Leftovers again

Apologies for not tying all this together.

The paper I work for is in Delaware and I've spent the past week in Super-Tuesday-prep mode. So even though I live in Pennsylvania, and we're not part of today's festivities, I've had the nagging feeling all day that I should be voting.

"Soylent Green is poor people!" TBogg 10, Megan McArdle 0. McArdle argues that "the poor don't need more food," because, like, she once saw a poor person who was fat and they were eating, like, potato chips. Or something.

Expect more of this sort of thing if the economy gets worse. Increased insecurity leads to increased anxiety which leads more people to, like McArdle, close their eyes, shove their fingers in their ears, and chant, "The poor deserve their poverty, so that can't happen to me. The poor deserve their ..."

Michael Joseph Gross on Richard Mellon Scaife in Vanity Fair, "A Vast Right-Wing Hypocrisy." It's a baroque epic of appalling behavior. (Sure, the super-rich sometimes make bad choices -- but do they eat potato chips?) Scaife is quite candid about his disdain for the moralizers he's funded over the years, and that he regards them as simply tools to be used in the political defense of concentrated wealth.

What I found most interesting was Scaife's account of his lunch with Bill Clinton. The former president -- the object of decades of Scaife-funded vitriolic nonsense-gates -- seems to have sized up what might be accomplished during such an encounter and then, instead of revisiting the misery of their long enmity, decided to treat the old buzzard the same as any other visitor who happened to have scads of extra money lying around:

Scaife left the meeting with an autographed copy of Bill Clinton’s My Life and a head full of thoughts about the “scourge of AIDS” in Africa, which the two had discussed in detail -- though Scaife emphasizes, twice, that Clinton “did most of the talking.” Back in Pittsburgh, Scaife decided to send a $100,000 personal check to the Clinton Global Initiative. That got him thinking about AIDS locally, he says, and so when he found a direct-mail solicitation for Persad, Pittsburgh’s AIDS service center, in his mailbox, he wrote that group a check, too.

"People like what other people like." Every DJ already knew that. I made the mistake, back in college, of playing "Love Shack" before it was a hit. That cleared the dance floor and raised a chorus of derisive hoots. Six weeks later, the same crowd/flock was requesting the same song.

* * *

"Martin Marty on evangelicals:

"Anything anybody can say about Evangelicalism is true" is my take-off from Emmett Grogan's "Anything anybody can say about America is true." He and his truism issued from the '60s, a period when I would not have known about or spoken of the Protean character of modern American evangelicalism. Back then, schooled by the likes of the late Carl F. Henry, we thought Evangelicalism cohered around a distinctive theology born of 19th century Princeton-born thought and 20th century Billy Graham evangelistic style. It was "soft" and "open" post-fundamentalism at its core.

These years, with one-fourth of America identifying or being identified as evangelical, leaders within, critics without, and editorialists within and without are trying to find coherence. Of course, there are some continuities, such as: 1) a high view of biblical authority, but by no means always or any longer the old doctrine of inerrancy; 2) a high Christology but one with bewildering variations; 3) a commitment to evangelizing, making converts, and growing, but in competitive and sometimes mutually contradictory forms; 4) a dream of community, but now challenged by individualist, go-it-alone spiritualities and mega- and post- and emergent- and traditional styles; 5) an involvement with public life, but by no means reducible to the politically "Christian right."

I stumbled across that while failing to find a convenient distillation online of Marty et. al.'s exhaustive and insightful study, The Fundamentalism Project, which is my guess as to the source of what Raka described in comments earlier as "an extremist for cause A will have more ideological and behavioral resemblance to an extremist for any given cause X than they would to a moderate for cause A." That, in a nutshell, was what the project's research concluded.

Anyway, as Marty says, modern American evangelicalism is Protean. It is also frequently Procrustean, but rarely Promethean. Discuss.

* * *

I've mentioned before the separation between advertising and editorial at newspapers. Among other things, that means when your ad department puts together the announcement of primary election ads, nobody in editorial sees them until after they hit the page. So it wasn't until the presses rolled that we noticed a Very Bad typo -- Monday's ad said that the polls today would close at 1 p.m. instead of 8 p.m. Not good. Really, really not good. We've got the proper time prominently displayed on every page of today's paper, but still. Really, really not good.

