Search






Jeff's Amazon.com Wish List

Archive Calendar

November 2024
M T W T F S S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives

All your diets are belong to us

What does it say about our country that a once fiercely independent people who claimed they’d walk a mile for a Camel can’t today be expected to walk (or bike, or drive, or be driven) a mile for some healthy arugula or a properly portioned take-out cup of broccoli salad? Other than maybe that they just don’t really want the stuff?

I’ll tell you what it says: it says that the government needs to step in and declare that untraversed mile of sunflower sprout dearth a “food desert” — and decide, as a result, what businesses can set up where in order that healthy food make its way to people who simply can’t be expected to secure it on their own. Competition, choice, and the free market be damned.

The good news, though, is that there’s been no word yet that HHS is planning to mandate bibs and/or high chairs, or that the agency has any plans to put together a bureaucratic apparatus whose job it is to make sure the healthy food actually gets into the mouths of those poor helpless citizens who to date have not shown an ability to make the proper or informed food choices.

So we’ve got that going for us.

44 Replies to “All your diets are belong to us”

  1. Abe Froman says:

    Everyone should have access to fresh, organic, locally-sourced produce. It’s more expensive, sure, but genetic modification is for women who want to be men, not food.

  2. geoffb says:

    “Well, I think it’s very difficult for a family buying groceries – if they have to walk a mile with bags of groceries, it may be too far to get healthier food,” Sebelius said.

    Maybe they live within a mile of a school where all the FLOTUS’s wonderful “mystery” foods are served.

  3. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Yesterday Rush talked about this, the next looming crisis just aching for government intervention.

  4. DarthLevin says:

    Speaking of Rush, have any of the MSM jabberers referred to his Fluke comments as “tone-deaf”? And if so, were they properly castigated for their insensitive mention and mockery of Rush’s disability?

  5. geoffb says:

    “Tracts qualify as ‘low access’ tracts if at least 500 persons or 33 percent of their population live more than a mile from a supermarket or large grocery store (for rural census tracts, the distance is more than 10 miles),” stated a press release announcing the campaign.

    Rural people must be in better shape.

  6. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Theodore Dalrymple identified this “problem” for the bullshit it is already a decade ago.

    The liberal intelligentsia has several reasons for failing to see or admit the cultural dimension of malnutrition in the midst of plenty—in failing to see its connection with an entire way of life—and in throwing the blame instead onto the supermarket chains. One reason is to avoid confronting the human consequences of the changes in morals, manners, and social policy that it has consistently advocated. The second is to avoid all appearance of blaming people whose lives are poor and unenviable. That this approach leads it to view those same people as helpless automata, in the grip of forces that they cannot influence, let alone control—and therefore as not full members of the human race—does not worry the intelligentsia in the least. On the contrary, it increases the importance of the elite’s own providential role in society. To blame the supermarket chains is implicitly to demand that the liberal and bureaucratic elite should have yet more control over society. [emphases added]

    Just the latest example of the American Left eagerly seeking to imitate their European brethren.

  7. Bob Reed says:

    Here in the NYC area there is a packaging of near equal freshly-ground portions of beef, veal, and pork that is popular for meatball/meat loaf/pasta sauce making; these are generally packaged by the stored themselves.

    As of March 1 they can no longer offer this product though. The reason? Why the government has decided no food can be sold that doesn’t have precise, not generalized but specific, nutritional information printed on it. And as the weights of these store-made mixtures always varies slightly, well…

    The only facsimile available is a large vendor’s product that has a decidedly sketchy and unappetizing appearance, but I was told that specialty butchers may still be allowed to sell it. Of course, instead of being eminently affordable, it will then be frightfully expensive.

    I asked the store manager if this was state or federal requlation; he wasn’t sure, but thought it was NY state. My comment to him was astonishment at why a corporate entity like his chain wouldn’t, alone or together with a consortium of grocers, “lawyer up” and fight this asinine intrusion into their business.

    His reply? That my suggested proposition wasn’t worth the cost to them.

    But what about the folks that relied on buying the mixture precisely because of it’s affordability?

    Andrew Cuomo and the democrats, champions of the little man once again…

  8. sdferr says:

    Looks to me as though there is a “cane beating desert” in the Committee rooms of Congress, the twenty-five paces it might take for a Congressperson to get from a position on the dais to the witness table to deliver a “wake-up” call to the witnesses being quite too far to have to walk, and a time waster besides. Better to sit a proxy beater behind the witness table to act on signaling from the dais.

  9. Car in says:

    1) there are few grocery stores in Detroit because of theft and an inability to staff the store- all major chains have pulled out.

    2) There may be dearth of grocery stores down the block, but there is a beer/liquor/wine store with a few cans of cambells soup and chips with DOES take food stamps. If it didn’t – you may choose to walk or drive those few extra blocks and get healthy food, but fuck it, right?

