Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Month: January 2009

The Sliding Scale

January 28, 2009 / / 1 Comment

If you happened to be in the West Side Madison Best Buy last night, I was the crazy person over in the TV section laughing to himself.  You see, I still have a TV in my kitchen that just runs on an antenna – and I broke the rabbit ears on the old one, so I needed to get a new one.  As I scanned RCA\’s selection of antennas (they come in all shapes and sizes now, apparently) I noticed they had a quality rating system on each box, to tell you how good that particular antenna was.  And the system they use to rate the quality of their antennas is thus:

Standard

Good

Great

Excellent

Superior

and finally, Ultimate.

Aside from \”Standard,\” how are any of these any different?  Is \”Superior\” really better than \”Great?\”  Shouldn\’t they be more honest and move the scale down, so the lowest one is \”Really Crappy,\” the next lowest one is \”Not as Junky,\” and the middle one is \”Standard?\”  I mean, they\’re trying to say each one of their products is good, while saying some are better than others.

This reminded me of the report cards my daughter gets from her pre-school.  If they\’re really good, they get an \”O\” for \”outstanding,\” but if they\’re horrible, they get a \”D\” for \”developing.\”  As in, \”Your child has not developed out of being a knucklehead.\”  I, for one, would welcome a more honest grading system – I think five year olds can handle it.  Except when my daughter came home with all \”K\’s\” – for \”knuckleheaded.\”

The Huckleberry Conundrum

January 25, 2009 / / 3 Comments

\"\"One of my fondest memories from childhood is when my dad sat down with me and read Mark Twain\’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to me.  That\’s right, every night we dutifully sat down, and my pops read the whole thing to me, word for word.  I believe this occurred around 1981.

Naturally, with Huck Finn being one of the seminal American novels, I have considered doing the same thing for my kids.  In preparation, I sat down and re-read it this weekend.  And it is as good as I (and most American literary historians) remember it.  It\’s fascinating that when written, that book was meant for children – yet when compared to today\’s literature, it is more complex and verbally advanced than 90% of the books meant for adults in modern times.

But, of course, there is \”the problem.\”  The book contains dozens of instances of the \”n\” word.  Of course, the book is told from the perspective of a 14 year-old uneducated boy, who in 1884 probably would have used the word liberally.  (Shakespeare has received similar criticism for his unflattering portrayal of Shylock the Jew in Merchant of Venice – although, again, that\’s how Jews would have been portrayed at the time it was written.)  Further, one of the main themes of the book is exposing how de-humanizing slavery is.  But that really doesn\’t matter now, when I am faced with reading that word to my kids a couple hundred times.  There are passages of the book that are really difficult to read, given how ugly the language is in the contemporary context.

Clearly,  I\’m not the only one who has figured this out.  The American Library Association actually keeps statistics on the most objected to books in American libraries, and between 1990 and 2000, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ranks fifth – 124 years after its original publication.  Presumably, the main objection is the continued inclusion of a racial slur.  (Although the same people who make this objection are probably the same ones willing to fillet Sarah Palin for her supposed desire to ban books in the Wasilla library.)  Most of the other books in the list deal in touchy cultural issues, like \”Daddy\’s Roommate,\” \”Heather Has Two Mommies,\” and \”Little Hitler Learns to Love Gays.\”  (Okay, I made that last one up.)

Maybe I\’m being too touchy – after all, kids have heard the word in this book for a century and a quarter, and it doesn\’t seem to have sparked a revival.  Maybe I\’m not giving my kids enough credit for being able to understand context.  But reading the book aloud is probably enough to get me elected into the Klan hall of fame. (They can put my bust right next to Marge Schott\’s.)

So what do I do?  Just forge ahead and hope they understand enough not to use that word?  Wait until they\’re older and understand the context better?  Read it and do some self-editing, thereby desecrating an American work of art?

Kissin\’ Cousins

January 25, 2009 / / 0 Comments

William Saletan at Slate.com argues that we need to rethink laws against marrying within the family:

Does science support our laws against incest and cousin marriage? If so, does it also support other laws that would restrict sexual or procreative freedom in the name of genetic health?