Benighted, i.e., Praline's book. (Not this Praline, this one -- tricky business, plugging someone's book while still respecting their use of a screen name.) No, I haven't read it yet, but the raves in comments here have pushed it to the top o' the stack.

You won't find Praline listed yet at "Literature Map," but it's still a fascinating Web thingie. Type in an author's name and it displays a map-like array of other authors. "The closer two writers are," it says, "the more likely someone will like both of them." Every example I've searched has made me think both "Ah, yes, that makes sense" and also "WTF?" (such as the Stephen King/Agatha Christie/Kurt Vonnegut cluster -- ??? -- that showed up when I looked up Neil Gaiman).

Eight days until the first pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Ten days until Johan Santana reports to Port St. Lucie. I'm heading south myself -- gotta get to work early tonight because the polls in Delaware close at 8 p.m. Once again, that's 8 p.m.

Comments

[bulbul]

which leads more people to, like McArdle
Thank God for the comma. For a second I thought you were saying there were more people like McArdle. NOT a pretty thought.
Happy Mardi Gras, Fred.

[cjmr]

Either that or that it leads more people to like McArdle, which would also be bad.

[pepperjackcandy]

I'd love to know the algorithm they use at that literature map site. Because I keep inputting authors I like and it seems that the closest author to them is someone whose work I wouldn't use to floss my teeth (Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind, or J.K. Rowling and Philip Pullman).

Ah! I've found it!

The closer two writers are, the more likely someone will like both of them.

Note the use of the word "someone." Not "you," or even "the reader," or anything like that. Just, you know, "someone." Just one person. Anyone at all.

Obviously I am not that person.

I'm also dubious about the database behind this thing, since I've seen OSC turn up as "Orson Scott Card," "Orson Scot Card," and "Orson Card."

[cjmr]

I was wondering where Literature Map got their comparison data, but a little paging around on the site tends to indicate Amazon.com, which would explain some of the weirder clusters.

[Spalanzani]

pepperjackcandy: "Because I keep inputting authors I like and it seems that the closest author to them is someone whose work I wouldn't use to floss my teeth"

Which authors do you use to floss your teeth with? I used to use Vonnegut, but it made my gums bleed.

[bulbul]

t seems that the closest author to them is someone whose work I wouldn't use to floss my teeth (Robert Jordan and Terry Goodkind, or J.K. Rowling and Philip Pullman).
Just out of curiosity, which ones are we talking about here?
But I feel your pain. I put in Umberto Eco and I got, among other things, Dan Brown. Ughhhh. On the plus side, there was also Borges, Joyce, Atwood, Saramago, Poe and - much to my surprise - Iain Banks. I love Iain Banks' works, especially the Culture series, but how on Earth did the gizmo make the connection? The only thing I can think of is that both Eco and Banks are often identified as leftists. Other than that...

[Toby]

Ayn Rand and Victor Hugo? Fountainhead and Les Mis? I don't see it.

[pepperjackcandy]

Bulbul - Jordan and Rowling are the ones I like. Goodkind and Pullman? Not so much.

a little paging around on the site tends to indicate Amazon.com, which would explain some of the weirder clusters

Also the typos.

[bulbul]

Jordan and Rowling are the ones I like. Goodkind and Pullman? Not so much.
Thanks. Same here, btw. I read His Dark Materials over the Holidays. Blegh.

[jamoche]

Oh, if it's Amazon, it's a big waste of time. I played with Amazon's "you might like" feature for a while, but no amount of down-checking would convince it that just because I liked Lois McMaster Bujold, did *not* mean I liked any of the other MilSF that Baen published. I know I'm not alone, but obviously we're outnumbered.

[John]

Isn't obesity a serious problem among the poor, and especially poor children? Mr. Google thinks so. And here Fred tells us that the poor lack adequate food. Who knew? If only we weren't hard hearted miserly bastards and could supply the poor with food, they wouldn't be so fat. Or something.

[M.]

You can be overweight from the cheap, unhealthy food you ate yesterday (and whenever you could get it), and still hungry because you haven't eaten anything today. Adequate food keeps you fed and healthy every day.

[Drak Pope]

...

