Let me just say, fuck Atrios' local sports franchise - Go Rox
This is all of course just a prelude to the main affair in the NL tonight.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Poverty and obesity
I wrote this in a lengthy discussion of health care reform and thought I would post it here as well. The discussion had turned to one of the role of obesity and encouraging wellness in our broader healthcare reform push.
I spent sometime working on wellness issues (among other things) as part of a broader healthcare reform work. I have to say after working on the issue I think that rich (mostly white) people lecturing poor (mostly minorities) on their diet is about the most obnoxious form of nanny-ism there is. Yes, it would be better if people ate better and exercised more but making that a prime focus of government policy is pointless and degrading. There was some good discussion at The Atlantic recently on obesity and class. Here's a good email to James Fallows (Te-Nesihi Coates wrote on this topic too if you're interested),
Lecturing about obesity is a way for upper-middle class (mostly white) people to feel as though they are doing something to help the working poor (mostly minorities). It's about making yourself feel good for "helping", not actually doing something substantive to change people's station in life.
A bit of a tangent but I feel many education "reformers" operate in the same fashion. In both instances the underlying economic statusis the root cause of most of the other symptoms of poverty - obesity, doing poorly in school. Dealing with poverty is incredibly hard, talking about people's economic situation in very real terms and discussing solutions to poverty tends to make people uncomfortable. It's a hard topic and the solutions proposed are not always pretty and sometimes require some sacrifice from the "haves" so that others may simply live. It's much simpler to tell the poor kid to eat an apple, exercise after school and tsk-tsk his parents for not helping him study more.
The other issue is if we're going to really talk about changing diet habits that means we have to discuss this nation's wretched agriculture policy and the gross distortions of our food markets thanks to agricultural subsidies. Our ag subsidies grossly deflate the actual cost of calories through corn and other carbohydrates. If there is one lobby in this country more powerful than Big Insurance and Phrma (besides Wall Street) it's the farm lobby. No politician is going to touch our agricultural subsidies. Certainly not a former Senator from the corn state of Illinois and certainly not his Secretary of Agriculture, a former Iowa governor.
And then there's the issue of not just the high-cost of healthy foods but also the distribution of healthy foods into areas of the country that have high poverty. In South Central L.A. a year or so ago they pushed back against opening any more fast food chains in those neighborhoods. People eat what's available and what's available, in low income neighborhoods, is fast food.
Obesity is a far more complex issue than just giving people step counters and telling them to walk an extra block.
I spent sometime working on wellness issues (among other things) as part of a broader healthcare reform work. I have to say after working on the issue I think that rich (mostly white) people lecturing poor (mostly minorities) on their diet is about the most obnoxious form of nanny-ism there is. Yes, it would be better if people ate better and exercised more but making that a prime focus of government policy is pointless and degrading. There was some good discussion at The Atlantic recently on obesity and class. Here's a good email to James Fallows (Te-Nesihi Coates wrote on this topic too if you're interested),
"It is one thing for a successful, financially comfortable, socially accepted and respected person who has multiple things happening every day that are pleasurable (golf, driving a nice car, nice home, stylish clothing, success at work, interesting social events, kids doing well, planning vacations, etc) to take just one pleasurable aspect of life (overeating) and sacrifice some of that pleasure for the good result of losing weight.
"Now, for people struggling financially and socially, trying to just get through the day and keep their lives together to varying degrees...their meals are often the only consistently happy and pleasurable events they can count on each day.
"Obviously, a generalization. But, if one gets up and faces a day with a tedious and unfulfilling job, not much money to spend on anything but necessities, and no "fun" things ahead, how much more difficult it is for that person to also think ahead to a day of denying themselves the pleasure of their mealtimes...."
Lecturing about obesity is a way for upper-middle class (mostly white) people to feel as though they are doing something to help the working poor (mostly minorities). It's about making yourself feel good for "helping", not actually doing something substantive to change people's station in life.
A bit of a tangent but I feel many education "reformers" operate in the same fashion. In both instances the underlying economic statusis the root cause of most of the other symptoms of poverty - obesity, doing poorly in school. Dealing with poverty is incredibly hard, talking about people's economic situation in very real terms and discussing solutions to poverty tends to make people uncomfortable. It's a hard topic and the solutions proposed are not always pretty and sometimes require some sacrifice from the "haves" so that others may simply live. It's much simpler to tell the poor kid to eat an apple, exercise after school and tsk-tsk his parents for not helping him study more.
