It was almost two weeks ago that Speaker Christine Quinn held her first free self-defense class in Central Park. This event was in response to an increased number of sexual assaults on women in the city, most notably an incident involving the rape of a 73-year-old woman in Central Park.

While free self-defense classes are great, and the fact that the local government is taking steps to intervene is commendable, what does all of this really serve to accomplish? Not much. One or two classes are hardly going to educate all of New York. Furthermore, it doesn’t even touch on the real problem: the attackers themselves. Sexual assaults play a larger part in more people’s daily lives than most people realize.

Blogs like “Who Needs Feminism” and “Project Unbreakable” have new women, and men, submitting their personal stories of assault and survival on a daily basis. These sites create a safe place for victims and survivors to speak out about what has happened to them. Whether it’s something as simple as an inappropriate catcall or something as violent as a rape, sexual assaults are taking place far too frequently.

Making a community for survivors, either online or in self-defense classes, is a strong platform for change, but it is only the foundation for it. The internet provides a voice for survivors and victims of sexual-assault crimes in a way that has never been done before. Speaking out in a safe and unthreatened way is often the first step to healing, but it also serves to raise awareness about these sorts of crimes. This awareness then hopefully helps educate potential victims and attackers on how wrong this behavior is to accept and inflict. Being vocal and raising awareness is a good step in educating a new generation on respectful and appropriate behavior.

However, speaking out against attacks is part of the aftermath of an assault and not a part of uprooting the original problem—the attacks themselves.

On the other end of the spectrum, self-defense classes can be a great precautionary measure to an assault. But again this is something being done to help protect a would-be victim from an assault; and so works under the assumption of there being an assault. Neither self-defense nor speaking out on an attack manages to directly address or change the actual problem, which is: the initial assault and assaulter. Both tactics focus on preparing women, and potential victims, for a problem instead of working on stopping the problem.

The heart of the problem is that attackers think they can attack women and get away with it. To truly address this issue would require recalibrating our thinking as a community. The focus should not be on protecting victims, but on preventing there even being victims. For there to be any real, significant and lasting change, the community’s focus needs to move from the victim to the attacker. Educating survivors and potential victims on how to protect themselves is a great start, but that’s all it is—a start. Actual change will come with educating and, in turn, preventing would-be attackers, but this is, undeniably, a much bigger and more difficult issue to tackle.

The sporting style of American mainstream media coverage of political “races” may be fun for some people. But it’s also irresponsibly dumb because of the difference between elections and horse races.

In a real horse race, you watch the competitors do what they were only ever meant to do: just run. When the race is over, the bettors collect their winnings and everyone goes home.

But political races are only preliminary events to what the winners are really expected to do: govern, their primary purpose. In these races, you are not watching the competitors do what you really want them to do (again, govern), you are listening to them vaguely promise what they will try to do if and after they win.

Imagine an American Idol where instead of actually performing, the contestants took turns promising the audience to sing and dance really well if and after they won and the celebrity judges just speculated on the home audience’s vote.

Would you watch that show? Well, we’re all watching that show right now, except it’s called American President. And it’s just plain civically nutrition-free sensationalism.

I’d like to see another kind of election show. It would look beyond nail-biting, ratings-grabbing, finish-line scenarios and, instead, objectively and responsibly assess the realistic consequences of the political platforms presented by the most articulate candidates.

In other words, I want a show that would give us not useless, racy poll projections but information to help us decide which candidate’s agenda would best serve our civic needs after the balloons drop on election day.

Today’s American President show only benefits those few who actually bet money on the election and can collect their winnings right after the vote. For the vast majority of us non-bettors watching the thrilling “down-to-the-wire” coverage in the mainstream media, we won’t really know if we are winners or losers for years to come—no matter who moves into the White House.

Steven Doloff is a professor of humanities and media studies at Pratt Institute. His essays and op-ed pieces have appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Chicago Sun-Times.

I took my first puff of a cigarette at 8 years old. I wanted to be cool and macho and fit in with the neighborhood kids.

Access to cigarettes was easy; I looked no further than my local corner market. In those days, the cigarettes were right next to the candy bars. I would tell store clerks I was buying them for an adult. It was easy and I was hooked in no time.
I kept smoking until I was 40 years old. Luckily, I found the strength to quit through nicotine replacement therapy and the support of friends who had successfully quit themselves. Now I spend my days helping others quit, running the SmokeFree Project at The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in the West Village.