Yeah, and just because something makes you full doesn't mean that it's a 'healthy, adequate, nutritious' meal. I mean, the two concepts are so far apart that it would be facetious to say that since it's essentially claiming that obesity equals adequate nutrition. I can see why someone in, say, Haiti, or the CAR might like to make that comparison since they really can't afford food, but in a country like the US it's just a sick joke.

[Lizzy L]

John, people who don't have a lot of money spend it on the cheapest possible calories, and cheap calories are the least nutritionally efficient sort. Cheap calories are sugar and carbs, fast food meals, all highly processed foods. Nutritious food (fresh veggies, fruit, fish, good meat) is expensive. Poor neighborhoods don't have farmer's markets; hell, some don't have any markets at all, except the little mom and pop stores that sell -- you guessed it, processed food. Big calories, no nutrition. When you work two low-paying jobs just to keep your family under a roof you don't have time to go outside your neighborhood to shop. In these sorts of circumstances, some degree of obesity isn't a choice, it's almost inevitable.

[burgundy]

In addition to food availability: Poor people can't join gyms. People working multiple jobs and raising families can't afford to take an hour or two out of their day just to exercise, and poor people often live in neighborhoods where you really can't just go for a jog in the evening. And if the job doesn't involve a lot of physical activity...

Going back to food for a moment - food is cheap in the US. Very, very cheap. For a lot of people, food is the cheapest form of entertainment there is. You want something nice, that feels good, that gives you a bit of enjoyment, and it's easier to afford that with food than with most other things.

[Monkay]

People eat what they think they are supposed to eat. I mean, alot of the unhealthy food thing is food fashion. Sure they could buy rice and beans and tofu (which is quite reasonably priced for protein) but it wouldn't look good. Yes there should be a better food stamp program and etc. but as in many problems, prevention is underrated.

[mmack]

Eight days until the first pitchers and catchers report to spring training. Ten days until Johan Santana reports to Port St. Lucie

One hundred and nine days until On The Banks of the Wabash, Back Home Again in Indiana, "Ladies and Gentlemen, START YOUR ENGINES!" and "Andretti is slowing down!"

You have your spring traditions, I have mine. :^)

Geds and I will ponder if the Chicago Cubs make it a nice round 100 seasons since their last World Series title this year.

[hagsrus]

Sure they could buy rice and beans and tofu (which is quite reasonably priced for protein) but it wouldn't look good.

Look good to whom?

Or do you mean it wouldn't look appetizing?

Sorry to be dim!

[dr ngo]

I'm reading Benighted right now. Outstanding (at least halfway through), and props to those who turned me on to it.

[spinetingler]

Completely unrelated, but did you hear the dog whistles in Huckabee's speech tonight?

Holy crap.

[burgundy]

did you hear the dog whistles in Huckabee's speech tonight?

As a matter of fact...

[Dan S.]

"Which authors do you use to floss your teeth with?
Zadie Smith.

"But I feel your pain. I put in Umberto Eco and I got, among other things, Dan Brown."

I can see that. Think Foucault's Pendalum.

"People eat what they think they are supposed to eat.

When the Revolution comes, McArdle will be among the first to be eaten.

[Liz]

That typo -- ohhhh noooooooo! I hate that the ad department often doesn't bother to proofread. That is a bad one!

[Monkay]

Look good to whom? Sorry to be dim!
Hagrus, I have never thought of you as dim! This is an anthro thing, what is considered to be "what we eat" versus "what we don't eat unless there is no choice" (every culture has some version); it wouldn't look good to the Jones's, it wouldn't be "cool", beans and rice is for poor folks, here, have some potato chips and KFC! The answer to "why do they eat that?" is, in the modern USA, "they just do". From there, we can blame marketing/advertising, the decline of the sit-down family meal, or whatever. In short, yes, it wouldn't look appetizing.

[Monkay]

When the Revolution comes, McArdle will be among the first to be eaten.
Eww, not McArdle again . . .

[Monkay]

I'm posting three times in a row here, that's got to be wrong, but I've been following this thread around and have seen some points that I wasn't considering, such as: what about (poor) disabled people? what about (poor) cancer patients? what about (poor) people who work three jobs and have children? I admit it is time-consuming to cook from basic ingredients, and requires water and cookware and a stove and maybe an oven and mobility; however, there are a lot of people (rich people and poor people) with *bad* eating habits (which, ironically, are related to living in a rich country in prosperous times) which do lead to consequences of ill health.