To longtime readers of Human Nature, this question should be, if you\’ll pardon the term, familiar. A few years ago, we looked at the science and ethics of \”The Love That Dare Not Speak Its Surname.\” Then we examined the prevalence of inbreeding in nature. Then we considered the awkward question of why, if incest is too genetically risky to permit, maternity in your 40s isn\’t.

He goes on to cite statistics that show very low birth abnormality rates in cultures where marrying relatives is common, in an attempt to convince us that laws prohibiting such activity are overly restrictive.

I actually appreciate arguments like these that challenge conventional wisdom with facts.  Yet, in this case, I can\’t go along with the thesis.  Facts or no facts, inter-family sex should remain illegal for one important, time-tested reason:

IT\’S GROSS.

Covering the White House

January 22, 2009 / / 0 Comments

A small nugget that seems to have slipped by my notice:  It looks like former Washington Post reporter Peter Baker has moved over to the New York Times to cover the Obama White House.

A personal note, for a moment – Baker was my high school\’s newspaper editor-in-chief a few years before I took over the reins.  He came back to our school several times after taking his first job as a young reporter with the Washington Post (once to cover a horrific suicide at our school, where a student crashed his motorcycle into a brick wall), and I had the occasion to talk to him a little.  I still have a letter he wrote me when I was editor of \”The Orange Peal,\” (when he was editor, it was called the \”Farm News,\” but I hated it, so I got the staff to change it), offering me encouragement when entering the field of journalism.  (Apparently, it wasn\’t enough encouragement, given what I do for a living now – but it was always appreciated.)

Aside from being a nice guy and a class act, he is also clearly an outstanding reporter. Obviously, as he has ascended to White House Correspondent for the New York Times, a few important people think so, too.  I\’ve read two of his books and a great number of his reports throughout the years, and I honestly can\’t tell where his political persuasions lie.  And I look pretty closely for that type of thing.

Oh, and not that it matters, but he is also a frequent guest on \”Washington Week,\” on PBS, some episodes of which can be seen here.

A New Phony Scandal

January 22, 2009 / / 2 Comments

Today, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel manages to do the nearly impossible: it almost makes me feel sorry for former Democratic State Representative Dave Travis.

The Journal Sentinel uncovered the fact that Travis retired from the Legislature a couple days early last year, in order to avoid taking a hit on his retirement payments.  By leaving the job six days early, Travis dodged the damaging effects of the Wall Street meltdown last year – the same strategy used by hundreds of other state employees.

I realize as a think tank, we’re generally supposed to be critical of legislators.  If they’re not up to no good, why do we even exist?  But on this one, wasn’t Travis  simply doing what any normal, rational human being would do?  Can any employee of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel say with a straight face that they would have sat by and watched their retirement take a $70 per month hit on principle?

Then, predictably, the Journal Sentinal goes to the bullpen to call in their phony scandal expert, Jay Heck of Common Cause.  Heck (who I happen to like a great deal, incidentally) dutifully delivers this laughable quote:

Jay Heck, executive director of the nonprofit Common Cause in Wisconsin, said Travis’ early resignation was legal. But the action will “further undermine people’s confidence in state government,” Heck said.

“In a sense, there’s a take-the-money-and-run aspect to it,” Heck said. “As an elected official, you would have hoped for something better.”

So my confidence in state government is supposed to be eroded because one meaningless, backbenching legislator did the rational thing and retired early to save money?  Any word on the hundreds of other state employees who did the same thing and make a lot more than Dave Travis?  (Granted, some of the sizzle in this story is due to Travis’ cantankerous declarations that he should have been making more money all along.)

Here at WPRI, we do poll after poll that shows public trust in the Legislature eroding.  Much of it is certainly deserved.  But a great deal of it is fed by professional scandal mongers whose livelihoods depend on convincing people all their elected officials are corrupt.  As a result, the public has more trouble telling when corruption actually occurs.

