And no one will ever convince me that these are the "poor" Jesus was talking to, and about. They look and sound more like the rich of His time: fat, lazy and irresponsible.
Heh. Her last grasp at Catholicism...now she's channelling Jesus.
Monsignor, schedule the exorcism...
What is it about five-feet-of-a-few-extra-pounds finds sound compelling about other peoples' obesity? Transference, maybe?
Healthy food is cheap. Vegetables, most fruits, flour, rice, porridge, bread, pasta, milk, eggs, cheaper cuts of meat - with a little diligence, you get a lot of bang for your buck. It's certainly cheaper than processed or prepared foods.
But what it requires is for people to shop and cook. We've become a fast-food culture.
Curiously a few months ago I-who-have-fought-to-remain-fit-and-thin for decades gave up aspartame (Monsato and Rumsfeld can't be good).
I am now eating when I am hungry and eating high calorie foods (ice cream, nuts and cheese). I am not gaining weight.
Maybe I have a tumour or something but it seems I know when to stop.
rabbit, if healthy food is "cheap" to you, that must mean you have a healthy amount of money to spend on groceries.
I buy whole foods - veggies, fruit, rice, fish, dairy, eggs - and except for bread, make my meals from scratch. It's costing me more each week, I've noticed.
It would be less expensive if I bought bags of frozen fried chicken nuggets, hash brown potatoes and various other prepared dishes.
But what it requires is for people to shop and cook. We've become a fast-food culture.
Yeah...click your heels together three times while you're at it.
Doesn't anyone else besides me miss the days when saying "the rabbit died" was an expression of joy?
Hispanic names == wetbacks, huh?
I've got extended family in California with a Hispanic surname. Umpteenth-generation Texans, I understand -- except for the one who is Kickapoo indian, compared to whom all the rest of us are illegal immigrants 
.
Now, now, Ti-Guy...rabbit is being respectful enough.
We are a fast-food culture, and obesity is not solely an affliction of the poor. But it does happen to be cheaper to buy sugar and flour than meat--for example. Staples tend to be carbohydrates, and as anyone who has been through Atkins can tell you--I, for instance--carbs are addictive.
rabbit isn't arguing--I don't think--that obesity is a character issue. That's what I found rather nauseating about the people whose blogs I referenced.
Now, now, Ti-Guy...rabbit is being respectful enough.
Heh. You don't me to post what Rabbit really thinks about non-"conservatives.
Hint...Rabbit despises us.
Enough with this non-menacing progressivism, Dawg. You're not scoring any points by being excruciatingly nice.
It's costing me more each week, I've noticed.
All foods have been hit hard because of rising transportation costs. But let's consider a decent breakfast for a child shall we?
Quick Quaker Oats
Milk and sugar over the porridge
Half a banana
Glass of orange juice from concentrate
Total cost: Less than a buck
For protein you can throw in an egg for 20 cents. A piece of toast costs 14 cents.
A big problem for those living in impoverished neighbourhoods is that the large discount stores don't want to set up there due to vandalism and security problems. They end up paying much more for groceries.
A big problem for those living in impoverished neighbourhoods is that the large discount stores don't want to set up there due to vandalism and security problems.
Huh? What neighbourhoods is Rabbit talking about?
Are you even Canadian, Rabbit?
Rabbit despises us.
If you would provide a link to a single posting I've ever made anywhere at any time which demonstrates this lunatic allegation, we would all appreciate it.
I was indeed talking about Americans, since the women in the picture were from Ohio.
I was indeed talking about Americans, since the women in the picture were from Ohio.
So you live in Ohio?
During Johnithan Swift's Modist Proposal time period, or slightly thereafter there was a fad for middle class women going into poor neighbourhoods and showing the poor how it is done. Of course, nothing has changed - which is why Rabbit's posts are offensive.
I remember reading articles that compared calorie count of foods. The conclusion was that mac and cheese had far more calories for the buck than veggies and other more healthy foods. That we middle class can come up with theoretical menus that are inexpensive does not mean that it is realistic to expect people to live off of them.