[animus]

I'll be damned (perhaps literally) if I can work out the connection between Charles Williams and Cardinal Ratzinger.

[Jesurgislac]

John, people who don't have a lot of money spend it on the cheapest possible calories, and cheap calories are the least nutritionally efficient sort. Cheap calories are sugar and carbs, fast food meals, all highly processed foods. Nutritious food (fresh veggies, fruit, fish, good meat) is expensive.

Cheap calories in the US (and elsewhere: this is not a uniquely American problem) is food the government subsidizes. In the US (and elsewhere: this is not a uniquely American problem) the government subsidizes food not according to how healthy it is to eat, but according to how much political influence big agribusiness has. In the US, meat producers and corn producers have oceans more political pull than people who grow fresh organic vegetables or small farmers who raise organic free-range hens and other animals.

There is the additional problem that the poorer you are the less likely you are to have cooking/storage facilities to enable you to make healthy, cheap meals: and in the US, with social mobility so low and education so generally bad, the poorer you are the more likely it is your parents didn't have the cooking/storage facilities to be able to make healthy/cheap meals, your school didn't have the facilities to show you how, and so the less likely you are to know how, let alone be able.

There is the additional problem that the poorer you are the less likely you are to live in a neighborhood where you can buy fresh fruit and vegetables, brown rice and dry beans, etc.

[Technomad]

Funny thing...I can buy fresh vegetables, year 'round, for extremely affordable prices. And I don't live in a particularly upscale area.

[Jesurgislac]

Technomad: Funny thing...I can buy fresh vegetables, year 'round, for extremely affordable prices. And I don't live in a particularly upscale area.

Funny thing: without knowing what "extremely affordable" or "particularly upscale" mean to you, your statement is meaningless.

I can buy fresh fruit and vegetables at prices noticeably cheaper than supermarket rates either by walking about a mile and a half to a very good store (it's a nice walk, in good weather, and I can easily pack a week's worth of fresh fruit etc just for me into my backpack) or, since I have flexitime, I can make use of a government-subsidised co-op that is held on Tuesday mornings at the local school, and buy a week's supply there. I can also have a box of organic vegetables delivered fortnightly, and do: but my friend who lives in an area just a bit downscale from mine can't, because she'd be the only one getting it in her postcode area and none of the farms that do a delivery will deliver where there's only one that they have to go out of their way to get to.

[Praline]

Aw, gee. But you don't have to respect my screen name particularly - it's hardly Chekhovian in its elegance anyway. I just started with a screen name in case I posted a few opinions and found everybody hated me and decided to send letter bombs to my agency. When I saw how delightful everyone was, I relaxed.

Another issue with calorific food and poverty is that it takes both time and sometimes a degree of education to cook proper meals from scratch. If you're working two jobs, a microwave meal is probably all you can manage. And those things are stuffed with all sorts of junk - mostly because ingredients like palm oil and corn syrup are very calorific but also cheap. The government in Britain bangs on and on about obesity, but frankly, until I see some regulations about stuffing pre-prepared food with rubbish, I'm considering them all talk and no action. Political couch potatoes, in fact.

Oh, and the Ayn Rand and Victor Hugo thing? That's because Rand loved Hugo. Hence, Rand readers are likely to buy Hugo books because she recommended them. Hugo, I'm pretty sure, would have hated Rand, but he wasn't around to tell her that. Her favourite character in Les Miserables was Enjolras, the cold man of principle, which shows her rather grandiose ability to miss the point in a nutshell - though her philosophy tends to serve Thenardiers in this world more than Enjolrases. But they're both authors who write enormous books with operatic plots, designed to make a point.

They both have a love of the grand gesture as well - though Rand's grand gestures are usually verbal, people making speeches and striking poses, whereas Hugo is full of great little details (Jean Valjean knocking down a mugger, giving him an eloquent lecture on the pains and hardship of criminality, then handing the mugger his wallet and walking away is a favourite of mine. 'Crime is the hardest of all work. Take my advice, don't be led into the drudgery of idleness. Rascality is a comfortless life; honesty is far less demanding. Now clear out and think about what I have said. Incidentally, what did you want of me? My purse, I suppose. Here it is.') It's just that Hugo had a flexible, far-ranging, compassionate imagination added to a stunning literary style, and Rand, well, didn't.

