We're gone for the summer, guys.
In the mean time, Etse Sikanku has taken the reigns as opinion editor. The fall opinion editor has not been decided yet, as far as I know.
I will return as a columnist and may help with some online content. Then I'll blow this popsicle stand in December.
Have a fun and safe summer.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Monday, April 23, 2007
Twinkies, a government consipiracy to fatten America.
Today the NYT ran a piece by Michael Pollan the Berkeley journalist-cum-nutritional farm subsidy expert. He discusses the impact that the farm bill has on American public health, the environment, worldwide poverty, obesity, and immigration.
From the article:
"To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration."
That's a pretty powerful statement, but his problem is not the farm bill itself, but what the farm bill supports. Not enough organic tomatoes, and too many Twinkies.
"As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.”
From the article:
"To speak of the farm bill’s influence on the American food system does not begin to describe its full impact — on the environment, on global poverty, even on immigration."
That's a pretty powerful statement, but his problem is not the farm bill itself, but what the farm bill supports. Not enough organic tomatoes, and too many Twinkies.
"As a rule, processed foods are more “energy dense” than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them “junk.”
This perverse state of affairs is not, as you might think, the inevitable result of the free market. Compared with a bunch of carrots, a package of Twinkies, to take one iconic processed foodlike substance as an example, is a highly complicated, high-tech piece of manufacture, involving no fewer than 39 ingredients, many themselves elaborately manufactured, as well as the packaging and a hefty marketing budget. So how can the supermarket possibly sell a pair of these synthetic cream-filled pseudocakes for less than a bunch of roots?"
There's several reasons for this, namely that people like twinkies, and that corn and soybeans are much more effcient to produce than carrots and tomatoes farm bill or no farm bill. I've heard Mr. Pollan on the radio, and he's been to Iowa, he realizes how successfully farmers can grow corn here. But the question remains, Why would people eat these Twinkies? Because the government forces them by making them too cheap.
"For the answer, you need look no farther than the farm bill...Like most processed foods, the Twinkie is basically a clever arrangement of carbohydrates and fats teased out of corn, soybeans and wheat — three of the five commodity crops that the farm bill supports, to the tune of some $25 billion a year. (Rice and cotton are the others.) For the last several decades — indeed, for about as long as the American waistline has been ballooning — U.S. agricultural policy has been designed in such a way as to promote the overproduction of these five commodities, especially corn and soy."
Ok, so what is Mr. Pollan's solution to the Twinkie problem?
"And then there are the eaters, people like you and me, increasingly concerned, if not restive, about the quality of the food on offer in America. A grass-roots social movement is gathering around food issues today"
Good, nothing like good old fashioned grassroots efforts using the market to make changes they desire. Oh but wait.
"voting with our forks can advance reform only so far. It can’t, for example, change the fact that the system is rigged to make the most unhealthful calories in the marketplace the only ones the poor can afford. To change that, people will have to vote with their votes as well — which is to say, they will have to wade into the muddy political waters of agricultural policy.
Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food — to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away...It will take some imaginative policy making to figure out how to encourage farmers to focus on taking care of the land rather than all-out production, on growing real food for eaters rather than industrial raw materials for food processors and on rebuilding local food economies, which the current farm bill hobbles"
Ah, there's the kicker. Grassroots movements only go so far, so we must force the government to make everyone eat what we say they should eat. They must be forced to eat the things we want them to because we know best. It's nice to make things clean and sustainable, to make the cows and pigs happy and run free, but by doing this we make food unaffordable to all but the elite such as Mr. Pollan. In many parts of the country it is simply impossible to grow local produce year round unlike Berkeley, let alone only during the months when the school children aren't eating at school. The midwest is good at growing corn and soybeans, and should be kept as such. Soybeans are a cheap source of protein and calories for people and animals all across the world, and America is no different.
