Always Coming, Never Here

What's that useful thing exactly? Making people fat?

Posted by

Providing food Mikey. Growing corn doesn't make people fat, people eating too much makes people fat.

Posted by

Growing corn makes people fatter than growing almost any other kind of fruit or vegetable - or any other crop at all, for that matter.

We can provide food, perhaps even MORE food, if we were growing something else... but corn is subsized because it contains lots of sugar, and is perfect for frying, sodas, and fattening livestock.

Posted by

So? What if I want to eat one ear of corn instead of 2 plates of something else? Just because something makes people fatter than an equivalent amount of some other food doesn't mean it's a bad food. People can make their own decisions on what they like and you can just as easily manage your weight while eating corn as you can eating anything else.

Maybe we could make more food, but if people want to eat corn or fry in corn oil or make soda then it's a useful product. Plus, lots of things are subsidized because the government just plain wants to have farmers growing stuff. I think it's pretty stupid, but it's not like corn is being singled out for subsidy.

Posted by

The problem with this simplistic view of "people choose what they want to eat" is the fact that because corn is the cheapest food, it is what the people with the least amount of money end up eating the most. Low income families eat at McDonald's because it's cheaper than going to the store to buy vegetables. But hey, screw them if they choose to eat unhealthy, they're have a right to spend their welfare check to feed their family of seven wherever they want to - McDonald's, Wendy's, or Burger King!

The market is not "choosing" to grow ever cheaper corn and beef. Corporations are forcing growers to supply them with the least expensive materials possible so they can induce people to purchase their processed food products at insanely low prices. Heads of cattle have a profit margin of pennies. We're talking one nickel per cow if the rancher is lucky. The only way they can get more money is to raise cattle in the worst ways possible and feed them the worst things imaginable.

We could make soda with cane sugar. But we don't, because we can make corn really really cheap! Because the government subsidizes it the most. Because agribusiness pays Congress lots of money... because McDonald's told them to.

Posted by

The problem with this simplistic view of "people choose what they want to eat" is the fact that because corn is the cheapest food, it is what the people with the least amount of money end up eating the most. Low income families eat at McDonald's because it's cheaper than going to the store to buy vegetables. But hey, screw them if they choose to eat unhealthy, they're have a right to spend their welfare check to feed their family of seven wherever they want to - McDonald's, Wendy's, or Burger King!

If they have to eat unhealthy food in order to eat then what is your problem? Stop treating poor people like the mentally invalid. If they can afford healthy food but can get unhealthy food cheaper it's their choice whether they want to be slim and healthy or have a few extra dollars for their other desires.

Posted by

Treat poor people with respect - let the corporations profit when they force poor people's children into obesity!

How dare those poor people spend their money on utilties, housing, or clothing when they could be spending those dollars on the healthier food that the government doesn't subsidize as much??

Posted by

It sounds like you're suggesting that the government start subsidizing healthy food.

If healthy food is financially out of reach, it's out of reach, regardless of whether junk food becomes more expensive...

-Adam

Posted by

I think subsidizing healthy food is a great first step. Subsidizing corn less will make junk food slightly more expensive, but not that much! The government should be helping farmers make better choices than being forced to plant more and more corn just to break even...

Current subsidies are driven by corporate interests, not the best interests of the populace.

Posted by

We probably wouldn't have developed this massive infrastructure around corn products if the subsidies hadn't been there. But now that the infrastructure is there, I imagine that it would take a while for the dropkicking of subsidies to have a serious effect on the content of foods. Hard to predict, but I imagine at least the price would start changing fairly quickly. Subsidies compose 40% of a corn-farmer's income.

The subsidies had a real purpose when they started. The private sector refused to provide insurance, as there was too much complexity in the risk assessment for crops. The government's answer was blanket subsidies. Seems like a poorly thought-out answer, in retrospect.

If you really think the answer is to make government help pay part of the cost for healthier foods, then you might be one of the people who needs to die when the multi-factioned revolution comes. Reducing the extra incentive to grow corn, and the disincentive from growing other crops should be enough.

-Adam

Posted by

What's your definition of "decent mileage"? 19 miles to the gallon?

Posted by

I don't actually remember where the average was, but I do remember it had made it out of the "really bad" range into just the "faster or older car range". Basically low - mid 20s. Sure, it's not a hybrid, but the comparative difference with a car is pretty minimal.

