Whole Kids Project

11 Injury-Prone High School Sports

2008-11-14T08:13:18-05:00

ABC News looks at 11 injury-prone high school sports.

Not surprisingly, football is #1 with 12 injuries per 1000 players and the most catastrophic injuries of any high school sport.

Fathers for Good

2008-11-06T13:55:44-05:00

Fathers for Good, an initiative of the Knights of Columbus, now has a series of parenting podcasts.

Fathers for Good is a fairly new site but it already has a good number of useful resources for dads.

Life is the Issue

2008-11-02T18:54:00-05:00

From NY's Cardinal Egan:

The picture on this page is an untouched photograph of a being that has been within its mother for 20 weeks. Please do me the favor of looking at it carefully.

Have you any doubt that it is a human being?

If you do not have any such doubt, have you any doubt that it is an innocent human being?

If you have no doubt about this either, have you any doubt that the authorities in a civilized society are duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if anyone were to wish to kill it?

If your answer to this last query is negative, that is, if you have no doubt that the authorities in a civilized society would be duty-bound to protect this innocent human being if someone were to wish to kill it, I would suggest—even insist—that there is not a lot more to be said about the issue of abortion in our society. It is wrong, and it cannot—must not—be tolerated.

* * *

But you might protest that all of this is too easy. Why, you might inquire, have I not delved into the opinion of philosophers and theologians about the matter? And even worse: Why have I not raised the usual questions about what a “human being” is, what a “person” is, what it means to be “living,” and such? People who write books and articles about abortion always concern themselves with these kinds of things. Even the justices of the Supreme Court who gave us “Roe v. Wade” address them. Why do I neglect philosophers and theologians? Why do I not get into defining “human being,” “person,” “living,” and the rest? Because, I respond, I am sound of mind and endowed with a fine set of eyes, into which I do not believe it is well to cast sand. I looked at the photograph, and I have no doubt about what I saw and what are the duties of a civilized society if what I saw is in danger of being killed by someone who wishes to kill it or, if you prefer, someone who “chooses” to kill it. In brief: I looked, and I know what I saw.

* * *

But what about the being that has been in its mother for only 15 weeks or only 10? Have you photographs of that too? Yes, I do. However, I hardly think it necessary to show them. For if we agree that the being in the photograph printed on this page is an innocent human being, you have no choice but to admit that it may not be legitimately killed even before 20 weeks unless you can indicate with scientific proof the point in the development of the being before which it was other than an innocent human being and, therefore, available to be legitimately killed. Nor have Aristotle, Aquinas or even the most brilliant embryologists of our era or any other era been able to do so. If there is a time when something less than a human being in a mother morphs into a human being, it is not a time that anyone has ever been able to identify, though many have made guesses. However, guesses are of no help. A man with a shotgun who decides to shoot a being that he believes may be a human being is properly hauled before a judge. And hopefully, the judge in question knows what a “human being” is and what the implications of someone’s wishing to kill it are. The word “incarceration” comes to mind.

* * *

However, we must not stop here. The matter becomes even clearer and simpler if you obtain from the National Geographic Society two extraordinary DVDs. One is entitled “In the Womb” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of one innocent human being within its mother. The other is entitled “In the Womb—Multiples” and illustrates in color and in motion the development of two innocent human beings—twin boys—within their mother. If you have ever allowed yourself to wonder, for example, what “living” means, these two DVDs will be a great help. The one innocent human being squirms about, waves its arms, sucks its thumb, smiles broadly and even yawns; and the two innocent human beings do all of that and more: They fight each other. One gives his brother a kick, and the other responds with a sock to the jaw. If you can convince yourself that these beings are something other than innocent and living human beings (perhaps “mere clusters of tissues,” as one national newsmagazine suggests), you have a problem far more basic than merely not appreciating the wrongness of abortion. And that problem is—forgive me—self-deceit in a most extreme form.

* * *

Adolf Hitler convinced himself and his subjects that Jews and homosexuals were other than human beings. Joseph Stalin did the same as regards Cossacks and Russian aristocrats. And this despite the fact that Hitler and his subjects had seen both Jews and homosexuals with their own eyes, and Stalin and his subjects had seen both Cossacks and Russian aristocrats with theirs. Happily, there are few today who would hesitate to condemn in the roundest terms the self-deceit of Hitler, Stalin or even their subjects to the extent that their subjects could have done something to end the madness and protect living, innocent human beings.