The other issue is if we're going to really talk about changing diet habits that means we have to discuss this nation's wretched agriculture policy and the gross distortions of our food markets thanks to agricultural subsidies. Our ag subsidies grossly deflate the actual cost of calories through corn and other carbohydrates. If there is one lobby in this country more powerful than Big Insurance and Phrma (besides Wall Street) it's the farm lobby. No politician is going to touch our agricultural subsidies. Certainly not a former Senator from the corn state of Illinois and certainly not his Secretary of Agriculture, a former Iowa governor.
And then there's the issue of not just the high-cost of healthy foods but also the distribution of healthy foods into areas of the country that have high poverty. In South Central L.A. a year or so ago they pushed back against opening any more fast food chains in those neighborhoods. People eat what's available and what's available, in low income neighborhoods, is fast food.
Obesity is a far more complex issue than just giving people step counters and telling them to walk an extra block.
Monday, October 5, 2009
Police Chiefs descend on Denver, where's Hunter when we need him?
Hearing this on the news this morning,
Made me think of this,
The heads of the U.S. Justice Department, FBI and Department of Homeland Security are in Denver Monday to address a police chief’s conference.
Attorney General Eric Holder, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano were speaking to the International Association of Chiefs of Police’s 116th annual conference at the Colorado Convention Center.
Made me think of this,
Further comment on Jews and American liberalism
Picking up from yesterday he's my friend J's response,
American Jews are Democrats for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because our religion teaches us that while the pursuit of financial success is valuable, there is no higher value than serving God through the creation of our own just societies. To modern, especially reform Jews that means social justice through improving other's lot in life and caring for those who cannot care for themselves. This reasonably leads modern Jews towards the Democrats.
I'd suggest that aside from health care (of which Jews overwhelmingly support health care reform) Jews tend to be relatively conservative Democrats, though some lean further left. I think there is some additional leeriness towards the Republicans, especially the Christian right due to the underlying nature of their appreciation towards Israel.
To some extent it reminds me of Aesop's fable of the scorpion and the tortoise. If you don't recall, the scorpion is at one bank of the river and cannot figure out how to cross whent he turtle comes by and suggests the scorpion swim across. The scorpion replies that he cannot swim, and suggests the tortoise carry him across. The tortoise is leery and suggests that he would get stung by the scorpion. The scorpion eventually convinces the tortoise that it is in the scorpion's best interest not to sting the tortoise, otherwise the scorpion will die. The tortoise is convinced and begins to carry the scorpion across the water at which point the scorpion stings the tortoise. As both are falling into the water to their deaths the tortoise asks why and the scorpion responds, "It is my nature to sting." The moral being, no matter how friendly the enemy can seem, you may not be able to trust them if your natures don't lead you to the same end. (clearly paraphrased).
I think that Jews rightly suspect the evangelical right as scorpions in their midst as Jews continue to work to find their place in the American political landscape. While Israel will always be an overriding issue for Jews, no politician in his right mind will shun Israel. It's too much in their own interests and in the interests of US national security.
As an aside, prioritizing business and personal wealth as a reason that Jews should be politically motivated towards another party is almost a vague anti-semitic throwback to the notion of Jews running the banks and such. While not a direct link, prioritizing finances in the context of how Jews have been treated by other culture carries somewhat of an anti-semitic undertone.
American Jews are Democrats for a number of reasons, but first and foremost because our religion teaches us that while the pursuit of financial success is valuable, there is no higher value than serving God through the creation of our own just societies. To modern, especially reform Jews that means social justice through improving other's lot in life and caring for those who cannot care for themselves. This reasonably leads modern Jews towards the Democrats.
I'd suggest that aside from health care (of which Jews overwhelmingly support health care reform) Jews tend to be relatively conservative Democrats, though some lean further left. I think there is some additional leeriness towards the Republicans, especially the Christian right due to the underlying nature of their appreciation towards Israel.