    3) The stores offer what sells.

  10. B Moe says:

    Vilsack said that the effort, and an associated online interactive “food desert locator” map, was in keeping with First Lady Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” campaign, which aims to reduce childhood obesity by increasing access to food deemed healthy and increasing exercise.

    So we need to make sure all these new grocery stores have gyms so folks can get some exercise when they walk next door to get groceries.

    Too fucking stupid to survive.

  11. Car in says:

    I read a piece a month or so ago that around 80% of the stores that accept food stamps are these convenience stores.

  12. sdferr says:

    His reply? That my suggested proposition wasn’t worth the cost to them.

    Remind them of the Schechter Bros. before them, men who stood for the freedom to conduct their business as they understood it better than the Federal gov’t. The Schechters won, because they were right.

  13. Car in says:

    in detroit, that is.

  14. LBascom says:

    Maybe they could just issue taxicab stamps to go with the food stamps.

  15. Ernst Schreiber says:

    I think we won’t really solve the problem until every household is provided with a nutritionist and personal chef, and perhaps a trainer as well.

    Of course to make it practicable, we’re all going to have to live in dormitories.

  16. Abe Froman says:

    The Schechters won, because they were right.

    But through it all they remained avid Roosevelt supporters.

  17. Pablo says:

    There is no solution to be found. Massive federal bureaucratic intervention is the only way. These people can’t walk. They’re fat! And poor.

  18. Squid says:

    Never mind Dalrymple — Orwell identified the problem in 1937! From The Road to Wigan Pier, chapter 6:

    The basis of their diet, therefore, is white bread and margarine, corned beef, sugared tea, and potatoes–an appalling diet. Would it not be better if they spent more money on wholesome things like oranges and wholemeal bread or if they even, like the writer of the letter to the New Statesman, saved on fuel and ate their carrots raw? Yes, it would, but the point is that no ordinary human being is ever going to do such a thing. The ordinary human being would sooner starve than live on brown bread and raw carrots… White bread-and-marg and sugared tea don’t nourish you to any extent, but they are nicer (at least most people think so) than brown bread-and-dripping and cold water.

    …For it is only the fact that they are not economical that keeps their allowances so high. An Englishman on the P.A.C. gets fifteen shillings a week because fifteen shillings is the smallest sum on which he can conceivably keep alive. If he were, say, an Indian or Japanese coolie, who can live on rice and onions, he wouldn’t get fifteen shillings a week–he would be lucky if he got fifteen shillings a month. Our unemployment allowances, miserable though they are, are framed to suit a population with very high standards and not much notion of economy.

    Of course, old George spent the second half of his book explaining how Socialism! could solve all of these problems. This, obviously, was before he wised up.

  19. sdferr says:

    But through it all they remained avid Roosevelt supporters.

    That’s plain old freedom of choice in action, Abe, as it would be if Bob’s grocer chose to vote for Obama, whether thoughtfully or not (surely the great man wouldn’t condone these Federal inspectors conducting themselves in this manner! If only Stalin knew.) Grim, sure, but isn’t that the way? That is, the best way we’ve found to date?

  20. cranky-d says:

    Government: the cause of, and solution to, many of life’s problems.

  21. eCurmudgeon says:

    So how long until the FDA realizes that the “F” in their name actually stands for “Food” and demands that your garden-variety Big Mac has to go through the same safety and efficacy studies that prescription drugs do?

  22. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    “Some food stampers are lazy. We the People must provide another tax-payer funded, soul crushing entitlement immediately!”

  23. LBascom says:

    “Of course to make it practicable, we’re all going to have to live in dormitories”

    Dormitories…camps…whatever.

  24. Abe Froman says:

    True, sdferr, but I exercise my freedom of choice by choosing to mock people who suffer from cognitive dissonance.

  25. Lamontyoubigdummy says:

    Kathleen Sebelius.

    The kind of racketeering that gives Tony Soprano a good name.

  26. Abe Froman says:

    For the record, I liked in a seedy neighborhood which had two supermarkets within easy walking distance, and the poor people were still fat. I’d dare say that if they gave a shit about poor people at all, they’d eliminate lotteries and get rid of taxes on alcohol and tobacco products.

  27. Abe Froman says:

    Oops. lived in a seedy neighborhood …

  28. Ernst Schreiber says:

    Of course, old George spent the second half of his book explaining how Socialism! could solve all of these problems. This, obviously, was before he wised up.

    I don’t believe he wised up, personally. I think he despaired of finding a solution, —and so he died.

    The TB didn’t help.

  29. sdferr says:

    “I think he despaired of finding a solution . . . ”

    There is no solution. I think it’s the idea that there is a solution that’s the trouble.

  30. sdferr says:

    Which, by the way, while we’re pointing to dates of discovery, when did that idea that there is no solution come to light? Try circa 430 B.C.