It is high time to stop pretending that we do not know what this nation of ours is allowing—and approving—with the killing each year of more than 1,600,000 innocent human beings within their mothers. We know full well that to kill what is clearly seen to be an innocent human being or what cannot be proved to be other than an innocent human being is as wrong as wrong gets. Nor can we honorably cover our shame (1) by appealing to the thoughts of Aristotle or Aquinas on the subject, inasmuch as we are all well aware that their understanding of matters embryological was hopelessly mistaken, (2) by suggesting that “killing” and “choosing to kill” are somehow distinct ethically, morally or criminally, (3) by feigning ignorance of the meaning of “human being,” “person,” “living,” and such, (4) by maintaining that among the acts covered by the right to privacy is the act of killing an innocent human being, and (5) by claiming that the being within the mother is “part” of the mother, so as to sustain the oft-repeated slogan that a mother may kill or authorize the killing of the being within her “because she is free to do as she wishes with her own body.”

* * *

One day, please God, when the stranglehold on public opinion in the United States has been released by the extremists for whom abortion is the center of their political and moral life, our nation will, in my judgment, look back on what we have been doing to innocent human beings within their mothers as a crime no less heinous than what was approved by the Supreme Court in the “Dred Scott Decision” in the 19th century, and no less heinous than what was perpetrated by Hitler and Stalin in the 20th. There is nothing at all complicated about the utter wrongness of abortion, and making it all seem complicated mitigates that wrongness not at all. On the contrary, it intensifies it.

Do me a favor. Look at the photograph again. Look and decide with honesty and decency what the Lord expects of you and me as the horror of “legalized” abortion continues to erode the honor of our nation. Look, and do not absolve yourself if you refuse to act.

Book Series: All Things Girl

2008-10-20T09:46:56-04:00

Bestselling author and speaker, Teresa Tomeo, and the women behind the groundbreaking Runway to Reality organization have launched a new series of books "intended to help today’s young girls navigate a complicated world with a truly Catholic perspective."

“All Things Girl” is the new, groundbreaking book series for “tweenaged” girls by best selling Catholic author and speaker Teresa Tomeo along with the women behind the Runway to Reality Apostolate: Molly Miller and Monica Cops.

The “All Things Girl” series of five books is unlike anything found in the marketplace as it brings Faith to the real world in which young girls live. Each unique book in the series includes:

An Introduction to the Dignity of the Person

A Media Chapter by Catholic Author and Media Specialist, Teresa Tomeo

A Virtue Expanded and Explained with Practical tips on how to Live it

A Plan of Life to help Girls Incorporate Prayer into their Daily Lives

An Examination of Conscience unique to the Virtue in the book

A Saint Story called “A Girl Like Me”

Quizzes, Games, Recipes, Crafts

Click here to order.

Please Support Parents for Ethical Marketing

2008-10-14T13:41:00-04:00

The Parents for Ethical Marketing has just kicked-off a fund raising campaign. Lisa is a tireless and courageous advocate for our children- please support her efforts.

Why Parents for Ethical Marketing:

Consumer marketing is everywhere. On television. In magazines and newspapers. On the Internet and on school buses. On billboards and on bus shelters. On milk cartons and cereal boxes.

In our public schools.

And it's almost impossible to buy anything for a child without a “brand identity.” Barbie, for example, can be found on everything from band-aids to board games to backpacks.

As parents, we know there's a problem. We argue with our kids about what to buy, what to wear, what to watch and what to play. We know what is best for our kids, yet sometimes we give in when we know we shouldn't.

Of course, parents are ultimately responsible for raising healthy children. But corporate marketers would have us believe that combating their damaging commercial messages is exclusively our problem

Parents for Ethical Marketing thinks it’s about time that corporations take some of the responsibility.

Through parental awareness, public pressure, and legislative initiatives, Parents for Ethical Marketing encourages corporations to adopt responsible marketing standards and practices that sustain the health of children and families.

Please click here to make a donation!

Vitamin D Recommendation: Read the Entire Story

2008-10-13T11:02:21-04:00

Here is a great example of how biased physicians with obvious conflicts of interest and the media confuse parents and, ultimately, mistreat our kids:

I've highlighted the troubling sentences- you'll need to look near the bottom of the article and well beyond the misleading headline to get to the truth:

Pediatricians double vitamin D recommendations

By LINDSEY TANNER, AP Medical Writer

The nation's leading pediatricians group says children from newborns to teens should get double the usually recommended amount of vitamin D because of evidence that it may help prevent serious diseases.

To meet the new recommendation of 400 units daily, millions of children will need to take daily vitamin D supplements, the American Academy of Pediatrics said. That includes breast-fed infants — even those who get some formula, too, and many teens who drink little or no milk.

Baby formula contains vitamin D, so infants on formula only generally don't need supplements. However, the academy recommends breast-feeding for at least the first year of life and breast milk is sometimes deficient.

Most commercially available milk is fortified with vitamin D, but most children and teens don't drink enough of it — four cups daily would be needed — to meet the new requirement, said Dr. Frank Greer, the report's co-author.