If there’s a lesson here, perhaps it is that state employee benefits are too generous.  Many of them pay nothing and stand to gain huge payouts upon retirement – which leads to some game playing when it’s time to leave.  Travis’ retirement won’t cost the taxpayers an extra dime – the money has already been set aside for years in the state retirement fund.  But to make a phony scandal out of Travis doing what any reasonable human would do seems to be a substantial reach.

On the other hand, perhaps we should pay more attention to stories like this, where Democratic Majority Leader Tom Nelson explains that his caucus may still be able to forge ahead with their legislative agenda, despite a special interest laying off staff:

Two Fox Valley legislators think legislation to toughen state drunken driving laws will proceed even as the state office of Mothers Against Drunk Driving announced job cuts.

[…]

State Rep. Tom Nelson, D-Kaukauna, the Assembly majority leader, said MADD’s absence from the debate will not stop legislation.

“We intend to move forward on legislation regardless if groups are staffing up or downsizing,” he said. “It’s clear there has been an outcry from the public to toughen our drunken driving laws and I assume this subject will be addressed sometime this session.”

Oh really?  You might be able to move forward on legislation without the help of a special interest group?  That’s big of you, Tom Nelson.

Of course, Mothers Against Drunk Driving have a noble purpose – to reduce deaths on our roads.  And I certainly agree with their goal of toughening our drunk driving laws in Wisconsin.  But let’s not be confused – they are a special interest group looking to change state law, just as any other special interest group is.  They have a paid lobbyist and report lobbying expenditures, just like every other lobbying organization.  Their goals really aren’t an issue here.

Imagine Senate Minority Leader Scott Fitzgerald saying something like, “I know times are tough over at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, but I think we’ll still be able to forge ahead with the Senate Republican tax package anyway.”  Reporters would be sleeping outside his office doors, waiting for the chance to dice him up like a pot roast.

So what causes more of an erosion in confidence in the Legislature – Dave Travis retiring early, or the Assembly Majority Leader hinting that his caucus takes its marching orders from special interests?  I recognize the media has to cover something, considering we’re in an era of peace and prosperity and all.

Me and the Mouse

January 21, 2009 / / 1 Comment

O Lord our God, help us tear their soldiers to bloody shreds with our shells; help us to cover their smiling fields with the pale forms of their patriot dead; help us to drown the thunder of the guns with the shrieks of their wounded, writhing in pain; help us to lay waste their humble homes with a hurricane of fire; help us to wring the hearts of their unoffending widows with unavailing grief; help us to turn them out roofless with their little children to wander unfriended the wastes of their desolated land in rags and hunger and thirst, sports of the sun flames of summer and the icy winds of winter, broken in spirit, worn with travail, imploring Thee for the refuge of the grave and denied it.

~Mark Twain, \”The War Prayer\”

Mark Twain dictated this poem in 1904, and it professes to capture the horrors of battle.  Unfortunately, Twain would have had many more horrors to write about had he ever visited Disney World.

It was with this attitude that I took my family down to Florida this past week for a trip to the Magic Kingdom.  As a professional misanthrope, I was not looking forward to this trip at all.  It seemed to involve a lot of walking and purchasing, where my ideal vacation rarely involves me leaving the supine position.  And as it turned out, it was more work than actually being at home.  By day three, I needed a vacation from my vacation.  But I thought my kids were ready for the experience, and parents and sisters were all going, so I felt obligated.

The thing I dreaded the most was the compulsory obeisance the Disney company forces on families.  Being in the complex is really like being in a Disney sensory deprivation chamber – as if nothing that didn\’t involve Donald Duck could be happening in the world.  No television, no internet.  I ran into a restaurant to pick up a pizza one night, and caught a little bit of ESPN (another Disney property) out of the corner of my eye.  It was telling me the Tampa Bay Buccaneers had hired a new head coach.  I had to text my friend Mark to find out what happened to John Gruden.  Maybe this is just a statement on how wired we all are now to get instantaneous information, but it was unsettling.  For all I knew, a fiery meteor could have just taken out Wisconsin (or, fingers crossed, Illinois), and I\’d be sitting there happily, chowing down on some Buzz Lightyear ribs.

