published by Jonathan on Sun, 05/20/2007 - 20:54
They're not a good deal, nor will they ever be one. From Nathaniel Rich on slate.com:
Since 1971, postal rates have increased more slowly than the actual inflation rate, as measured by the U.S. Consumer Price Index. So, despite the numerous rate hikes over the last 36 years, stamps have actually been getting cheaper. The 20-cent stamp from 1981, for instance, would be equivalent to 45 cents in today's dollars - which makes today's rate 10 percent cheaper than it was 26 years ago. Should this historical pattern hold, you'd be paying more for today's forever stamps than you would for any stamp in the future, no matter how high the rate goes. In fact, this pattern must hold - as a matter of law. In December, President Bush signed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which ensures that future price increases will be kept below an inflation-based ceiling. In other words, postage hikes will never surpass inflation - and the forever stamp will never become a good investment.
published by Jonathan on Tue, 05/15/2007 - 21:38
In an article of the same title from last month in the NY Times, Michael Pollan answers the question: how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
...why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person's wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?
Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice. 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."
The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow. A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called "an epidemic" of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation's agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives.
Americans may tell themselves they don't have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that's not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship.
...the "farm bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. 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. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn't hurt the world's farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.
published by Jonathan on Thu, 05/10/2007 - 21:32
You thought football coaches decide who plays what position? Daniel Sepulveda, a punter drafted in the fourth round by the Steelers, thinks otherwise:
"I guess the first couple of years that I was the punter at Baylor, and started to realize and recognize that that's all I was going to be doing. I tried to sneak my way onto some special teams throughout my career and was able to do that at times. I really did enjoy it, but finally did settle in to where I knew that punter was the position that God would have me to be at."
published by Jonathan on Wed, 05/09/2007 - 22:03
From The Week magazine for the week of May 6, 2007:
Mexico City's legislative assembly last week passed a bill legalizing abortion in the first 12 weeks of pregnancy, a first in Mexico. Women's health advocates say the law, which applies only within Mexico City limits, could serve as a template for the rest of the country, whose population of 107 million is overwhelmingly Roman Catholic. Government officials say about 200,000 illegal abortions are performed in Mexico every year, and complications from illegal abortions are the third leading cause of death for pregnant women in the capital city. The law bars doctors from refusing to perform abortions on moral grounds. But Roman Catholic Cardinal Norberto Rivera of Mexico City warned Catholic medical personnel that they faced excommunication if they took part in the procedure.
published by Jonathan on Mon, 05/07/2007 - 20:42
Pages