To some extent it reminds me of Aesop's fable of the scorpion and the tortoise. If you don't recall, the scorpion is at one bank of the river and cannot figure out how to cross whent he turtle comes by and suggests the scorpion swim across. The scorpion replies that he cannot swim, and suggests the tortoise carry him across. The tortoise is leery and suggests that he would get stung by the scorpion. The scorpion eventually convinces the tortoise that it is in the scorpion's best interest not to sting the tortoise, otherwise the scorpion will die. The tortoise is convinced and begins to carry the scorpion across the water at which point the scorpion stings the tortoise. As both are falling into the water to their deaths the tortoise asks why and the scorpion responds, "It is my nature to sting." The moral being, no matter how friendly the enemy can seem, you may not be able to trust them if your natures don't lead you to the same end. (clearly paraphrased).
I think that Jews rightly suspect the evangelical right as scorpions in their midst as Jews continue to work to find their place in the American political landscape. While Israel will always be an overriding issue for Jews, no politician in his right mind will shun Israel. It's too much in their own interests and in the interests of US national security.
As an aside, prioritizing business and personal wealth as a reason that Jews should be politically motivated towards another party is almost a vague anti-semitic throwback to the notion of Jews running the banks and such. While not a direct link, prioritizing finances in the context of how Jews have been treated by other culture carries somewhat of an anti-semitic undertone.
Sunday, October 4, 2009
A Wilco weekend
Text message photos from the high school aged nephew catching a Wilco show on Friday night. Then the band appeared on "A Prairie Home Companion" yesterday and today my friends are catching Wilco at Farm Aid in St. Louis.Catch the replay of "A Prairie Home Companion" if you can, it was excellent.
Here's hoping that they play "New Madrid" tonight at what is essentially a home coming show for Jeff Tweedy.
Liberal Jews
Read Seth this morning on a discussion of the new Norman Podhoretz book "Why are Jews Liberals?"
And if anyone reading from Indiana has an opinion on this topic I'd be glad to post it.
And if anyone reading from Indiana has an opinion on this topic I'd be glad to post it.
It's the economy, stupid
Here's a seemingly obvious and simple concept that is glossed over or ignored by candidates, campaigns and pundits alike; Often times things far beyond the candidate or office holders control dictate election results. The economy, terrorist attacks, a blizzard even - all of these events are far outside the control of an incumbent or his campaign and yet all have deciseively swung elections.
I bring this up in context of Lynn Bartels piece in the Post today,
This is why I am concerned about Governor Ritter's lack of fight or fire over core base issues, most recently exemplified in his dealings with the state budget. If we as a country are still in high-unemployment next year (and I think many believe this will be true) then incumbents around the country are going to lose their seats. It doesn't matter if the incumbent is an incumbent in a national office or not. Colorado is one of two states with falling unemployment from July 2009 to this August but we're still up almost 2.5% from August of 2008. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
With unemployment numbers lagging other indicators next year combined with the sure to be gloom and doom media coverage and with an ever increasing Colorado budget deficit I fear that the environment next year will be increasingly hostile to Bill Ritter. Not because of anything Bill Ritter has necessarily done or even failed to do but merely because of the state and national economy. That's why I'd like to have seen more base building in the last few years (and I have been talking about the role of the economy in the 2010 election for a few years now, check the archives). That's why I'd like to see the governor lead on all out assault on TABOR, on budget cuts made while preserving tax exemptions for gold bullion and bull semen.
I think the situation is far more desperate than David Kenney or Bill Ritter realize. I truly hope that I'm wrong but I don't think that I am.
I bring this up in context of Lynn Bartels piece in the Post today,
Stung by electoral defeats and eager to take advantage of voter unease, Colorado Republicans are largely avoiding discussion of divisive social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage to instead focus on the economy and jobs.
This is why I am concerned about Governor Ritter's lack of fight or fire over core base issues, most recently exemplified in his dealings with the state budget. If we as a country are still in high-unemployment next year (and I think many believe this will be true) then incumbents around the country are going to lose their seats. It doesn't matter if the incumbent is an incumbent in a national office or not. Colorado is one of two states with falling unemployment from July 2009 to this August but we're still up almost 2.5% from August of 2008. (Bureau of Labor Statistics)
With unemployment numbers lagging other indicators next year combined with the sure to be gloom and doom media coverage and with an ever increasing Colorado budget deficit I fear that the environment next year will be increasingly hostile to Bill Ritter. Not because of anything Bill Ritter has necessarily done or even failed to do but merely because of the state and national economy. That's why I'd like to have seen more base building in the last few years (and I have been talking about the role of the economy in the 2010 election for a few years now, check the archives). That's why I'd like to see the governor lead on all out assault on TABOR, on budget cuts made while preserving tax exemptions for gold bullion and bull semen.