The other thing that struck me about the parks was how anachronistic they are.  Everything still has the feel of when I first visited 20 years ago.  This is strange, since the properties that are carrying Disney aren\’t the same ones I grew up with.  Mickey and Minnie have been replaced by Wall-E, the Incredibles, High School Musical, and Lightning McQueen.  Yet when you walk around the parks, these characters are nearly invisible.  In fact, it appears they are now just getting around to crafting some Toy Story rides, and that movie came out a decade ago.

On the one hand, it makes sense that they would want to stay rooted in the original Disney characters that have served them so well for so long.  And it certainly costs a lot of money to create a new ride with the newer characters in mind.  You don\’t want to build an expensive ride for a property that may be fleeting – for instance, there are a couple of attractions centered around \”Honey, I Shrunk the Kids,\” a movie that hasn\’t been played on any DVD player in America in 5 years.

But it does make the parks seem hopefully out of date.  When rides at Epcot are still hailing the advent of FIBER OPTICS, it may be time for a facelift.  It appears the only 21st century upgrades in the whole complex are the new inventions that allow them to vacuum money directly out of your wallet.  When we walked by the Hall of Presidents and noticed that it was closed, I figured they had to re-do the whole show to indicate that black people, in fact, now can be President.  I wonder how long it takes them to build a whole new robot Obama (or ROBAMA, a name I hereby coin as my own.)  In fact, my favorite rollercoaster happened to be \”Women Can\’t Vote Mountain.\”

(For an excellent piece by P.J. O\’Rourke  about how Disney fights to remain cutting edge, read here.)

Despite my general crankiness about being held hostage to the Mouse, it is impossible to be negative when your kids are having so much fun.  And my kids were having the time of their lives – although, as parents know, it\’s always a bittersweet experience when your kids are so happy.  Because in the back of your mind, you know that there will quickly come a point when your kids realize that they will have to stop doing what is thrilling them to death.  Then, it is payback.  You will, without a doubt, get more blame for making them leave Disney World than you will get credit for taking them in the first place.  You just have to hope that at some point in their 20\’s, they have a flashback that Mom and Dad may not have been so bad.

Our third day there, my mother shelled out big money for my daughter to get a princess makeover at the \”Bibbidi Bobbidi Boutique,\” which dresses little girls up as their favorite Disney princess.  This was a risky proposition for my 5 year-old daughter, as she almost seems to be equal parts diva and tomboy.  It all depended on what mood she was in.  Plus, the whole thing kind of seemed to be a little \”stage parent\” for me – carting your daughter around a park dressed as a princess just felt a little too \”Jon Benet.\”  As I stood outside the boutique waiting for the makeover to finish, at least 70% of the poor little girls walking out of their makeovers were crying.  It\’s as if they were showing \”Schindler\’s List\” in there.

Ater the makeover, it became clear that my daughter has some issues with being the center of attention – although she warmed to the outfit and actually demanded that she get to wear the dress to the park the next day.  On the other hand, my 3 year-old son is the exact opposite – he is \”Mr. Entertainment.\”  At a Canadian Epcot steakhouse, he could be found holding court for the entire restaurant on a variety of issues: How much he loves elevators, how much he dislikes snakes, and how he thinks turkeys like potato chips.  To top things off, he treated the restaurant to renditions of \”Amazing Grace,\” \”The Star Spangled Banner,\” and Take Me Out to the Ballgame.\”

For my son, however, the highlight had to be the monorail.  Had we not paid a cent to get into a park, he would have been happy just riding the rail for five days.  (Advocates of the Kenosha-Racine rail should hire him as their spokesman.)  In fact, I took him to ride the train in a loop one last time before we left for the airport – and he sadly said goodbye to the monorail.  I have to admit – it really is a great system of moving people around the various parks.  Now, if I can only get one to take me from my couch to my fridge, we\’ll be okay.  (I had to laugh when the announcer on the monorail bragged about how \”ecologically friendly\” the trains were.  As if Disney didn\’t have a larger carbon footprint than most underdeveloped nations.)