I'm no big advocate for the farm bill, it's a giant mess of regulatory and market control, but making it even worse by pouring tax dollars into production of organic tomatoes is not the answer. People need to be educated about proper diets and what is healthy to eat, otherwise all the produce in the world will rot on the shelves. Produce needs to be grown in climates where it grows best, making the most effcient use of land and resources. By increasing demand by educating people about the benefits of them Mr. Pollan would be able to achieve his goal, without the all the government intervention.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Ron Paul's visit to ISU
I had the opportunity to listen to presidential hopeful Ron Paul tonight in the South Ballroom of the Memorial Union. His message was pretty straight forward (paraphrased from his website):
Mostly, he talked about how we've shifted away from the constitution. Gun laws, No Child Left Behind, the Federal Reserve, the Iraq War authorization (but not declaration), Welfare, and many other laws passed through congress, are completely unconstitutional. And he's right. Congress today views, as he puts it, the constitution as nothing but a pesky document that gets in the way of getting laws passed. He's constantly asked by other congressmen to compromise on "this one little thing" in the name of increased power for the government.
And it's got to stop.
The problem is, Ron Paul has very little chance of success in the primaries. He's overshadowed by the big names in the media who've just raised as much as $25 million in campaign contributions.
It's funny how Barack Obama gets an entire package of articles — before and after he comes to Iowa State — but I saw no mention of him in the Daily and — I could be wrong — no reporter at the event tonight. A quick google search, after Paul has been in Iowa for two days, reveals hardly anything in Iowa Newspapers.
Regardless of his unviability as a major player, I think I'm going to toss my vote his way. With any luck, other sensible citizens with regard for the constitution will do the same.
Update: There was a reporter there, apparently. My point still stands, Obama gets an unfair amount of attention.
- - Debt and Taxes
- - Eliminate spending in the red, reduce taxes and make government smaller and more efficient
- - War
- - Require congress to declare war under all circumstances, a requirement of the constitution.
- - Immigration
- - Illegal immigration is bad, no amnesty is right, and securing the borders is a must
- - Liberty
- - We have individual rights in this country, not collective rights. You and you alone can make the decision of what to put in your body, whether to wear a seatbelt, whether you want to smoke, etc. Eminent Domain is unconstitutional because it infringes on property rights.
- - Sovereignty
- - No international organization should usurp our sovereignty, and using our troops for UN missions is unconstitutional unless congress declares war.
Mostly, he talked about how we've shifted away from the constitution. Gun laws, No Child Left Behind, the Federal Reserve, the Iraq War authorization (but not declaration), Welfare, and many other laws passed through congress, are completely unconstitutional. And he's right. Congress today views, as he puts it, the constitution as nothing but a pesky document that gets in the way of getting laws passed. He's constantly asked by other congressmen to compromise on "this one little thing" in the name of increased power for the government.
And it's got to stop.
The problem is, Ron Paul has very little chance of success in the primaries. He's overshadowed by the big names in the media who've just raised as much as $25 million in campaign contributions.
It's funny how Barack Obama gets an entire package of articles — before and after he comes to Iowa State — but I saw no mention of him in the Daily and — I could be wrong — no reporter at the event tonight. A quick google search, after Paul has been in Iowa for two days, reveals hardly anything in Iowa Newspapers.
Regardless of his unviability as a major player, I think I'm going to toss my vote his way. With any luck, other sensible citizens with regard for the constitution will do the same.
Update: There was a reporter there, apparently. My point still stands, Obama gets an unfair amount of attention.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Erotica extrapolation
For me, the .xxx domain debate is not so cut and dry. In fact, when I first heard of the .xxx domain I asked opinion editor Aaron Gott if it wouldn't make sense for such a domain to be adopted so adult-entertainment sites could be labeled easier and thus blocked easier by those uninterested in them. But our surface views of the matter are often glossy like a freshly cleaned laminated kitchen floor, and when traversing over them we begin to slip and slide.
As I researched the matter more and more, it became apparent that the adult-entertainment industry's interests were considered far below others, which I thought was incredulous since it was this industry who would be affected the most. When more research cropped up, I found unwarranted involvement by the U.S. government, readable in pdf here and here. Unwarranted because 1) ICANN is supposed to be an independent body and 2) the U.S. government is acting as the mothership for all of the Internet and is essentially stifling free expression just because it disagrees with the content.