This does not mean that there is nothing in what Rabbit is saying. As a landlord I see some of what people eat. (drink and smoke.) There are definitely people who are poorer than I who spend significantly more on food and drugs - in some cases large quantities of fast food. My impression is that some of these people lead extremely stressfull lives and just don't have it to spend time trying to buy the food, cook it, care for children, wonder how much longer can they afford housing before being evicted for non payment of rent, how to get their deadbeat ex's to pay child support and so on. There definitely are a group of people who have basically given up and live from day to day.
Further - people are getting poorer and poorer. 13 years ago we had single people renting a 2 bedroom unit. Now we have people who get roommates. We are just starting to see single mothers getting roommates too. This is adding additional stress. So what do people do? They eat Mac and Cheese, burger king, pop and so on. Tasty high calorie fast and low stress to prepare. They smoke dope and drink and smoke cancerettes and get evicted from their homes because they can no longer cope in an economicaly collapsing society.
It is all fine and good to come up with hypothetical meals that require a cash outlay of around $25 then proclaim the lazyness of the poor population.
Edwin:
Offensive? For talking about the cost of healthy food? It seems to me that this is directly relevant to improving the eating habits of the poor, and someone who doesn't want to about it is more interested in ideology than actually addressing the problem.
And I never used the word "lazy". I do say that people's habits have changed, and it is costing them both their money and their health. I'm not sure why their habits have changed, but it is a matter of great importance.
And what's so "hypothetical" about actually pricing out the cost of healthy food? Anyone can go out tomorrow and buy and eat these foods - that's hardly hypothetical.
Here's the thing about fast foods and prepared foods, like mac'n'cheese, etc. When you look at the ingredients, notice that various types of fats, sugars and sodium have been added to them. It makes them taste good, not in the way that a farmer's apple or fresh caught grilled fish tastes good, but in a carb-loading, taste-bud soothing, sugar-addiction sustaining way.
edwin, your observations are accurate and fair; bad food is deliberately intended to comfort, appease and placate those who are living on the margins of society. It certainly keeps Kraft's, Uni-Lever's and other companies' shareholders happy.
...and someone who doesn't want to about it is more interested in ideology than actually addressing the problem.
Tell me Rabbit: What's your opinion about the Publications Assistance Program?
And what's so "hypothetical" about actually pricing out the cost of healthy food? Anyone can go out tomorrow and buy and eat these foods - that's hardly hypothetical.
Bear in mind that Rabbit lives in Calgary, the wealthiest, most beautifulest, most smartest, most precious...est city on Earth.
Hmmm. Fat people. ... Didn't she write about the need to tease fat kids? Oh yes, here it is.
Dawg, K.Shaid is being harsh. But still. Read Dickens, hell, talk to people who grew up in Northern Ontario in the 50. If the problem is that poor people is fat...that people with little cash get too many calories --- come on. In a way, this is amazing. Yes they are dying too soon, but they are not dying now. The conversation needs to shift - its not about poverty (i.e lack of cash) - it is about impulsiveness, shyness, laziness, etc., etc. I don't mean this as a conservative list of talking points - but lets face it. The problem is not money. What do you do when people make bad choices.
Bear in mind, too, that fresh, healthy food tends to spoil fairly quickly while processed food can be easily stored away. With the latter you can stock up when the sales come. With the former you need to have menu ideas ready when you go shopping.
"Nutritious food costs money--more money than the poor happen to have."
Grow a garden.
"Gloria Nunez has never worked. She says that since her car broke down (imagine that?) her daughter can't look for a job either.
And, they're scrimping on food"
I'm sure these two poor victims only eat because of the stress and trauma put on them by society, by labeling them with words like fat, over-weight, obese, heffer, lazy, plump etc. After all, I'm sure they work really hard in between the bag of Cheeto's and a cheese burger to exercise.....it's just so darn difficult. Especially when the remote is on the other side of the room.
Sorry but this is disgusting, do people have no shame. Trying to portray these two as "starving" because of the cost of food is beyond stupid, if anything the high food costs should be considered a favor to them, as they may actually lose some weight as a result adding a few extra years to their lives.....you would almost think this was a some kind of joke and not a serious story.