While my son was preoccupied with the monorail, my daughter kept dragging me around to more and more rides.  I loved pretending to be scared of the rollercoasters, which allowed her to pat me on the back and gently tell me to \”stop being so chicken.\”  It made her feel great to think she was braver than her old man (and in the case of Space Mountain, which she rode 4 times, she was absolutely right.)

While the crowds did get pretty thick at times, we were always there early and able to hit the rides without much waiting in line.  The park obviously does seem a lot smaller than when I was a little kid, but that may be because people now are so much fatter.  Honest to God – you can\’t walk around anywhere in America now without thinking half the people walking around are about to have a coronary.  And we\’re going to be paying for these peoples\’ health care.  You know on the Foghorn Leghorn cartoons when the little Hawk gets hungry and sees Foghorn as a giant roasted turkey?  I see these people walking around as giant paycheck deductions.

There also seemed to be a group from the Middle East that overtook the Magic Kingdom on Sunday.  They all come wearing the same t-shirt, following someone with a giant flag.  Granted, I have no idea where they were from – but it would be strange if their conceptions of America were derived from Disney World.  They probably still wish death to America – but not until they ride Splash Mountain one more time.

At Epcot, there was also a large group of teens wearing \”Faith in 3-D\” t-shirts, which I assume is some religious organization.  Seems to be that there\’s no better way to get laid as a male teen than going on a trip to Disney with a bunch of Jesus people.  There were a lot of Wisconsin people there – and this is what I love most about people from here: They think they are doing you a disservice by not announcing to you that they are from Wisconsin.  As if your life is poorer if they don\’t wear Badger, Packer, or Brewer paraphernalia.  And they are always friendly.  I love this place.

As for the parks themselves, my kids liked the Magic Kingdom the most, followed by Epcot, which doesn\’t have many rides for their age group.  Hollywood Studios pretty much blows.  Didn\’t make it to the Animal Kingdom.  And Downtown Disney is just a bunch of stores that consolidates all the Mickey Mouse junk you can buy in the parks.

Even though it was 70 degrees and sunny while we were there, I am certainly happy to be home.  Now, after my vacation, I can finally rest.

The Wood Paradox

January 14, 2009 / / 2 Comments

It has been a month and two days since State Representative Jeff Wood was arrested for drunk driving and possession of marijuana.  Just yesterday, he was officially charged with his 3rd OWI and the drug charges.  At the time of his arrest, I had a little fun at Wood’s expense, although I now admit I probably went a little overboard.

Needless to say, Wood picked the wrong time to get busted drinking and driving.  Newspapers across the state have declared a fatwa against drunk driving, publishing story after story in an attempt to get lawmakers to toughen up Wisconsin’s OWI laws.

But what’s most interesting to me isn’t necessarily the fact that Wood was finally charged – I’m more interested in why we still care about what he did.  It’s not like legislators driving drunk is a new phenomenon – one seems to get popped every couple of months.  Yet those cases disappear in the public’s consciousness within days.  (Except, most notably, in the case of the state’s top cop, former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager.)

It’s not even as if Wood’s urinating on the side of the road is unprecedented.  Former State Assemblyman Frank Boyle famously ran his car into a concrete barrier and urinated in his pants before cops picked him up.  Boyle went on to be re-elected twice more by his constituents – a fate that currently seems out of Wood’s reach.

This brings us to what I’d call “The Wood Paradox,” which is this:  The reason Wood’s case is so titillating to the public happens to be due to the least dangerous and offensive thing he actually did.  I am referring, of course, to the charge of marijuana possession.

As I mentioned, elected official drunk driving arrests come and go, and usually elicit yawns.  But Wood’s became statewide news because he had marijuana – an illegal drug – on his person.  Suddenly, this arrest was outside of the mold we have set for elected official arrests, which made it exponentially more newsworthy.

But honestly, what’s really the most dangerous thing he did that night?  It was climbing into his car and trying to make a 4 hour drive home while drunk.  But somehow, that’s just boring to us now.  We need a little sizzle to our legislative arrests.

