sysrick.com

BOB HERBERT, NY TIMES - Last week - April 12, to be exact - was the 60th anniversary of the death of Franklin Delano Roosevelt. . . [In the] State of the Union address he delivered from the White House on Jan. 11, 1944… Roosevelt referred to his proposals . . . as "a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all regardless of station, race or creed." Among these rights, he said, are:

"The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.

"The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

"The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

"The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad.

"The right of every family to a decent home.

"The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

"The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident and unemployment.

"The right to a good education."

I mentioned this a few days ago to an acquaintance who is 30 years old. She said, "Wow, I can't believe a president would say that."

THE GIGANTIC error in CDC obesity stats has been given less coverage than it should. We can't recall a similar public health statistic found to be so far wrong. Further, the original research, listing obesity as the number two cause of death, has undoubtedly spurred the misallocation of millions, if not billions, in public and private funds.

Instead of worrying about blogs and who gets into White House news conferences, the media nannies would do better to examine the way the press covers health issues, how it routinely accepts data from questionable sources like drug companies without adequate investigation, and how it serves as a transmitter of mass hypochondria.

It could also examine the public record better. For example, the JAMA story in question contains interesting information not mentioned in most stories, such as the fact that the effect of weight is significantly different depending on one's age.

And it could examine the basis of most of these stories about weight: the mathematically absurd body mass index, in which humans are treated like paper cutouts when most of them have three dimensions. If, in high school math, you tried to compute the size of a cube the way we compute BMI - squaring things that should be cubed - you would flunk.

And it shouldn't pretend there isn't a controversy when there is. For example Stephen Blair of the highly respected Cooper Institute has been arguing that fitness is much more important than weight but has gotten little press attention.

Finally the media should read its own copy. If, as one story reported, the CDC had "found people who are modestly overweight actually have a lower risk of death than those of normal weight," then shouldn't the latter really be called underweight or perhaps even morbidly thin? This is a small but useful example of how in the media past assumptions survive new facts.