The new advice is based on mounting research about potential benefits from vitamin D besides keeping bones strong, including suggestions that it might reduce risks for cancer, diabetes and heart disease. But the evidence isn't conclusive and there's no consensus on how much of the vitamin would be needed for disease prevention.

The new advice replaces a 2003 academy recommendation for 200 units daily.

That's the amount the government recommends for children and adults up to age 50; 400 units is recommended for adults aged 51 to 70 and 600 units for those aged 71 and up. Vitamin D is sold in drops for young children, capsules and tablets.

The Institute of Medicine, a government advisory group that sets dietary standards, is discussing with federal agencies whether those recommendations should be changed based on emerging research, said spokeswoman Christine Stencel.

The recommendations were prepared for release Monday at an academy conference in Boston. They are to be published in the November issue of the academy's journal, Pediatrics.

Besides milk and some other fortified foods like cereal, vitamin D is found in oily fish including tuna, mackerel and sardines.

But it's hard to get enough through diet; the best source is sunlight because the body makes vitamin D when sunshine hits the skin.

While it is believed that 10 to 15 minutes in the sun without sunscreen a few times weekly is sufficient for many, people with dark skin and those in northern, less sunny climates need more. Because of sunlight's link with skin cancer, "vitamin D supplements during infancy, childhood and adolescence are necessary," the academy's report says.

Recent studies have shown that many children don't get enough vitamin D, and cases of rickets, a bone disorder often associated with malnourishment in the 1800s, continue to occur.

Greer, a University of Wisconsin pediatrician, acknowledged that most studies suggesting vitamin D may play a much broader role in disease prevention have been observational, not the most rigorous kind of medical evidence.

Nonetheless, many doctors consider the research compelling and many have begun to offer patients routine vitamin D testing.

Adrian Gombart, a vitamin D researcher at Oregon State University, said the new recommendations are safe and conservative but that 400 units "is probably not enough."

Gombart's lab work in human tissue has shown that vitamin D helps increase levels of a protein that kills bacteria. He said many experts believe that between 800 and 1,000 units daily would be more effective at helping fight disease.

Several members of an academy committee that helped write the guidelines have current or former ties to makers of infant formula or vitamin supplements.

Sadly, this is just one more example of how the AAP is willing to, at the very least, appear to be a pawn for the companies that profit from our children.

So, is there a conflict of interest here?

Newsweek: The Pornification of a Generation

2008-10-09T13:40:38-04:00

Newsweek has a very good article on what they call the "pornification" of an entire generation of youth:

In a market that sells high heels for babies and thongs for tweens, it doesn't take a genius to see that sex, if not porn, has invaded our lives. Whether we welcome it or not, television brings it into our living rooms and the Web brings it into our bedrooms. According to a 2007 study from the University of Alberta, as many as 90 percent of boys and 70 percent of girls aged 13 to 14 have accessed sexually explicit content at least once.

But it isn't just sex that Scott is worried about. He's more interested in how we, as a culture, often mimic the most raunchy, degrading parts of it—many of which, he says, come directly from pornography. In "The Porning of America" (Beacon), which he has written with colleague Carmine Sarracino, a professor of American literature, the duo argue that, through Bratz dolls and beyond, the influence of porn on mainstream culture is affecting our self perceptions and behavior—in everything from fashion to body image to how we conceptualize our sexuality.

The article continues:

The prevalence or porn leaves today's children with a lot of conflicting ideas and misconceptions, says Lyn Mikel Brown, the coauthor of "Packaging Girlhood," about marketers' influence on teen girls. "All this sex gives a misinformed notion of what it means to be grown-up." Studies show that kids who consume this kind of sex in the media inherit more traditional views of gender—boys as dominant, girls as submissive, in the bedroom and beyond. (In a survey of 244 high-school students earlier this year, researchers at the University of Michigan found that those who frequently viewed talk shows and prime-time programs with sexualized content endorsed sexual stereotypes more strongly.) Kids are less likely to know when and how to express themselves sexually—or what behavior crosses the border into sexual harassment. As part of their research, the authors of "Porning" talked to middle-school teachers who told stories of girls sending half-nude pictures to classmates they'd barely met, then strutting around in classrooms in provocative clothing to reveal what's underneath.

The authors of "So Sexy So Soon" (Ballantine), which came out last month, believe that part of the problem for children is that they lack the emotional sophistication to understand the images they see. Last year, the American Psychological Association put out a compelling report that described the sexualization of young girls: a process that entails being stripped of all value except the sexual use to which they might be put. Once they subscribe to that belief, say some psychologists, those girls begin to self-objectify—with consequences ranging from cognitive problems to depression and eating disorders. "It's not as if we get our ideas straight from porn about what a kiss should be or what sex should be," says Sharon Lamb, a psychologist at Saint Michael's College in Burlington, Vt., and a coauthor of the APA report. "But you do see imitation of sex that was once found only in porn. It's a kind of education to kids about what sex is like before they have a real education of it."