Hugo, like Rand, is verbose and write long speeches, but he has an eye for the human as well, the poignancy of small things against great, and that's what makes them work. I was actually making a comparison the other day for my own interest, and came on a speech in Les Miserables which pretty much points up everything Rand can't do - Marius the student revolutionary has been brought back from the barricades unconscious to the house of his grandfather, the man who raised him and in fact always adored him, but was too stubborn to show it. The two of them have quarrelled and Marius went to the barricade after his grandfather refused to let him marry his beloved (again, very unRandian, that this major political gesture is portrayed as a mixture of high principle and the suicidal gesture of an unhappy young man); his grandfather believes the unconscious Marius is in fact dead. I won't quote the whole thing because it's too long, but here's a bit:

Thank you, but I am calm, I am a man. I saw the death of Louis XVI, I can confront events. What is terrible is the thought that it is your newspapers that make all the trouble. Scribbles, orators, tribunes, debates, the rights of man, the freedom of the press - that's what your children are brought up on. Oh, Marius, it's abominable! Dead before me! The barricades! Doctor, you life in this quarter, I believe. Yes, I know you. I see you pass by in your cabriolet. I tell you, you are wrong to think that I am angry. To rage against death is folly. This was a child I brought up. I was old already, and he was small. He played in the Tuileries, and to save him from the keeper's wrath I filled in the holes he dug with his spade. One day he cried, "Down with Louis XVIII!" and off he went. It is not my fault. He was pink and fair-haired. His mother is dead. Have you noticed that all small children are fair? Why is that? He was the son of one of the brigands of the Loire, but children are not responsible for their fathers' crimes. I remember when he was so high. He could not pronounce the letter "d". He talked like a little bird. I remember people turning to look at him, he was so beautiful, pretty as a picture. I talked sternly to him and flourished my stick, but he knew that it was only a joke. When he came to my room in the morning I m ight be grumpy, but it was as though the sun had come in. There is no defence against those little creatures. They take you and hold you and never let you go. The truth is that there was no one more lovely than that child. You talk of your Lafayettes, your revolutionaries - they kill me. It can't go on like this.

Put next to this, tract-writers like Rand and LaHaye and Jenkins just look small and shabby.

[bulbul]

Dan,

"But I feel your pain. I put in Umberto Eco and I got, among other things, Dan Brown."
I can see that. Think Foucault's Pendalum.

Well duh. But Foucault's Pendulum and DaVinci Code are not even in the same galaxy. If I liked the first one, I'm sure as hell gonna hate the second one.

[Patrick Phelan]

Rand, Goodkind, and McArdle... quite a libertarian Mecca (though Rand hated libertarianism, as I recall), really, isn't it? I'm amazed we got to all three independantly.

[Cary Bleasdale]

In re the poor and eating badly:

This is a problem I've found myself facing recently. You see, I'm spending a semester studying at Edinburgh University, where my dollar is only a half pound. And there is no such thing as a meal plan, you buy and cook your own food.

This has lead the other 7 americans and myself to band together, each kick in 20 quid a week and buy food for all eight of us. Now, this is the UK, and organic, fresh produce is readily availible, and even cheaper, in some cases, than the other stuff. And its still horribly expensive to eat. Whats more, we have two or three hours to wander around the store and pick the best deals, a luxury that a poor single parent running from one job to the other notably does NOT have.

If I had ever had any doubts about the ability of the poor to eat well, this would push it right out. We easily spend 160 pounds a week, buying in bulk, buying the 19 pence cheap bulk pasta, and we often end up having to kick in more at the end of the week to eat on the weekends. And we are well off students, who at most have have a 45 minute walk from dorm to classes- IF we miss the FREE shuttle. We spend the rest of our "working" time in classes. Not exactly the sort of labor to whip up a ravenous hunger, savvy?

Personally, I think the foodstamp challenge should be a required prerequisite for joing the libertarian party.

[Jesurgislac]

Cary Bleasdale: You see, I'm spending a semester studying at Edinburgh University

Really? Cool. Do you know where the Forest Cafe is? Sells cheap vegan/vegetarian food, open 10-ish to 10-ish, just off Bristo Square. I volunteer there sometimes.