As far as I can see the only thing standing between these women and an honest day's work is "wheels". Apparently they live in a bus free zone.
Rabbit is taking a bit of stick about suggesting healthy alternatives to their apparent IV feed of Kraft Dinner.
The reality is that virtually any store other than a 7-11 or a Macs stocks basics. Flour, eggs, fresh (or, Hell, even frozen) vegetables, cheap meat. These are center aisle shoppers. Lots of corn product.
If you want to fatten up a steer you put him knee deep in shit and feed him corn for a few weeks - cf. Michael Pollen. These ladies reflect the effects of a largely corn diet on people who rarely get off the couch.
It is not pretty, it is indeed about class, I suspect that these people have no realistic choices. That's sad.
Dr Dawg, I'm going to assume it was your anger at the bitter, bilious Shaidle that led you to hyperbole here. We don't need scientific studies to tell us obesity correlates with poverty, as does tobacco and alcohol consumption, lottery ticket buying, etc. We need only visit the local 7-11. Causation is much harder to zero in on because there are too many chicken-egg conundrums that both the left and the right are prone to grossly oversimplify. To the extent that these women reflect a stereotype, people like this often seem to go through life in a state of comparative bewilderment. They don't plan their diets, but then they don't plan their job searches, rent payments, pregnancies, etc. and they have a hard time seeing (or are afraid of) life beyond the end of their block. Mental illness and emotional disorders are often present, but you're a smarter man than I if you can separate cause and effect. If you think it's all about material poverty, you should check out the stories of what happens to these people when they win a lottery. And ask a seasoned social worker how effective job-training and education usually is.
Edwin's comment hints at the chaos that surrounds many of these lives (although what collapsing economy? Surely he just means the rising cost of living in desirable urban areas?) One noticeable thing about this story is the apparent absence of men in these women's lives. My inner so-con wants to prescribe a dose of boring nuclear family stability, but of course I'm thinking of a certain kind of man and there are lots in that world who would just make it all much worse. As Clint Eastwood might say to these ladies: "Ask yourself, is this my lucky day?"
All that being said, these people deserve more baseline respect for who they are and what they do accomplish despite all their problems and dependancies. If everytime I left my home I was caught between disdain and condemnation from the right and the "compassionate" reforming zeal of the left (the two can be closer than first appears), I might hide on my couch with a bag of Cheetos too.
We on the Left aren't like you. We could never be like you. We're better than you are. Your politics aren't politics at all; they're just one fat character flaw.
Ah, the unintentional comedy provided by the irony-challenged: mocking someone for mocking someone else.
I've tried to keep away from the hate blogs over the past couple months. Seriously, I recommend it to everyone, even you Dawg. There's enough nasty business going on in the world that to be distracted by these hate-filed insignificants is not only a waste of time, it's practically a crime.
With this being the case, Shaidle seems to be write like she knows she's never going to be gainfully employed again. Given the stuff she's written, I can't believe she'll ever resurface at a legimate employer. If she does, it probably won't be for long, given the wonders of Google cache, and the ever watchful eyes of other bloggers.
Shaidle and her ilk are doing more to sink their own futures than any of their imaginary liberal fascist combatants. It's just not fun to watch anymore.
Shaidle needs to be watched. You never know when she'll show up on a public broadcaster, wasting my taxes yet again.
Thanks Dr. for the link to the paper that talks about a correlation between no breakfast and obesity. My wife and I (along with a lot of others), put together a breakfast program at my daughter's school in the spring as a pilot project. We are going to be going ahead full steam in the fall.
I will pass the paper along to the group. Thanks.
Regards,
John
Hold on a moment here. Did I miss something? Nowhere in this article did I see anything about the $ 102 food stamps being a WEEKLY amount. Is it possible that this is a monthly amount? I did a cursory Google search on food stamps and I keep seeing that the average recipient of food stamps gets $21 a WEEK. If these women are trying to survive on $ 102 a MONTH for food, may God help them - they don't have a prayer of being able to eat healthy.
Cheryl nails it.
http://ocap.ca/rtr
I don't think there's a jurisdiction in Canada or N. America where social assistance has not been clawed back, and minimum wage de-indexed from the cost of living.