Which brings me, mercifully, to my main point.  Who really cares if a 39 year old guy has marijuana on him?  It impacts my life exactly zero percent if a guy decides to go home, smoke up, and watch reruns of The Jeffersons all night.  If you’re working the counter at a gas station all day, go ahead – what do I care? Dying of cancer?  I’ll buy you a bong. (Naturally, it would be an issue if Wood were high and driving around – but it appears in this instance, alcohol was the drug of choice.)

Normally, when people are compelled to write columns about marijuana use, they have strong opinions about whether the law should either be strengthened or weakened.  I, on the other hand, have a different perspective – I’d strenuously argue that the law is pretty much fine the way it is.  (When I eventually run for office, my signs will say “Vote Schneider for a stronger status quo!”)  It’s just tough enough to scare high school kids wanting to go to college away from trying it, but lenient enough that the people who really want to smoke up don’t really treat it like it’s illegal.  It really takes minimal effort to skirt the law.

Marijuana opponents would say that weed makes people stupid and lazy.  Perhaps this is true.  But in the event these people are already dumb, a good argument could be made that marijuana actually keeps them at home and out of my grocery lines.  And that could be a potential benefit.  A friend of mine warned that marijuana also makes people think they can play the guitar – and one day, a terrible, high guitar player might attempt to woo my daughter.  So, basically, this column could be ruining her life.

What Jeff Wood did was terrible.  The fact that he has now been pinched three times for it is even worse.  But the fact that he had marijuana on his person really means nothing.  It didn’t make a single person in this state either more or less safe – so we should stop feigning indignance at his newfound status as a drug offender.  We shouldn’t be saying “oooh, drugs!” instead of “you know… he really could have killed someone.”  Drunk driving should never be more socially acceptable than carrying around a dime bag.

When is it NOT Bacon O\’Clock?

January 13, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Spend Less Tax Money, Get Healthier

January 12, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Every year in the United States, various levels of government spend trillions of dollars to help treat illnesses. Our government is adept at spending money on the back end to ameliorate the effects of disease. But what if government spending itself was to blame for much of the sickness?

Take, for example, the federal government’s farm subsidy policies, which pump billions of dollars into the production of certain crops – most notably, corn. Between 1995 and 2006, taxpayers have shelled out $56.1 billion in corn subsidies. That’s nearly three times as much as the next two closest subsidies, wheat and cotton. Between 1995 and 2006, Wisconsin farmers have collected $2.4 billion in corn subsidies.

These subsidies have profound effects in many areas, from the environment to our health. Corn subsidies make it profitable for farmers to plant crops in areas that may previously not have been profitable, which encourages the clearing of forest land and natural habitat for farming. The total planted area of corn, at 93.6 million acres, is up 19 percent from last year, to the highest level since 1944.

But perhaps more importantly, federal subsidies encourage the overproduction of corn, which may be contributing to the deterioration of our health in America. Prior to 1973, the federal subsidy program kept family farms afloat by limiting the amount of corn in production. Essentially, the federal government paid farmers not to farm. In 1973, with lawmakers recognizing the absurdity of paying farmers not to plant certain crops to control the supply, the program was reorganized to promote more production.

Since 1973, production of corn has skyrocketed, due to the combination of subsidies and improved farming technology. These improvements in technology, including fertilization with anhydrous ammonia, gives rise to yields of up to four times what the same land could produce 50 years ago. With these improvements, corn can grow closer to each other, yielding more per acre.

All that corn, however, has to go somewhere. And a great deal of it is working its way into our food and drink, with damaging results. Take, for example, the use of high fructose corn syrup – a sweetener that didn’t exist 30 years ago now inhabits virtually everything you find on a supermarket shelf. Corn subsidies have drastically reduced the cost of high fructose corn syrup, which has made it the primary sweetener in soda, juice, jellies, ketchup, and other processed foods. While studies show the consumption of sugar in America is down, the consumption of high fructose corn syrup has skyrocketed.