  31. Caecus Caesar says:

    Me?

    I stick to tea.

    And strumpets.

  32. Squid says:

    An hour later, and I still can’t find any neighborhood in St Paul that’s more than half a mile from a bus route that will take you to the supermarket.

    I give the poor an allowance for rent, I pay for their kids’ schooling (abysmal as it may be), I give them free bus passes, I sponsor church day-care and after-school programs to keep the little ones off the street, I give them an allowance for food, and I give them walking-around money so they don’t have to live without an unlimited data plan for their smart phones. And still it’s not enough…

  33. Squid says:

    Not only is it not enough, but if I remark on their lack of gratitude or balk at their ever-growing list of demands, I’m the greedy bastard!

  34. cranky-d says:

    The fact that you finally understand what a despicable human being you are is the first step on the road to recovery.

  35. Jeff G. says:

    But there’s good news, Squid. You can buy absolution. Just vote Democrat and all your sins are not only washed away, but you get to commit an infinite number of new sins without fear of being called to account. Especially now that Breitbart’s dead and Ann Coulter is backing a progressive anti-Reaganite Obama defender for President!

  36. cranky-d says:

    So voting Democrat is the equivalent of purchasing indulgences? It dovetails nicely with my opinion that progressivism is a religion.

  37. cranky-d says:

    To be tiresome (it seems tiresome at times, anyway), the topic is yet another example of how progressives are under the notion that external factors are the sole cause of individual behavior. Give the people a choice to buy certain foods and they will buy them. Make guns illegal to own and people won’t kill each other.

    Just because the facts don’t support this thesis is no reason to give it up, right?

  38. LBascom says:

    Kathleen Sebelius. Obama’s next choice for SCJ?

  39. sdferr says:

    10: The Same Subject Continued

  40. SDN says:

    cranky, the Ruling Class aren’t concerned with us using guns to kill each other; they’re concerned with us using guns on them.

  41. Jim in KC says:

    There is no solution to be found. Massive federal bureaucratic intervention is the only way. These people can’t walk. They’re fat! And poor.

    $24.50!? 1 percenter! Consider yourself denounced, Pablo.

    In my neighborhood, they just steal the carts from the stores.

    The local rag has been all spun up about this for the past year or so, running story after story about our fair city’s so-called food deserts. That and payday loan shops.

  42. missfixit says:

    YES the answer is THERE IS NO ANSWER.

    It’s like that Wisconsin senate bill that was on the news about single parents :
    http://shine.yahoo.com/parenting/wisconsin-bill-claims-single-moms-cause-child-abuse-011200419.html

    The problem is that if you take away poverty assistance to single moms, the dads aren’t suddenly going to come back and take up their responsibilities. It’s ridiculous. And those of us who were abandoned with several children are supposed to – what? Go to the local prison and find some guy who’s willing to marry us? There just aren’t any good solutions.

    The fact is. People have black hearts and the government can’t do anything about it. Nothing.

  43. leigh says:

    Hmm. That bill is sponsored by a dude who has never been married and has no children. I say all the single moms he’s bad mouthing should start a whispering campaign that he is gay, gay, gay.

  44. newrouter says:

    The problem of obsolete law is not theoretical. It’s concrete, affecting daily choices across the country. It adds to cost, and slows productive activity to a crawl.

    There are four problems caused by the accumulation of old law:

    Too much law causes paralysis. Over the past century laws have piled up, like sediment in the harbor, until it’s almost impossible to do anything sensibly. Building a “green infrastructure,” for example, is stymied by environmental processes that sometimes consume upwards of a decade.
    Laws have unintended consequences. Things never work out as planned. Sometimes a well-meaning idea, such as special education, ends up undermining other important goals.
    Priorities change. The more specific a law, the faster it becomes obsolete. In the 1930s, when many farmers were struggling, Congress enacted farm subsidies. The crisis ended by 1941. Now, 70 years later, farm prices are at record highs, and much of farming is done by corporations. But the farm subsidies continue — $15 billion in 2010.
    Legal accretion is not coherent. The goal of law is to provide a framework for a free society. The idea of legal “codes” — such as the Uniform Commercial Code — is to provide uniform standards by which people can organize their activities. Federal law attempts no such coherence: the Government Accountability Office found 82 separate programs for teacher quality. The fact that the laws are generally well-intentioned cannot disguise the unavoidable resemblance to a huge legal junkyard.

    Fixing what ails America is impossible, indeed illegal, without a legal spring cleaning. The goal is not mainly to “deregulate” but to restate programs in light of current needs and priorities.

    As a practical matter, this requires Congress to authorize special commissions to make proposals, area by area. Using the base closing commission model, these proposals would be submitted to Congress for an up or down vote.

    link

Comments are closed.