The term is "urban desert". In inner cities, and even suburbs, grocery stores might not be easily accessable to some people. Many of the poor who do not have transportation to grocery stores or places that sell fresh produce are forced to shop at quickie marts. Try taking you and your brood of kids on the bus-two ways can be fairly expensive, at least if you shop at the variety store you can get more food for the cost of tickets. Then, kcalories become more important.
Accessibility is the biggest problem in my opinion. Remember that story about a poor neighbourhood in LA that took over some abandoned land and started city farming? These people could finally take control of their eating habits and acquire fresh food as well as feeling empowered in doing so. Then a total asshole (who owned that land) kicked them out even when the community rallied and offered to buy the land ABOVE market price. Its barriers like these that contribute to the problem. Not to mention, poorer neighbourhoods tend to have a higher proportion of races that are genetically susceptible to obesity eating a north american diet (hispanics, african americans, native americans, etc).
Rabbit is right. It is cheaper to eat healthier. But it is also harder. We are bombarded with messages of "convenience" and often times, these working poor don't have time to monitor theirs or their children's food intakes. On top of that, these mom's can't afford to enroll their kids in soccer and other activities, and often times these inner city schools aren't properly equipped for physed.
There are so many contributing factors....but-its reality. You can throw the blame around (like Shaidle, who isn't exactly the pinnacle of thin and fit btw), or you can deal with it by offering more programs and education to the poor. School lunches, urban farming, etc are all steps in the right direction. How many of these right-blame-throwing whingers volunteer at inner city schools coaching after-school programs to prevent obesity in children?
Obese children become obese adults. To stop the cycle you have to target the younger ones. But, the crowd that complains the loudest about all these fatties doesn't care about kids after they've left the womb. Unfortunately, this becomes a public health problem that becomes really expensive for EVERYONE, even right-whingers.
Rabbit is most definitely not right.
Eating healthier is far more expensive than most people think and when you're trying to survive on food stamps, it's virtually impossible. Need proof? Try reading this.
And Cheryl and Boris are right - the average food stamp recipient gets $21/week. That works out to $3 a day, $1 per meal.
When a person is trying to survive on that amount of money, you buy things that are cheap, pre-packaged, easy to prepare and not prone to spoilage - like fresh fruits and vegetables.
And yes, they can buy canned but those aren't exactly healthy choices, either. Canned fruits are usually in syrup, which is just liquid sugar, and canned vegetables are extremely high in sodium.
You try surviving on $21/week for groceries and let me know how that works out for you.
LuLu, if you are presented with a choice of convenience store goodies and grocery store goodies, where you can buy nutritious food in bulk (provided you know which foods to buy to create a balanced diet), it is cheaper to eat healthy.
I've done enough work with foodbanks and consumer price index and bread baskets to know what basic cost of eating healthy is. The biggest barriers are access to good food (urban deserts), education on what good food is, time to prepare good food and media and cultural influences.
Food security is a big issue. If you don't know where your next meal is coming from, you will eat a lot of whatever you can get your hands on. The typical "breadbasket" which looks at the price of food in Canada, in my opinion, doesn't take into account that it is possible to eat healthier cheaper foods. That is a food security issue because people need to be able to eat foods they like prepared in a manner that is acceptable to them....the typical bread basket would contain very wheat-based, Canada's Food Guide-based diets when there are alternatives that are just as healthy for cheaper. So, yes ,all the supporting evidence points to healthier food being more expensive. I wanted to point out that it doesn't have to be given the proper tools.
I don't dispute the fact that it is difficult/impossible to do on minimum wage and on foodstamps. I also don't dispute the lack of access the working poor (or non-working poor) has to these types of foods. If you looked a the price of a meal consisting of beans, rice and canned vegetables (not very typical of a north american diet therefore not included in a bread basket), which would be considered a complete and wholesome meal, the cost per serving is quite minimal. Would a meal containing these foods be socially acceptable to many people, if they were forced to eat it due to lack of income? Probably not.