[DBEllis]

It's hard to have *any* respect for that "Literature Map" -- its database has Robert Heinlein's name *mispelled* as "Robert Heinline"!

[Cary Bleasdale]

"Do you know where the Forest Cafe is?"

And....thank you google maps! Holy Crap, thats like....300 feet away! I believe I know exactly what you're talking about!

Any other edinburghian/scottish Slackitivites? And cheap vegetarian food sounds right up my alley. It's hard to eat lots of greens when you're buying food in bulk. And is the vegan food good? I've always wanted to try it, but it's hard to find decent vegan options in central florida.

[Chris]

I find it amazing that we still have to *explain* that obesity =/= being well fed.

[John]

Who is claiming that obesity equals adequate nutrition? No me, and not MM, as I read her. Only people who want a strawman make that argument. And the idea that most poor obese people are wheelchair bound cancer patients who work 15 hour shifts before coming home to 5 kids? That's a strawman as well. (Not to say there aren't disabled and cancer patients among the poor, but those problems are largely orthogonal to food stamps.)

The serious problems (access, time, and education) aren't solved or even addressed by food stamps. The agricultural-industrial complex is a product of ginormous government programs (think ADM wanting all foods to be made of corn). We need to stop with the ginormous government programs that cause epidemics of obesity and waste squillions of dollars, like subsidies to ADM and food stamps. We ought to be thinking of ways to address the reasons why people buy those Family Size bags of Nacho-flavored Doritos rather than rice and lentils and work on that.

[Toby]

Thanks to Praline for the explanation of the Rand / Hugo combo. Now maybe someone can help me out with the Rand / Steinbeck one--not that they're clustered closely together, but they do show up on the same page, which is enough to make the mind boggle. OK, read them both, if you must, but whatever you do, don't place them adjacent to each other on the bookshelf!

[Jesurgislac]

Cary: And cheap vegetarian food sounds right up my alley. It's hard to eat lots of greens when you're buying food in bulk. And is the vegan food good? I've always wanted to try it, but it's hard to find decent vegan options in central florida.

Well, depends what you like. There's always two out of three of soup, chilli, and curry, also felafel, salads, and such: and if you do a stint of volunteering there - mainly, if you don't mind doing hours of washing-up - you get a free meal during your stint and if you do it at all regularly, you can buy half-price food there. Which is a good deal, if you've got the time for it.

[Cary Bleasdale]

Thanks Jesu! I'll have to try it out sometime.

[McJulie]

The serious problems (access, time, and education) aren't solved or even addressed by food stamps.

Perhaps they aren't, but with your follow-up statement here:

We need to stop with the ginormous government programs that cause epidemics of obesity and waste squillions of dollars, like subsidies to ADM and food stamps.

You seem to be making the assumption that they *can't* be. The idea behind food stamps is that they provide the need, food, directly, and that they can't be spent on other things, like addictions. (Or cooking equipment, but that's a different argument.)

Why can't the food stamp program be revised to take into account the nutritional soundness of the food? You can't use food stamps to buy cigarettes, why can you use them to buy Doritos?

Further, fresh produce is expensive, but it gets dumped frequently while still edible -- it seems like we should have better ways of getting it into the hands of people who couldn't otherwise afford it.

We ought to be thinking of ways to address the reasons why people buy those Family Size bags of Nacho-flavored Doritos rather than rice and lentils and work on that.

I think some of those reasons have already been covered, but I'll recap. 1. Poor people are often poor in time as well as money, and Doritos are ready-to-eat. 2. Poor people are often lacking in education as well as money, and eating well requires some education. 3. Poor people may live in iffy housing, or be outright homeless, and not have the means to cook. 4. Poor people may be depressed about their lives, and depressed people often eat poorly. 5. Poor people may live in poor neighborhoods without grocery stores that have things like rice and lentils. Have you ever tried to buy dinner at a typical convenience store? Except for a couple of actual juices, there is nothing whatsoever in those places that is actually food. 6. Poor people eat Doritos for exactly the same reasons everyone else eats Doritos. But they are more likely to, say, eat a bag of Doritos for dinner. And not have a gym to go to afterward.