I think the situation is far more desperate than David Kenney or Bill Ritter realize. I truly hope that I'm wrong but I don't think that I am.
Friday, October 2, 2009
I'm not sure if they're a cult but they're certainly not big readers
As someone who has, on occasion, quoted F.A. Hayek's "The Road to Serfdom" to a bewildered wingnut the lede in this piece on modern conservatism rang especially true.
Lamborn heads to Honduras
Look who was one of three House Republicans to join Jim DeMint on a field trip,
Four U.S. Republican lawmakers met with Honduras' interim president on Friday in a challenge to Washington's condemnation of the coup that brought him to power.The brief, amicable visit with the leaders of the coup that ousted President Manuel Zelaya highlights a divide in Washington, where the Obama administration is working to reinstate Zelaya but many conservatives side with the government installed after soldiers arrested the president in his pajamas and flew him into exile.
South Carolina Sen. Jim DeMint, the leader of the delegation, said before the trip that even calling Zelaya's overthrow a coup is "ill-informed and baseless."
DeMint and three representatives — Aaron Schock and Peter Roskam of Illinois and Doug Lamborn of Colorado — smiled for photographs in a book-lined office of the stately presidential palace with interim President Roberto Micheletti.
They also met with the major candidates in Nov. 29 elections that many call illegitimate, and planned to speak with Supreme Court justices who are deciding whether Micheletti had the constitutional right to suspend civil liberties.
One thing hasn't changed from the days of Reagan, Republicans love them some right-wing authoritarian coups, especially in South America. Hey, at least Micheletti hasn't killed any nuns yet.
Thursday, October 1, 2009
This just in, voters confused
Last week Pols ran a story about a new poll from The Tarrance Group, a GOP polling outfit, which found that 55% of voters want TABOR repealed. Breaking down further the poll found that 54% of the people in the Denver media market favor the repeal. Statewide 66% of Dems, 53% of Independents and 46% of Republicans professed support of the appeal.
Great news for people like myself who want to see our state be allowed to thrive after 17 years of TABOR induced strangulation, right? Unfortunately the poll demonstrates that voters are far more confused about the revenue issue than that one answer would appear to demonstrate.
I have a hard copy of the poll and 68% of those polled were in favor of "Requiring all fee increases by gov't to be approved by voters." Ouch. 65% of those in the Denver market approved of that statement, 83% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 53% of Democrats.
It's not a shock that voters are confused about policy specifics but this is particularly bad. On one hand a majority approve of ditching TABOR, which requires all tax increases to be approved by a vote of the people. On the other hand, over 2/3rds want the people to have to approve any fee increases.
Maybe some of these people are taking a nuanced approach whereby they want control over the fees that impact their day to day transactions while being okay with the legislature and governor increasing, for example, personal income taxes? Somehow I doubt that the public is taking such a nuanced approach, my guess is that they are just plain confused.
The poll demonstrates that solid messaging from Democrats for many years now about the evils of TABOR seems to have entered into the psyche of the average voter, if only a superficial level. But the fees question demonstrates that voters still prefer the "vote of the people" before government tries to raise revenue. It's mixed bag at best.
Great news for people like myself who want to see our state be allowed to thrive after 17 years of TABOR induced strangulation, right? Unfortunately the poll demonstrates that voters are far more confused about the revenue issue than that one answer would appear to demonstrate.
I have a hard copy of the poll and 68% of those polled were in favor of "Requiring all fee increases by gov't to be approved by voters." Ouch. 65% of those in the Denver market approved of that statement, 83% of Republicans, 68% of Independents and 53% of Democrats.
It's not a shock that voters are confused about policy specifics but this is particularly bad. On one hand a majority approve of ditching TABOR, which requires all tax increases to be approved by a vote of the people. On the other hand, over 2/3rds want the people to have to approve any fee increases.
Maybe some of these people are taking a nuanced approach whereby they want control over the fees that impact their day to day transactions while being okay with the legislature and governor increasing, for example, personal income taxes? Somehow I doubt that the public is taking such a nuanced approach, my guess is that they are just plain confused.
The poll demonstrates that solid messaging from Democrats for many years now about the evils of TABOR seems to have entered into the psyche of the average voter, if only a superficial level. But the fees question demonstrates that voters still prefer the "vote of the people" before government tries to raise revenue. It's mixed bag at best.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)