Apparently, bullying can keep overweight kids from exercising. A recent study was published which looked at 100 children who were overweight or “at risk” for being overweight. They found:

… as rates of peer victimization among overweight kids went up, rates of physical activity went down…

This leads to a pretty sad and vicious cycle, one that needs to stop yet seems very difficult to terminate. In our society today, the concept of overweight is considered a nasty thing. In later childhood and adulthood, people seem to be able to be somewhat “accepting” of those who are plump. However, young children do not have that restraint, and when they encounter something that is considered negative, often they will tease and bully it.

This inconveniently starts plump children on the bad end of a physical and psychological cycle. EX: They gain a little weight and don’t do so well in sports, which causes them to get teased, which causes them to avoid sports which could help them lose weight [insert anything physical in here instead of sports].

I was reading the April 8th issue of The Economist, which featured an article entitled: “The State is Looking After You.” It discussed how the thought of soft paternalism is being bred in the United States. The following definition is from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

Soft paternalism is the view that the only conditions under which state paternalism is justified is when it is necessary to determine whether the person being interfered with is acting voluntarily and knowledgably.

In other words, soft paternalism can be acheived by altering market conditions (i.e. prices) to persuade people to make the choices that maximize their own well-being AND the well-being of society. The key idea behind soft paternalism is that people make these choices on their own, rather than being forced to make them. As Ben posted in one of my recent articles about a fat tax on soda, this is sometimes called a “Nanny State.”

A few days ago USA Today joined the ranks of the terrorists by outing that the government was keeping track of phone call records in a massive database at the NSA. I can imagine that this helped the bottom line at more than a few companies; the free markets work best when they’re infused by taxpayers money in black programs where there is virtually no oversight.

But that’s not the really interesting part. Having devined that Gimme-Five is full of future CEOs (except for george which appears destined to a CIO position based on his technical nerdiness), I was curious what the future leaders thought about the behavior of ATT, Verizon, BellSouth and Qwest. In short, ATT, Verizon and BellSouth handed over records while Qwest did not, despite sizeable threats to their core business — such as witholding black contracts from the companies if they did not cooperate silently. This type of arm-twisting looks unseemly from the civil liberties perspective, but even more so from the standpoint of these companies being money printing machines.

A comment from Schneier’s blog:

I might not buy a hybrid car. I am going to begin searching for a new car in the next year or two, and I’ve definitely been fascinated by hybrids. However, is a hybrid really the best choice for our environment? Taking this idea a step further, are hybrid tax breaks really going to the right places?

I just finished listening to an interview with Jamie Lincoln Kitman, who recently wrote an op-ed piece in the New York Times, entitled “Life in the Green Lane.” In this interview, Kitman discusses the hype that hybrids are receiving purely for the sake of their status as a gasoline-electric car, rather than the amount of gasoline they might save. Kitman points out (and callers to the show reinforce) that many people see the word hybrid and assume the car is efficient. This is not always the case.

Kitman’s main point in his article and interview is this: just because it’s a hybrid doesn’t mean it is environmentally friendly. Following from this: just because it’s a hybrid doesn’t mean it should get tax incentives.

This is a very interesting interview with Al Gore, talking about his upcoming movie, An Inconvenient Truth. It also discusses a little bit about the rumors circling Gore about potentially running for president in 2008. I think this article is very interesting because it definitely seems to go along with how people have responded to articles on gimme-five recently.

…In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don’t think there’s a problem…

… I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now …

… Cellulosic ethanol. Different from corn-based ethanol. I think it is going to be a huge new source of energy, particularly for the transportation sector. You’re going to see it all over the place…

Definitely check this interview out, and definitely check out An Inconvenient Truth on May 24th.