The other primary concern, that of children, in this debate can be read about in .pdf format here and here, as the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICM Registry, Inc. (the body pushing .xxx) exchange blows over whether or not the .xxx regulations adequately protected children. The problems here are 1) people who aren't parents assuming parental roles for children that aren't theirs and 2) the thought that irresponsible adult-entertainment websites would suddenly become responsible just because there's a .xxx domain.
If someone is running a child porn web ring, then creating a voluntary .xxx domain requiring that practice to be stopped isn't going to encourage that web ring to acknowledge their illegal practice and come clean. Only if all responsible adult-entertainment websites changed to .xxx would it be possible to easily ferret out the dirty kiddy porn providers left on the .com sites. And as the adult-entertainment industry has shown so far, they're not so quick to make that switch at an extra cost and possible outside regulation.
A debate must start within the adult-entertainment industry for adopting responsible business practices. The industry can do what it likes for its own interests, but that doesn't mean it can't be responsible. Of course, one problem is that successful businesses may be reluctant to adopt new operating practices unless their consumer base demands it. And if the cliché consumer base for that industry is the dirty, horny guy who just wants to get his kicks seeing some skin rubbing against skin, then there's little doubt he's going to be too concerned about encouraging different responsibility practices from the industry.
As I researched the matter more and more, it became apparent that the adult-entertainment industry's interests were considered far below others, which I thought was incredulous since it was this industry who would be affected the most. When more research cropped up, I found unwarranted involvement by the U.S. government, readable in pdf here and here. Unwarranted because 1) ICANN is supposed to be an independent body and 2) the U.S. government is acting as the mothership for all of the Internet and is essentially stifling free expression just because it disagrees with the content.
The other primary concern, that of children, in this debate can be read about in .pdf format here and here, as the U.S. Department of Commerce and ICM Registry, Inc. (the body pushing .xxx) exchange blows over whether or not the .xxx regulations adequately protected children. The problems here are 1) people who aren't parents assuming parental roles for children that aren't theirs and 2) the thought that irresponsible adult-entertainment websites would suddenly become responsible just because there's a .xxx domain.
If someone is running a child porn web ring, then creating a voluntary .xxx domain requiring that practice to be stopped isn't going to encourage that web ring to acknowledge their illegal practice and come clean. Only if all responsible adult-entertainment websites changed to .xxx would it be possible to easily ferret out the dirty kiddy porn providers left on the .com sites. And as the adult-entertainment industry has shown so far, they're not so quick to make that switch at an extra cost and possible outside regulation.
A debate must start within the adult-entertainment industry for adopting responsible business practices. The industry can do what it likes for its own interests, but that doesn't mean it can't be responsible. Of course, one problem is that successful businesses may be reluctant to adopt new operating practices unless their consumer base demands it. And if the cliché consumer base for that industry is the dirty, horny guy who just wants to get his kicks seeing some skin rubbing against skin, then there's little doubt he's going to be too concerned about encouraging different responsibility practices from the industry.
Friday, April 6, 2007
Felons' Rights: A Paradox?
It's generally been concluded that felons do not share the same constitutional rights as law-abiding citizens. Tradition holds that a citizen who commits a felony has violated his end of the social contract, voiding the obligation of society to give him, in return, his own constitutional rights.
Some states have always restored these rights after the felon has paid their debt to society. Others, like Maine, can permanently suspend the rights of felons to vote, own firearms, obtain certain occupational licenses, sit on a jury (is this really a right, or an obligation?) or run for public office.
Florida, on the other hand, has a state-run board to determine whether or not a felon deserves to have these rights restored, a concept they have been taking fire for.
To be sure, some felonies are worse than others and a value judgement must be made by society: "Was the crime this person committed an atrocious act against society? Is it worth punishment for life?"
This may not be the case for some nonviolent crimes like drug trafficking, grand theft, cannabis cultivation and fraud, but where do we draw the line? If that line is violence, people like KennethLay and Jeffrey Skilling, who aren't exactly run-of-the-mill thieves, may be getting off too easily.