While there are numerous studies linking high fructose corn syrup to increased obesity, corn supporters continue to argue that it contains similar ingredients as regular sugar, all things being equal. However, government subsidies, which keep the cost of high fructose corn syrup extremely low, make products that incorporate it extremely inexpensive. As a result, consumers have an incentive to purchase high fructose corn syrup-based products, as they are much cheaper than products sweetened with sugar (which has been subject to a substantial importation tax since 1977.) Thus, high fructose corn syrup products are being consumed at rates well beyond what we saw with sugar, and far in excess of what can be considered healthy.

Meat hasn’t escaped the effects of government corn subsidies, either. During the last 30 years, the avalanche of corn production has also caused it to replace grass as the primary cattle feed. Subsidies make corn cheap, which means more feed for more cattle. As a result, livestock are being fed until they nearly burst, resulting in fattier cuts of meat in our grocery stores and hamburgers. Loren Cordain of the University of Colorado has estimated that a typical grain fed t-bone steak might have 9 grams of saturated fat, while a grass fed steak might have 1.3 grams of saturated fat.

Naturally, much of this cheap, low-quality meat finds its way into our fast food restaurants, which, as a result of corn subsidies, can sell its food for virtually nothing and still make a profit. While, ultimately, everyone is responsible for what they put in their own mouths, markets also determine what people purchase. This exposes one of the ironies of America – it tends to be the poorest people who have the highest incidences of obesity and Type II diabetes – both of which have risen sharply since the corn explosion. This is because the cheapest food tends to be the most toxic to our health. Subsidies make unhealthy food cheaper, and when something’s cheap, people will buy more of it. So when you do go to McDonald’s and enjoy a Big Mac, keep in mind – your tax dollars helped pay for it.

So how unhealthy is America since corn subsidies made their way into the farm program? According to a 2008 study, more than 25 percent of adults are obese in 28 states, up from 19 states in 2007. More than 20 percent of adults are obese in every state except Colorado. In 1991, no state had an obesity rate greater than 20 percent. According to the same study, an estimated two-thirds of Americans are now overweight or obese. That compares to 1980, when the national average of obese adults was 15 percent. According to the U.S. National Institutes of Health, obesity is also linked to type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease and stroke, cancer, osteoarthritis, gall bladder disease, liver disease and pregnancy complications.

So the next time you see a report on how much more spending we need on health care in Wisconsin, think to yourself – how much healthier can we make ourselves by scaling back spending on things like farm subsidies? If we cease making unhealthy food artificially cheap, we can end the cycle of encouraging dangerous eating, and save our health in the long run.

-January 12, 2009

Our Chubby Government

January 12, 2009 / / 0 Comments

People who know me know that I\’m certainly no lettuce and granola-chomping hippie.  But I am completely open to being convinced that food companies are trying to kill me.

Today over at WPRI, I posted an article about how government subsidies for certain agricultural crops (such as corn) actually distort the market, making it more appealing to eat crappy food.  Subsidies make sweeteners like high fructose corn syrup more affordable, thus making unhealthy food the most marketable to low-income American citizens.  While most people think the answer to health care is spending more money for care on the back end, it might actually do us some good to spend less money on government subsidies for corn.

If you\’re interested in this topic, I\’d also recommend you watch the movie \”King Corn,\” which follows two recent college graduates as they attempt to become corn farmers.  You can watch it free online if you have Netflix:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

The Daily Reader

January 12, 2009 / / 0 Comments

This morning, I stopped into a gas station to get a snack.  After I paid, I turned to walk out and noticed a 70 year-old-ish, rugged man coming out of the bathroom holding a newspaper.  He then proceeded to walk over, drop the newspaper on the stack of papers for sale, and leave the gas station.  It appears he was just taking the Wisconsin State Journal for a trial run while in the can.

God bless that guy.  Livin\’ the dream.

What Goes Around

January 10, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Finally, once again, there\’s hope for the hirsute.