You are right about one thing -- our global society has evolved an environment that fosters obesity, and this environment is pervasive and can't be fought exclusively in any one area. But I'm not convinced the answer is to dump the food stamp program.

[MikhailBorg]

I'm curious to know who this Robert Heinland is. Or Peter Davod.

The tool also put Anne McCaffrey near David Weber. Maybe I'm supposed to link Lessa to Honor? (There's a pun in there somewhere, but I really can't be bothered.)

Actually, the tool does a fair job of grouping people I've read at some point or another. Haven't liked all of them, and the direct connections seem tenuous sometimes, but I've certainly read both Umberto Eco and Dan Brown. (Frankly, I'd link Eco to Robert Anton Wilson, before Brown. But that's just me.)

[Richard Hershberger]

"Another issue with calorific food and poverty is that it takes both time and sometimes a degree of education to cook proper meals from scratch."

I think that education is indeed a big part of the equation. I have gone through periods in my life where the price of food was a serious consideration. I got through OK by cooking from scratch (my preferred method in any case) and putting some thought into nutrition and ingredients. You can base a diet and oatmeal and legumes, supplemented with fresh veggies and, for us diehard carnivores, a bit of meat. But you have to know how to do this. It also helps that I actively dislike most fast food.

[Jesurgislac]

Back when I was at my very lowest ebb, income-wise, I coped by making big pots of stew with cheap veg and cheap beans once a week, storing them in a bowl in the fridge, and reheating small portions in a microwave.

I was able to do this because: (1) I lived near to a shop that would sell me produce they would otherwise have to throw out extremely cheaply. (2) I lived near to a health food shop that would sell me pulses in bulk very cheap. (3) I'd grown up in a family that taught me how to cook. (4) I had a friend who gave me her old fridge for free after she and her boyfriend moved in together and he had a better fridge. (5) I had parents who gave me a microwave for Christmas after I'd hinted very loudly that this was something I could really use because the crappy kitchen where I was renting a room didn't have either fridge or microwave. Privileges of background, but also privileges of connection.

[cjmr]

I'm (gulp) going to try to not read Slacktivist during Lent, so I'll 'see' you all in late March...

[Jim]

Cheap calories in the US (and elsewhere: this is not a uniquely American problem) is food the government subsidizes. In the US (and elsewhere: this is not a uniquely American problem) the government subsidizes food not according to how healthy it is to eat, but according to how much political influence big agribusiness has. In the US, meat producers and corn producers have oceans more political pull than people who grow fresh organic vegetables or small farmers who raise organic free-range hens and other animals.

It's worse than you think. In the US, government does subsidize some agricultural production, but the USDA also sponsors price support programs, which make the food more expensive (see the dairy program, for instance). I doubt that the subsidies make the food any cheaper.

Agribusiness in the US is simply able, for several reasons (technology, economies of scale, lax environmental regulation), to produce large quantities of grains and mid-quality meat really cheaply. (The deal with the devil here is that even though you get a lot of it, it's pretty tasteless. This is why Thank God It's Carbohydrates and Flare and its clones serve huge portions of shitty food.)

Fresh vegetables and fruit are more expensive than rice, beans and dried pasta; that's true. But convenience foods (those potato chips) are more expensive still. The real problem is that Americans are addicted to convenience foods. This is more of a cultural thing than a social class thing.

[Jesurgislac]

Jim: I doubt that the subsidies make the food any cheaper.

Okay, it's just magic, or possibly coincidence, that government subsidises corn and beef and corn and beef are the cheapest foods for people to buy.

Agribusiness in the US is simply able, for several reasons

Corporate welfare being the major one.

But convenience foods (those potato chips) are more expensive still.

Huh-uh. You obviously haven't looked at prices in any detail recently.

[MikhailBorg]

Jim, if I want a gallon of Coca-Cola, it costs me about $1.98. If I want a gallon of milk, it runs about $3.50 - $4.50.

A microwave pizza is about $1.50. A pound of hamburger that I might use in the production of a more nutritious meal, is easily $4.00. (And that doesn't include the other ingredients.)

NurseCat cannot eat a lot of the carb and fat-laden junk for medical reasons... we make hand-prepared, protein-heavy meals 75% of the time. I eat better than I used to, but my wallet has absolutely noticed.