In addition to helping people develop a quit plan, build a support system and effectively handle relapse pressure once they have quit smoking, the Center also works with the Manhattan Smoke-Free Partnership as part of the New York City Coalition for a Smoke-Free City. I, along with our Youth Organizers Against Tobacco Advertisement interns, advocate against tobacco marketing that targets young people.

New York City is home to 11,500 licensed tobacco retailers, 75 percent of which are located within 1,000 feet of a school. The Partnership conducted surveys on the Lower East Side of Manhattan between 14th and Delancey streets and found a higher prevalence of tobacco marketing near schools.

The Center and the Partnership are working to decrease tobacco marketing to youth in stores and window displays near schools. We are bringing attention to this growing problem by speaking to community boards and participating in awareness events throughout Manhattan.

We participated in the American Lung Association’s “Take a Walk in Our Shoes” campaign. Center youth took community leaders on walking tours of Manhattan, including the Lower East Side and Chinatown, to spotlight the huge presence of youth-targeted tobacco advertising. The youth pointed out the hundreds of storefronts loaded with tobacco advertising designed to appeal to young people and encourage them to smoke. Our goal is to prompt further dialogue about the immense need to limit tobacco marketing to youth.

The stakes could not be higher. According to the Coalition, approximately 17,000 New York City high school students smoke and a third of them will die prematurely. Tobacco use is the leading cause of preventable death in the United States and 90 percent of regular smokers start before the age of 18.

The reason so many kids start smoking today are the same as when I took up the addiction when I was young; studies show that the more tobacco marketing kids see, the more likely they are to smoke.

As the Coalition noted: “Kids see tobacco whenever they go into a store to buy water, gum or candy. They see it on the store’s windows and directly behind the cash register when they make their purchase. This is not by accident. The tobacco industry knows youth spend a lot of time in stores, so this is the place where they spend their money.

“In New York State alone, the tobacco industry spends $1.1 million every day marketing its deadly products. This is more than the amount spent on junk food, soda and alcohol marketing combined.”

It will take a multi-pronged approach to counter this destructive advertising blitz. We must decrease the visibility of tobacco marketing in stores, limit the sale of tobacco products around schools and prohibit the sale of tobacco products in pharmacies. We also need citizens who care about this issue to speak out, write their local officials, pen letters to the editors and testify at community board meetings. According to a 2011 public opinion survey, 65 percent of New Yorkers support limiting tobacco retailers near schools.

On Jan. 10, Community Board 1’s Youth Committee passed a resolution regarding youth exposure to tobacco marketing. On Jan. 24, the full board vote was tabled until the Quality of Life Committee weighs in on the resolution, at a date to be determined.

I don’t want one more young person to walk the same decades-long smoking path that I took. Thankfully, I was able to quit as an adult, but had I not been targeted at such an impressionable age, I would have avoided years of unhealthy living and increased risk for serious illness or death.

The only way to stop youth tobacco use in our city is by stamping out the level of direct advertising access tobacco companies have to our children. We all have a responsibility to shield our most vulnerable from the irresponsible and manipulative messages that make it seem hip or fashionable to smoke or chew. Tobacco use is neither hip nor fashionable. It is a one-way ticket to ill health and a potentially shortened life span.

Adam Steiner is the SmokeFree Project counselor at The Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual & Transgender Community Center in the West Village.

Last Sunday, we marked the 39th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, the landmark Supreme Court decision that guarantees a woman’s right to choose. Reproductive freedom is at greater risk now than at any time since Roe was handed down in 1973, and family planning is under attack. Women can no longer afford to be silent.

Last year, Republicans passed an endless parade of legislation in the House regarding reproductive rights and family planning, and this year promises to be no better. Many of the Republican efforts go far beyond choice and would impact women’s access to birth control and basic health care, including cancer screenings. The number and variety of their attacks on reproductive care is more than simply breathtaking—it’s dangerous. Meanwhile, Republicans have offered zero substantive bills to create jobs, the No. 1 issue for the American people.

Early last year, Republicans zeroed out family planning funding in the 2011 omnibus government funding bill. This wasn’t funding for abortions – federal law already prohibits that – rather, it was aid for birth control, pre-natal care, and other reproductive health services.

The bill also included the Pence Amendment, which specifically bars funding for Planned Parenthood. The vast majority of services provided by Planned Parenthood are family planning, cancer screening and other non-abortion-related care. This language would have impacted basic health care for millions of women. Fortunately, the Senate defeated it.