The price of wheat and corn has risen considerably due to fuel costs and food-as-fuel programs (corn ethanol). This makes a lot of convenience foods even more expensive, and lo-and-behold, most convenience food is full of high-fructose corn syrup, exactly the sugar that is associated with metabolic syndrome X, which can lead to obesity and diabetes. You can't tell me that a bag of chips, litre of pop and a box of cookies (which i have no doubt some people eat daily) is cheaper than a 1 dollar meal of beans, rice and canned peas-although it would be more acceptable to some people.
How would you explain the obesity epidemic amongst lower-income individuals? To gain a pound of fat, one would have to eat 500 kcal a day ON TOP of their daily requirements of 1800-2200 kcal for a week. Those two ladies in the picture look about 100 lbs overweight. That's two whole years of overeating. Those that are obese are obviously getting enough kcalories in a day (and must be to maintain that weight)-so obviously they do have access to food. Its just the type of foods (fast f
oops i went on a little too long there and got cut off. I don't even know what was in the last paragraph!
I disagree with KS because she is mean and that is totally counter productive and pointless. The statistics don't lie. Obesity is rising among the poor. Now, instead of hurling insults, what do we do to fix this?
(and as a disclaimer before i am acussed of being holier than thou, I, and many of my student friends, have lived on the rice and beans diet, and also the hot dog and kraft dinner diet-its not fun!)
Interesting thread, and much more civil than might have been expected.
Dawg: When someone quoted this in the comment thread -
We on the Left aren't like you. We could never be like you. We're better than you are. Your politics aren't politics at all; they're just one fat character flaw.
...I thought they were parodying you. Nope, you really said it. What is there to say?
One factual point, though: food stamps aren't expected to pay the full grocery bill for welfare recipients. I don't expect there's a lot fat (!) in the rest of the budget, but let's not argue on false premises.
"Although food stamps were intended to be a supplemental program, most recipients rely primarily on food stamps to put food on their tables. According to the California Budget Project, it takes $50,383 a year for a California family of four - with one working parent - to make ends meet and $72,343 if both parents work (higher in Santa Clara County), but a family of four is eligible for food stamps only if its gross annual income doesn't exceed $26,004."
http://foodstampchallenge.typepa....com/my_weblog/
Hello, IP:
I was referring, of course, to those who mocked these women, particularly Kathy Shaidle. If you want to talk about incivility, it would be well for you to start there.
I'm not sure how your comment about food stamps is relevant; furthermore, it seems very odd that it costs so much more to feed a family of four when both parents work for wages. Why would that be?
And if that family of four gets food stamps, presumably it's because they rake in about $2000 a month, little more. Out of that, of course, there is accommodation to be considered, utilities, clothes for the kids...
What was your point again? I'm honestly puzzled.
Sorry, I over-quoted. My point was that they had more than $21 each a week for groceries. Their basic welfare payment is something like $640. I don't know how much rent they pay, but it's a subsidized unit in a small town in one of the cheaper states, so I imagine they can put something aside. Apart from that, I have nothing much to say that hasn't be covered by others - though I could happily rant on about the iniquities of high-carb diets.
It might be interesting to look at some historical poverty:
http://www.flickr.com/search/?ss...=poverty&
m=text
Not too many extra pounds there...
A recent study, cited at http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/...cles/
115524.php "...examined the symbolic meaning of foods and beverages. They found that when it came to tasting meat or soft drinks, what influenced participants was what they thought they had eaten rather than what they actually ate."
Which could explain why someone with a $3 per day food budget might be inclined to spend 1/3 of it on a head of lettuce - a "food" item almost completely devoid of nutritional value.
I *like* lentils and chickpeas and other legumes and rice. I only eat meat once or twice per week. But I have the luxury to choose to eat this way, and I enjoy experimenting with food (probably because I am an engineer, I can never follow a recipe without trying to improve something).
However, for some there are certain specific requirements for a meal to be considered "real food". (My late in-laws, for example, having moved to Canada from England in the 1950s, never considered that pasta-based dishes were real dinners.) It's easy to see how someone with limited cooking experience and inclination would be at a loss as to what to do after a precipitous reduction of income. As other posters have commented, high carb & high sugar food is cheap and plentiful.
Commenting by HaloScan