The point is that measuring it in SUVs is a stupid measurement designed solely to associate one left-wing evil with a new supposed evil. Measure it in cars and the numbers aren't going to be significantly different but you won't have the shock value of "corn = SUVs".

Posted by

Measuring in SUVs is a conservative measurement, because SUVs are STILL the worst gas guzzlers, even though they aren't "really bad" any more, as you say (having improved by a couple of miles to the gallon - from 16 to 21, wooo!).

Posted by

It gives you a smaller number, but once numbers get into the millions no one cares whether it's 5 million or 7 million. The reason that measurement is in SUVs is to make it sound evil. It's basically just shock tactics and propoganda.

Posted by

It's an honest and factual statement. It's not exaggerated, and it's not couched in unclear language.

If you count the gasoline usage of corn production in terms of the worst gas guzzling cars available, that is the number you get.

There is no value judgement. There is no propoganda. These are simple facts.

What's your problem with accepting that?

Maybe it "sounds evil" because it IS.

Posted by

rantfaery.livejournal.com

Haha.
This argument is entertaining to me.
Keep it coming, baby!
;)
I have a craving for corn on the cob...mmmm...!
SUV's are covered in blood. Like diamonds, potatoes, and corn.
(again, tongue firmly planted in cheek for those who don't get it. ;P)

Posted by

I always enjoy a good argument. Plus if it get awareness up about something it is good. I never get angry about them because the purpose of arguing is communication. In communication we learn.

Posted by

kadath.livejournal.com

No, the point of arguing is to show that the other guy is wrong! WRONG!

Posted by

Onl for the un-illuminated. :)

Posted by

rantfaery.livejournal.com

YES!
What is this "communication" shite?
Jeezus.
;)
I'm right; everyone else is WRONG.
Suck on it.
(yeah, tongue plan--oh, hell, you know the drill--I just feel the need to make sure no one's laboring under false poopiness. Or something)

Posted by

I can't believe you think that. You're completely WRONG!

Posted by

rantfaery.livejournal.com

Shut up, bitch!
I'll kick your ass!
I'm kicking ass for two, now!
Let's go!
I'll run you over with my Grand Dominator! (http://poseur.4x4.org/futuresuv.html)
Aww yeah.
How's THAT for SUV's, baby?!

Posted by

If you count the gasoline usage of corn production in terms of the worst gas guzzling cars available, that is the number you get.

Actually, no it isn't. Pickups and luxury sedans are worse. (<a href="http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/bestworst_mileage/"http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/bestworst_mileage/") My problem is that this statement uses SUVs because people hate SUVs. Whether you want to accept such or not, that's propoganda.

Posted by

Okay, just one second... first off, in the very article you cite, the worst luxury sedan is 12 mpg and the worst SUV is 12 mpg!

I'll be happy to revise my statement to match the ABSOLUTE WORST mileage in the pickup truck, instead of the SECOND WORST mileage from SUVs (tied with luxury sedans).

Posted by

I will happily remove the pickups and sedans with the same mileage as well. The problem ends up being the attitude connected with the people that purchase such vehicles. It is evident in the way they drive as well as the gas-guzzler they own. I do my best to treat them all with equal hate.

I am not prejudice... I hate "you" all the same.

"You" in that statement is for the populace at large and not intended for any specific person posting here. Anyone I am willing to argue with I like enough to try and help them learn.

Posted by

My 8 year old ford escort gets 33+ miles to the gallon highway and 29+ city driving. This is crappy mileage. I really want to be getting up to 40 mpg at minimum but I am unable to afford a car that does so. If an suv get a highway mileage of up to 25 it is a horrible gas guzzling vehicle. Is it really that hard to sacrifice the comfort an SUV provides for the lower pollution a fuel efficient car provides? SUVs are overly large and tend to block the view of traffic for smaller vehicles. The tallness of the SUV and the tendency of SUV's to have tinted windows make it much more difficult for other drivers to view traffic. The inflated cost of SUV's leads to more expensive insurance claims because Soccer Mom and Soccer son do not know how to drive such a large and expensive vehicle. SUV's also do not have to conform to the laws requiring car of certain body type/weight to increase fuel efficiency. From either perspective SUV's are a status symbol stating that the driver is another proud mass-consuming american who could careless about their community.