In May, the House voted to repeal health care reform and the Republicans approved an amendment that prohibited federal funding to train doctors to perform abortions, even if an abortion would save a woman’s life. The Senate has taken no action on this bill.

In October, the House considered the most dangerous bill of all, the so-called “Protect Life Act,” which many groups are calling the “Let Women Die Act” because it would let hospitals refuse to provide lifesaving care to women who need an abortion and allow them to refuse to transfer them to another institution that would provide care. It also denies women the right to buy insurance covering full reproductive care on the health care exchanges set up under health care reform. Fortunately, the Senate hasn’t taken it up either.

It has become a time-honored tradition to point out that Roe hangs by a thread in the Supreme Court, Whoever becomes president next year will likely determine whether the Constitution guarantees women the right to choose the timing and number of children they will bear. If any of the four Republicans remaining in the race win, they have promised to select Supreme Court candidates who will overturn Roe and have pledged to sign legislation that could restrict women’s access to basic health care.

If Roe falls, the issue will be turned back to the states. NARAL has identified 69 separate anti-choice measures adopted in the states in 2011, even with Roe. Five states have gone so far as to ban abortions entirely after 20 weeks, with no exception for rape or incest or to protect the health of the mother.

Fortunately, President Obama has made it clear that he supports choice and that he believes that reproductive health care needs to be protected and funded.

Last week, his administration reaffirmed that any organization that is not solely religious will have to comply with the preventive care provisions of the Affordable Care Act, including providing access to all FDA-approved birth control medication.

This year could prove pivotal in the fight to protect reproductive rights. For those of us who support Roe, silence is no longer a viable choice.

Carolyn Maloney represents the East Side of Manhattan and parts of Queens in the House of Representatives.

We recently celebrated the one-year anniversary of the signing into law of the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act. With his signature on Jan 2 of last year, President Barack Obama helped us give a much-needed holiday gift to the thousands of Americans who are suffering ill health as a result of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. While this was the sweetest of victories, we are continuing to work to ensure that everyone sick or injured from the attacks gets the care they need.

The collapse of the World Trade Center towers took 3,000 lives in an instant. Sadly, the giant plume of dust and debris that billowed so unforgettably through the streets of lower Manhattan ended up taking the health of more than 30,000 more in the months and years that followed. The Zadroga Act, which we authored, provides health care for those exposed to the toxic plume —which lingered over ground zero for months— and reopens the federal Victim Compensation Fund to provide economic relief to those harmed by the attacks.

Regrettably, it wasn’t easy to get Congress to help those suffering from the worst-ever attack on our shores. We introduced the first versions of the Zadroga Act in 2002, and none of us could have ever imagined how long the road to victory would be. Indeed, there were many times when it seemed like the Zadroga Act would never pass.

In the final hours of the last Congress, with the clock ticking down and many in Washington wanting to go home for the holidays, we finally had our “Christmas miracle” and passed the Zadroga Act through both the House and Senate.
Over the course of the last year, we have worked extensively with the Obama Administration to put into practice the health and compensation programs provided by the Zadroga Act, so that they can begin helping people.

On July 1, the health programs provided by the Zadroga Act went into effect and $1.5 billion in guaranteed federal funding began flowing to the WTC Centers of Excellence established at Mt. Sinai Medical Center, Bellevue Hospital Center and other locations in the tri-state area, as well as at specialized clinics nationwide. The World Trade Center Health Program, which is headed by Dr. John Howard, director of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, provides medical monitoring and treatment for those who became ill as a result of the attacks, and conducts research into emerging 9/11-related health conditions.

In light of recent scientific studies linking certain types of cancers to the attacks, we have petitioned Dr. Howard to consider covering cancers under the Zadroga Act. Dr. Howard and his advisers are expected to reach a decision on our request in the next few months.  Definitive cancer studies may take years to complete. 9/11 responders and others exposed to the deadly toxins may not be able to wait that long. We know that they were exposed to deadly carcinogens, and we already have evidence that their cancer risk is increased. We urge Dr. Howard to follow the procedure included in the Act and add cancer as a covered condition.

On Oct. 3, the reopened 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund, which the Zadroga Act provided with $2.8 billion in federal funding, opened its doors for business and began informing potential beneficiaries of their rights under the law. In general, 9/11 responders and survivors have until Oct. 3, 2013, to file compensation claims.

