtful and hateful language in reference to a white woman inspire outrage and punishment, while similar language in reference to a black woman doesn’t? ProfBWoman at WOC, PhD, writes, “Not only is the suggestion that someone should be lynched for speaking offensive and wrong but to say it about the potential future first lady without the slightest concern for the consequences speaks volumes about the nation we live in and the mindset of some in it.”  She also points out in a following comment that if Hillary Clinton spoke out on the “lynching” comment as she did with the “pimping” comment that she could repair some of the damage that her campaign has caused with black voters. I have been waiting for Hillary Clinton to say something about this comment, especially given her relationship with Rupert Murdoch, the conservative media tycoon who owns Fox News. Remember a few weeks ago Senator Clinton wanted to debate Barack Obama on the Fox network?

Now, I realize that Barack Obama’s campaign is probably not going to make a big deal out of this comment. We minorities walk a fine line when addressing offensive remarks aimed in our direction, especially when it can be suggested that said minorities on the receiving end are playing “the race card.” Therefore, it is much easier for a white person, especially one with a relationship to the network in question’s ownership, to raise the issue regarding such hate speech. If not Hillary Clinton, then why not Bill? Or better yet, why isn’t the mainstream media treating O’Reilly’s comment like the Imus incident? This isn’t the first time Bill O’Reilly has made such remarks.