I agree some felons have paid their debt to society and deserve to renew their societal contract. On the other hand, if we are to make concessions for some felons, a common-sense system outlining the exact criteria for rights resortation must be outlined to avoid the slippery slope.
Some states have always restored these rights after the felon has paid their debt to society. Others, like Maine, can permanently suspend the rights of felons to vote, own firearms, obtain certain occupational licenses, sit on a jury (is this really a right, or an obligation?) or run for public office.
Florida, on the other hand, has a state-run board to determine whether or not a felon deserves to have these rights restored, a concept they have been taking fire for.
To be sure, some felonies are worse than others and a value judgement must be made by society: "Was the crime this person committed an atrocious act against society? Is it worth punishment for life?"
This may not be the case for some nonviolent crimes like drug trafficking, grand theft, cannabis cultivation and fraud, but where do we draw the line? If that line is violence, people like KennethLay and Jeffrey Skilling, who aren't exactly run-of-the-mill thieves, may be getting off too easily.
I agree some felons have paid their debt to society and deserve to renew their societal contract. On the other hand, if we are to make concessions for some felons, a common-sense system outlining the exact criteria for rights resortation must be outlined to avoid the slippery slope.
Thursday, April 5, 2007
Ever want to know something about Ames or ISU?
Rofflehaus.
This goofy name is the location of Ames and ISU's only wiki.
Basically, it's a wikipedia for ISU students. If you ever want to know an odd tidbit about a building, or if you want to hear the juice on one of the prominent faculty members, this is the place to go.
This goofy name is the location of Ames and ISU's only wiki.
Basically, it's a wikipedia for ISU students. If you ever want to know an odd tidbit about a building, or if you want to hear the juice on one of the prominent faculty members, this is the place to go.
Blogger Introduction and Commentary
First of all, let me construe my gratitude for being able to try out this new format for the Daily Opinion section. I hope this section becomes as popular as the ISD website and helps better serve the students in an Opinion-y sort of way. I plan to add a bit of depth to my column as needed and also post some links, information, and commentary relevant to the student body.
As a side note this week: I'm not going to add to the commentary about Abel Bolanos, as I'm sure everyone is experiencing this week in different ways. I'd like to encourage students who are having a hard time to seek some helpful counseling. ISU has a lot of services available for your needs, so don't be afraid to come forward and help yourself.
Bit of BC Commentary
The Daily has recently printed both an article and column about rising prices of oral contraception. The printed information was a bit despairing to the constituency, and there weren't many other options listed to help students be safe. In the interest of responsibility (as I do write about sexual issues a ton)- if you're feeling the drain on your wallet, feel free to check out other options here.
Weekly Column
As always, feel free to leave commentary. If you have an issue with it that you'd like addressed by me or discussed (as opposed to just pointed out in the online edition) please leave a comment on the blog.
As a P.S. to today's column: People, if you want someone to move, ask. It's come to my attention that smokers aren't aware when they're bothering you - and in hindsight I've never been asked to move either. Speak up.
Better commentary to come as I get used to the Blog.
As a side note this week: I'm not going to add to the commentary about Abel Bolanos, as I'm sure everyone is experiencing this week in different ways. I'd like to encourage students who are having a hard time to seek some helpful counseling. ISU has a lot of services available for your needs, so don't be afraid to come forward and help yourself.
Bit of BC Commentary
The Daily has recently printed both an article and column about rising prices of oral contraception. The printed information was a bit despairing to the constituency, and there weren't many other options listed to help students be safe. In the interest of responsibility (as I do write about sexual issues a ton)- if you're feeling the drain on your wallet, feel free to check out other options here.
Weekly Column
As always, feel free to leave commentary. If you have an issue with it that you'd like addressed by me or discussed (as opposed to just pointed out in the online edition) please leave a comment on the blog.
As a P.S. to today's column: People, if you want someone to move, ask. It's come to my attention that smokers aren't aware when they're bothering you - and in hindsight I've never been asked to move either. Speak up.
Better commentary to come as I get used to the Blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)