Brent Nyitray
Fairlington Blade
Let the mutherfuker burn!
jnc4p
Kevin S. Willis
Michigoose
lmsinca
markinaustin
Arcanaut
novahockey
quarterback
ScottC
yellojktThe Post runs a “5-myths” feature in the Sunday Opinion section. I was excited to see this one on healthy eating, as it an issue that cross-sects health care policy and the dreaded nanny state stuff that gets people excited. I also wanted to link to a non-Reason source for a change. But then I noticed the writer works for Reason. Crap.
Seems like all the rage in the anti-obesity efforts are “food deserts” and encouraging exercise. For example, the First Lady’s “Let’s Move” campaign addresses both of those topics.
I think the impact of “food deserts” are overstated. And I think we won’t make any progress in having a more fit society until we deal with what is driving it: federal agriculture policy, subsidies and price supports.
We can spent loads of time, effort and resources in encouraging and promoting healthy food and exercise habits. When those efforts fail, and they will, we can take a different approach and start banning and taxing unhealthy foods, a tactic that tramples all over personal and parental responsibility and is more about about raising revenue than discouraging consumption. Because, as the man says:
So taxpayers are funding cheap food, which gets us fat, so we in turn get lectured to about better choices and exercise. And when that fails they ban the stuff or tax us more.
Based on some basic research and a few documentaries, it seems that back in the 1970s agriculture policy shifted to put an emphasis on cheap food, and more specifically, cheap calories. Obviously there are a lot of factors at play here, but I’d encourage you to take a look at this Health Affairs commentary from last year: Agricultural Policy And Childhood Obesity: A Food Systems And Public Health Commentary Elsewhere, the author was quoted as saying: “What we’ve done is create a generation of kids who are both overweight and undernourished because the calories they’re getting are not good ones.” Heckuva job, brownies*.
My knee-jerk reaction is to end the subsidies, but the author here offers a more balanced approach. That’s my answer for everything anyway, but I’m certain we aren’t entitled to artificially cheap beef and soda.
After all, it’s all things in moderation.
*If someone asks if there are nuts in the brownies, you can say no. There is price supported sugar or artificially cheap high fructose corn syrup.
Filed under: Uncategorized |
All Things in Moderation 
I say don't tax the fat and sugar. Also, don't subsidize it. Let the market work!
LikeLike
OT:lmsinca, if you want to stop the Keystone XL project, this is the approach to take:"A Canadian company has been threatening to confiscate private land from South Dakota to the Gulf of Mexico, and is already suing many who have refused to allow the Keystone XL pipeline on their property even though the controversial project has yet to receive federal approval. "Eminent Domain Fight Has a Canadian TwistI continue to believe that Kelo v. City of New London is the worst Supreme Court decision of my life time (i.e. since 1970).
LikeLike
Not to give free advertising to a friend, but this t-shirt seems appropriate to add and it gives me a chance to give free advertising for a friend. Their other shirts are pretty funny, too. I'm thinking of buying QB the "Guantanamo Bay: come for the beaches, stay for the waterboarding" for Christmas. I assume we're doing a blogwide secret santa event.
LikeLike
OT:You know you have to click on this:Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall StreetCourtesy of Salon“Hot Chicks of Occupy Wall Street” creator defends film
LikeLike
And something for the ladies:Hunks of OWS
LikeLike
I have to admit, ashot–I don't know if it's my age or my military background, but there's only two of those guys that I'd classify as "hunks". :-)But thanks for thinking of us girls with that link!
LikeLike
Note how many uniformed NYPD made Hot Chicks of Wall Street.
LikeLike
Also, the Washington Post article that I linked to stir the pot over on Plumline today:Obama has more cash from financial sector than GOP hopefuls combined, data show"Despite frosty relations with the titans of Wall Street, President Obama has still managed to raise far more money this year from the financial and banking sector than Mitt Romney or any other Republican presidential candidate, according to new fundraising data.Obama’s key advantage is his ability to collect bigger checks from fewer donors, because he raises money for both his own campaign committee and for the Democratic National Committee, which will aid in his reelection effort. As a result, Obama has brought in more money from employees of banks, hedge funds and other financial service companies than all the other GOP candidates combined, according to a Washington Post analysis of contribution data."…"One top banking executive who raises money for Obama, who requested anonymity to discuss fundraising efforts, said reports of disaffection with the president “are exaggerated and overblown.” He said a strong contingent of financiers in New York, Chicago and California remain supportive of Obama and his economic policies, even as some have turned on him.But, this donor also acknowledged, “it probably helps from a political perspective if he’s not seen as a Wall Street guy.” "
LikeLike
Well I'm way to old for any of those baby hunks. But the guy sitting down with all the tattoos and his shirt off was mildly interesting. I'd probably find something a little more to my liking in Occupy Tampa, :>).I can't imagine any reason the banks wouldn't like Obama. I realize some employees have been laid off but otherwise they've bounced back, if you believe the numbers, and if you don't, then they've got a friend in the WH anyway.
LikeLike
I liked him and the guy right below him holding his little girl.jnc–men love a woman who knows how to handle a gun. At least, that's my theory!
LikeLike
jncThanks for that Keystone link. How to win friends and influence enemies doesn't seem to be part of their agenda.
LikeLike
Just watched the Hot Chicks vid. What a bunch of mindless silliness. O e of them said "Ghandi said be the change you want to see, so that's what we're f-in doing!". Really? Hanging out in a park 24/7 is the "change" you want to see? Change from what?Another one said "We'll be here for as long as it takes.". Or until the temp drops below 40 degrees, I'll wager.But, I have to confess, some of them were pretty hot.
LikeLike
"Thanks for that Keystone link. How to win friends and influence enemies doesn't seem to be part of their agenda."Forget the environmental catastrophe angle. Go with the "Foreigners are trying to get the Federal Government to steal our land to give it to a Canadian oil company" angle. I'm thinking the people in Montana may be up for some 2nd Amendment solutions for that one.
LikeLike
The rights of citizens vs the rights of a Canadian Company. Wonder who the Libertarians would support? I guess each of the states have their own eminent domain laws but it sure seems like Keystone is being both cocky and presumptuous. They must know something.
LikeLike
I shouldn't say the rights of citizens, I should say the rights of property owners to generate a little populist enthusiasm from our libertarians.
LikeLike
jncI'm never quite sure what your political persuasion is but this is a pretty in depth piece on Art Pope, if you're familiar with him. I bet Scott is, this is his kind of paradise.http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/10/10/111010fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
LikeLike
Sorry here
LikeLike