Any use you can buy and SUV for can easily be handled by a mid-size station wagon. Since more and more station wagons are made with AWD why do SUV's need to be on the market?

Posted by

SUVs are overly large and tend to block the view of traffic for smaller vehicles. The tallness of the SUV and the tendency of SUV's to have tinted windows make it much more difficult for other drivers to view traffic.

And these are exactly the reasons I *do* hate SUVs. Instead of harping on them for their poor gas mileage (rather than harping on poor gas mileage in general) people complaining specifically about SUVs should focus on the real issues: that they are a true danger to others on the road.

Posted by

For me it is all of that, the generally worse gas mileage when compared to a car and the lousy attitude of the average SUV owner. All of it represents the reason why I am ashamed to be a United States citizen. Combine that with the info on how much our government supports commodities that just suck instead of other commodities that could help our society and I am ready to move.

There is a good use for corn. If the government subsidized the research for refining corn into fuel to make it cheaper that oil base fuel then we would be doing really well. Combine that with the corn gas/electric cars and you have a reason to stop with the fossil fuels. This gives the US independence for Opek(sp?) and makes it where we could maintain more industries within our borders. The best part would be tariffing the crap out of imports that are not beneficial and use the money to subsidize other programs to make the nation less dependant on foreign resources. Cut the industries a tax break for every manufacturing plan that only employs US citizens and force a percentage to the employee's pocket.

Then again I am almost a socialist at heart.

Posted by

brynndragon.livejournal.com

Actually, the really sad thing is SUVs aren't the worst offenders when it comes to guzzling gas. Pickups (at least American ones, which emphasize performance) are worse, and around here they're as prevalent as SUVs (if not more so). Also, saying that "hey, SUVs aren't that bad, they're almost as good as cars!" utterly fails to impress me. Anyone remember when the average mpg was around 30? Yup, the horrid, awful, me-generation 80's. Now, I hear ads on the radio exclaiming how fuel efficient their cars are when they hit that mark. My own car is nothing to write home about mpgwise, but I do what I can by keeping the tires properly inflated and not running the heater or AC unless necessary (I prefer having the windows open anyway :), as well as not driving unecessarily (that's what the 50mpg motorcycle will be for ;P). I'm not entirely certain how gasoline makes corn, tho. Unless it makes a great fertilizer or something

Thing is, you keep saying that corn is evil. Corn is not evil. The problem is corn *products* (corn syrup, corn oil, etc.). I'll note that if it wasn't corn, it would be oats. Or wheat. Or barley. Until you can find an easy and healthy alternative to cheap grain-based products, you're going to have this problem no matter what it is we're subsidizing. Demonizing corn is missing the point, and it sure as hell won't make the world a better place.

You know, I think that posting groovy veggies recipes was doing far more for your cause than posting these pseudological diatribes. Telling someone to stop doing something without giving them a viable alternative isn't going to do a damn thing. Giving someone a viable alternative, however, makes them far more likely to stop doing the things you don't like on their own. Especially in a culture where doing what someone tells you to do is considered a sign of weakness.

Posted by

The big picture view is this: unless people do something about it, corporations will continue to control the eating habits of the masses. Groovy recipes won't end government sponsored obesity!

I'm not trying to convert people that are reading this into groovy veggie eating people or offer alternatives. I'm trying to make readers aware of a larger problem - that corporations are in control of our food supply, and are damaging the health of our people for the sake of profit.

Posted by

then Rock On. Give me knowledge baby.

Corn is not evil... Processed corn products produced by the corporate conglomerates are evil.

Posted by

You should totally by trying to convince people of the benefits, both health and flavorwise, of spending a little more money and time to eat well. Even the smallest measurable increases in a market that aren't matched by advertising can raise stockholder eyebrows.

As for your arguments, you've got a mixture of good points and imflammatory left-wing fundraising rhetoric. Correct the system that allows corporations to unduly influence government. Blame the government for bad policies. But quit harping on the evil corporation seeking to maximize profits angle; it totally detracts from your credibility.

-Adam

Posted by

Why should decrying the behavior of corporations detract from my credibility?

If you read "Fast Food Nation", you might think differently about how corporations have been acting in the last few decades, and why our landscape today is covered in sprawl and strip mall.

Posted by