This is one of the reasons that we were so appalled by Nationwide Children's Hospital decision to rename their emergency room The Abercrombie & Fitch ER. Abercrombie has been, and remains, a primary objectifier of children.

The hospital, in partnering with one of the worst corporate offenders, is harming the very people they should be protecting.

A Teacher's Plea: What Badly Behaved Boys Need

2008-09-25T12:18:05-04:00

From the UK Daily Mail Online:

During the decade I've been teaching, the number of children prescribed the amphetamine Ritalin, used to 'treat' ADHD, has simply exploded. It is estimated that 400,000 children are currently prescribed the drug.

In 1991, the number of prescriptions issued was a mere 2,000. When I first started teaching I'd never heard of Ritalin or ADHD.

Now, I can honestly say I don't think there's a single class I teach without at least one and often two or three children being medicated with this very powerful class B drug.

Ritalin has unpleasant side effects - including sleeplessness and nausea - and the penalty for selling it illegally is a maximum of 14 years' imprisonment.

Recent research has linked it to depression, stunted growth, heart problems, insomnia and weight gain and, according to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, 11 British children on Ritalin have died.

Serious concerns are finally being voiced about the way Ritalin is being doled out like sweets to thousands of young children

Yet this drug is now routinely prescribed to children as young as six or seven.

Now, finally, serious concerns are being voiced about the way it is being doled out like sweets to thousands of young children.

The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE), which advises what drugs should be made available on the NHS, has just issued guidelines recommending that Ritalin be used only as a last resort.

Parenting classes, they urge, might be more effective in controlling the bad behaviour which has become endemic in our schools and on our streets.

Boys are three times more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD than girls. And looking at the 'symptoms' that characterise it, it's not hard to see why.

Is the child easily distracted and quickly bored? Do they forget things such as instructions, homework and spellings? Do they fidget, doodle and lose things?

If the answer to these questions is yes, then according to the 'experts', the child might well have ADHD. Alternatively, they may simply be a typical boy.

Added to the list of symptoms are, in my experience, extreme rudeness and a dislike of being asked to wear school uniform.

If asked several times to stop talking over me, children with the 'illness' generally swear at me.

When I phone their home, their parents react with the uniform comment: 'He can't help it. He's got ADHD.'

Unsurprisingly, an increasing number of doctors and psychiatrists are expressing the fear that children are being labelled with a mental illness and given drugs for behaviour that in the past would simply have been labelled 'very naughty.'

And anecdotally, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that schools are pressurising parents to put children who cause mayhem on Ritalin.

As a teacher, I'm secretly relieved when I hear that a particularly difficult child, one who won't do any work, who chats and texts through the lesson, who sneers and swears at staff without a second thought, has been prescribed Ritalin.

The drug isn't known as the 'chemical cosh' for nothing. If I'm honest, though, I don't believe that these children are ill. I think they come from insecure, unstable backgrounds where the concept of a bedtime is as fanciful as the fairy tales they've never been read.

I believe that many of the children labelled with ADHD and drugged into acquiescence are simply youngsters who have been raised without any boundaries.

They live in homes where junk food is the norm, where there is no parental control over what they watch on TV and when they watch it, and where authority, whether it be teachers, the police or the lollipop lady, is routinely sneered at and derided.

A study some years ago in America suggested that much of the behaviour labelled ADHD was in fact simply exhaustion, and that children were magically cured of their affliction when they went to bed and slept at night instead of watching gory horror movies.

Personally, I think that many children would benefit from firmer and more consistent parenting.

Of course, having an active, boisterous seven-year-old child is hard work. But it seems to me that far too many mums and dads are happy to have their children labelled with a psychiatric condition and drugged - even if the existence of the disorder is hotly disputed by the experts.

Youngsters might be turned into wide-eyed, slow-witted zombies, but at least they're not running amok in the playground and inconveniencing their parents by getting suspended.

Ritalin, like Valium, has become mother's little helper. It relieves parents of the responsibility of actually having to discipline their children. But as a society, we may pay a very high price indeed for drugging a generation of our children.

Comments? Do you have a child that has been diagnosed with ADHD? Has a school pressured you to medicate your child?

Boys Should Be Boys

2008-09-25T08:37:18-04:00

As a follow-up to yesterday's post regarding raising strong daughters, I also want to let you know that Dr. Meg Meeker has written a book about raising boys: Boys Should Be Boys.

Check it out!

Raising Strong Daughters

2008-09-24T07:44:20-04:00

Dr. Meg Meeker on raising strong daughters. Dr. Meeker's book - Strong Fathers, Strong Daughters, is excellent by the way!