We are proud of all those who worked with us —until, literally, the 11th hour— to do the right thing and pass this long-overdue assistance for the living victims of 9/11. We will be forever grateful to our colleagues in the New York congressional delegation, including New York’s senators, Kirsten Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer, who worked diligently to strike the deal that got the bill through the Senate. And to Mayor Michael Bloomberg, members of New York’s labor community, John Feal of the FealGood Foundation and the hundreds of 9/11 responders and survivors who fought like hell to make sure the bill became law —thank you. We could never have passed the Zadroga Act without you.

But our work is not yet done. As part of the deal we struck to get the bill through the Senate, we reduced from 10 to five the number of years for which the bill would be authorized in law. Sadly, no one believes that those suffering as a result of 9/11 are suddenly going to get better four years from now. We and our partners in the fight to pass the Zadroga Act stand ready to work to make sure this lifesaving care is available for as long as the heroes, heroines, and survivors of 9/11 need it.

The Zadroga Act is historic, but not unprecedented, legislation. In the aftermath of the Pearl Harbor attacks, Congress passed the War Hazards Compensation Act of 1942, which provided health care and financial relief to civilians who helped recover the dead and salvage what remained of our Pacific fleet.

If you or someone you know would like more information about the World Trade Center Health Programs, you can call 1-888-982-4748 or visit www.wtcexams.org .  You may also contact the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund at 1-855-885-1555 or through the Fund’s website, www.vcf.gov.

Adopt a Senior Pet Month occurred in November, so it seems a fitting time to chat about health care for our aging pet population.

When is your pet considered a member of the AARPets? The answer is “it depends.”

In general, small breed dogs live longer than large breed dogs, and cats live longer than dogs. Therefore, different breeds enter the golden years at different times.

The American Association of Feline Practitioners recently came out with a feline life stage guideline that classifies cats between the ages of 11 and 14 as seniors, while those 15 years and older are considered geriatric. These life stages are important to identify to assist the pet owner and the veterinarian in mapping out a plan for wellness aimed at keeping Fluffy alive longer. A similar guide for canine life stages will soon be released.

It is certainly reasonable to expect that health care needs change as a pet ages, just as they do in people. Senior dogs and cats are more prone to osteoarthritis, dental disease, kidney, liver and heart issues, cancer, hormone imbalances, hearing and vision loss and cognitive dysfunction (senility). The challenge is in detecting these issues early enough to intervene and make a difference in the outcome. Cats and dogs are not necessarily forthcoming with complaints of aches and pains and ailments, so we need to be astute at looking for them.

Senior pets need twice-yearly veterinary check-ups at a minimum. The rationale behind this is that changes in health status can occur in a short period of time. Subtle changes in weight, water consumption, appetite, mobility or behavior can be detected through careful questioning by your vet. A thorough physical examination can detect growths, heart murmurs, lung issues, eye problems, organ enlargement, hydration status and  joint pain and, evaluate oral health.

Diagnostic testing can assist in early detection of many age-related diseases. Your veterinarian may recommend blood work to assess kidney, liver and hormone function, red and white blood cell counts and electrolyte levels. Screening X-rays can highlight organ enlargement and some cancers. Blood pressure monitoring helps establish the presence of hypertension, which can be a symptom of certain diseases.

Subtle changes in any of these measures, even in a pet that appears healthy, can signal early onset of illness. Even if these tests come back normal, they offer valuable insight and a basis of comparison for future tests.

Even perfectly healthy seniors can slow down and appear slightly less enthusiastic about things that thrilled them when they were younger. Their five senses can dull over time, making them less responsive to external stimuli. Keeping the mind sharp and active can slow this progression down. Exercising the mind and body, maintaining their routine and preventing “couch potato” syndrome helps keep your pet stimulated and engaged.

Nutrition is important at this life stage. Matching caloric intake to activity level is vital to maintaining a healthy weight. Older, overweight animals are more prone to diabetes and arthritis. Senior diets are often formulated with reduced calories and restricted in some nutrients as the body’s requirements change over time.

Subtle changes in your pet’s behavior can be a first clue to an underlying problem. Increased thirst or frequency of urination or accidents can be a sign of kidney problems. Decreased appetite can be the first indicator of many issues, including oral pain. Reluctance to use a litter box or go out for a walk can suggest arthritic pain. As a pet owner, you play a key role in early detection.

The golden years can be a great time for you and your pet. With good preventive medicine, you can help your pet grow old gracefully.

Robin Brennen is chief of veterinary services & VP Program Operations at Bideawee.