links for 2011-01-03

  • In a poll conducted by CBS News, 61% of Americans said that the first step they'd take to balance the federal budget is to increase taxes on the wealthy. Cutting defense spending was a distant second, at 20%. Cutting Medicare was at 4%, and cutting Social Security was at 3%.
  • On December 17, 1862, Major-General Ulysses S. Grant ordered all Jews out of his military district (portions of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky). This was ostensibly to shut down the black market in CSA cotton.
  • Forget the headline—the interesting bit is the interview subject's claim, which is that the average time that a stock is held is 22 seconds. (That's according to economics professor Michael Hudson.) I wonder if that could be true?
  • After South Carolina seceded (becoming the Republic of South Carolina, briefly), one former congressman from the state/country declared that "South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum." That's as true today as it was 150 years ago.
  • Sarah Palin's ongoing attacks on the First Lady's anti-obesity efforts are just bizarre. Michelle Obama thinks that children should eat better, and wants parents and schools to give kids food that won't kill them. Palin calls this a "nanny state run amok." As a sign that the Republican Party hasn't gone completely off the rails, Mike Huckabee, Haley Barbour, and Rick Santorum have been defending Obama's work. (Michelle Malkin, on the other hand, actually supports Palin on this.) Is Palin out of her mind? Or has she abandoned any gesture at discussing policy in exchange for naked political gain?
  • One dementia care facility is trying a new approach to caring for patients: giving them what they want. It's going very well.

Published by Waldo Jaquith

Waldo Jaquith (JAKE-with) is an open government technologist who lives near Char­lottes­­ville, VA, USA. more »

12 replies on “links for 2011-01-03”

  1. school lunches were fine until the federal govt stuck its nose under the tent and demanded “diversity” in the food choices students had. That’s when you saw pizza, breaded chicken nuggets and french fries show up. Up until then, schools provided nutritious (if not a lot of variety in)foods. Now Mrs. Obama using the muscle of gov’t, purports to add even more regulation to save the kids.

    That’s our modern fed govt- feel good, don’t do good.

  2. school lunches were fine until the federal govt stuck its nose under the tent and demanded “diversity” in the food choices students had.

    [citation needed] My wife’s grandmother long worked in the cafeteria at the local elementary school, and that’s not how she told it. You’re talking about prior to the 1946 National School Lunch Act? That was the good old days of school lunches? (Say, how were black kids’ lunches in 1945? “Fine”?) Or was it prior to the 2003 USDA vendor certification program to make sure that ground beef isn’t contaminated with bacteria? When, specifically, were school lunches “fine,” and what, specifically, did the federal government do that caused to that cease to be?

    Now Mrs. Obama using the muscle of gov’t, purports to add even more regulation to save the kids.

    Again, [citation needed]. OK, I’m looking at the programwhat regulation? Putting nutritional information on food packaging? (Which is already required.) Updating the food pyramid and USDA dietary guidelines? Teaching doctors and nurses about how to deal with obesity?

    Basically, I’m pretty sure that you’re just saying stuff that you wish to be true, but don’t actually have any idea if it is true.

  3. The Vanity Fair poll isn’t surprising. 61% of Americans aren’t in the class to be taxed. Greed is natural, as is the tendency to tax that other guy.

  4. 61% of people who aren’t wealthy want the wealthy to be taxed. That certainly explains why they don’t want the other programs cut (the programs which those 61% will benefit).

    This is a bi-partisan problem: the tendency for a group of people to complain that it’s wrong if they don’t benefit from it…whatever “it” is.

  5. “superior use of anecdotal evidence and race. Well played sir, well played.”

    Seriously, what the hell is this garbage? You make some assertions, Waldo challenges you on them, and then you cry “anecdotal evidence and race”?

    A) Are bare assertions better than anecdotal evidence somehow?

    B) Sorry there were racial inequalities before 1945 (not to mention after), but there were and bringing them up isn’t exactly unfair. It’s not like he was suggesting you were being racist.

  6. Well, the Army is changing their dietary and physical fitness regiment because kids showing up to basic can’t do a pull up [1][2]. They’re overweight and out of shape. What does that point to? Poor food choices and lack of physical exercize. Is that completely in the school? No. But a lot of it is.

    [1] http://www.armytimes.com/news/2010/09/army-chow-092710w/
    [2] http://www.npr.org/2010/12/28/132407022/army-ditches-boot-camp-in-favor-of-new-age-fitness

  7. The only way to balance the budget and live on to fight politically is to raise taxes only after cutting spending. Either one alone is fiscally and politically impossible.
    And by spending I mean the military and entitlements-

    I always thought real, shared sacrifice is the only way to put the federal budget under control just have never seen the will to actually do it.

  8. CivusVallus, can you provide evidence for this assertion:

    “the federal govt stuck its nose under the tent and demanded ‘diversity’ in the food choices students had. That’s when you saw pizza, breaded chicken nuggets and french fries show up.”

    When did this happen, exactly, as in what year, what was the form of the demand (a law? a regulation?), and what were the specifics of this alleged call for “diversity” (as in, what exactly were the words of this alleged regulation or demand)?

  9. CivisVallus, Waldo just kicked your butt in front of everyone. Your retort was the weakest thing I’ve heard since Captain Kirk’s rejoinder of ‘Oh yeah, well double dumb ass on you’ in Star Trek 4.

Comments are closed.