Demolishing a Historical Site

January 8, 2009 / / 3 Comments

Despite the state facing a $5.4 billion deficit, it appears Wisconsin taxpayers are about to become the proud owners of Supreme Video, an adult video store in Oshkosh.  In order to clear land to widen U.S. Highway 41, the state Department of Transportation is negotiating to purchase the video store, rather than using eminent domain.  There’s no word on whether taxpayers will be able to lay claim to the store’s contents.

Of course, during the negotiations, there appears to be no discussion of what a historical site Supreme Video has become in Wisconsin politics.  You may remember that Supreme is the place former Wisconsin State Senator Gerald Lorge was arrested in August of 2000, for soliciting sex from an undercover male police officer.  From the Wisconsin State Journal’s account:

Former state Sen. Gerald Lorge exposed himself to an undercover police officer at an adult bookstore and then begged the officer not to arrest him, according to a complaint charging him with lewd and lascivious behavior.

The charge was filed Tuesday in Winnebago County Circuit Court involving an Aug. 2 incident at Supreme Video in Oshkosh.

Lorge, a 78-year-old Republican from Bear Creek, faces $ 10,000 in fines and nine months in prison if convicted of the charge.

The complaint said Lorge exposed himself to an undercover police officer while in a booth at the store and asked the officer to perform oral sex on him.

After he was arrested, Lorge told the officer that he had been ”a state senator for 30 years and that this would ruin him,” the complaint said.

Of course, that is the sanitized version of what happened.  At some point, I had in my possession the actual police report, which likely remains the funniest legal documents ever produced in Wisconsin.  I’d try to quote from it, but I’d want to get it just right, and the actual details probably don’t belong on this blog anyway.  Just trust me – it’s one of the more fantastic arrest reports that has ever existed.

In any event, the state is about to own this site.  So highway or no highway, I think the DOT could at least commemorate the piece of land with a plaque of some kind.  It deserves at least that much.

UPDATE:  The text of the criminal complaint has been obtained.  Get your popcorn and read it here.

My Little Button

January 7, 2009 / / 0 Comments

Over the weekend, my lovely wife and I went to see \”The Curious Case of Benjamin Button.\” I thought it was actually pretty good, and I have to admit that I got a little misty at the end. As everyone knows by now, it stars Brad Pitt as a man who is born as an 80-year old and ages backwards – so when he\’s 5 years old, he has the body of a 75 year-old, and when he\’s 75, he has the body of a 5 year-old. You get the picture.

The movie only spends a brief time on Pitt\’s real age (65). And Cate Blanchett doesn\’t show a single wrinkle until she turns 50. But the technical accomplishments are amazing – it actually distracts from the movie quite a bit. When you should be making some emotional connection, you\’re instead wondering \”how the hell did they do that?\” My wife and I debated which was probably harder – making Brad Pitt look 75, or making him look 16. Feel free to discuss amongst yourselves at home.

Of course, the whole storyline of a man aging backwards is implausible. But when we got home from the flick, I looked at my 3-year old son in a completely different way. I began to realize that it\’s entirely possible that he is actually 77 years old. In fact, it\’s likely, given the time-tested torture techniques he uses against me and my wife. I\’m guessing he was once a young officer in the KGB, learning all the painful ways to extract information from political prisoners.

For instance, he has gotten into a habit of running up to you, shaking his tail in your face, and yelling \”BOOTY BUTT!\” And he stays on that line for a good half hour.

\”BOOTY BUTT!\”
\”BOOTY BUTT!\”
\”BOOTY BUTT!\”

Sure it may sound cute – but I\’m pretty sure that is the same method used by Mao Zedong to punish political dissidents. And how would my son know that?

Think about it. You should probably call in sick to work today to contemplate it, actually.

He has also taken to repeating the words of this song over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over, AND OVER. As I wrote in my Christmas letter, cultural anthropologists will one day look at my son as the child who changed the saying from \”terrible twos\” to \”daddy needs a drink threes.\”

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

THAT\’S NOT MY NAME!
THAT\’S NOT MY NAME!

Announcing My Retirement

January 5, 2009 / / 2 Comments

Lately, I\’ve been trying to read as many American classic novels as possible.  I realized I can\’t very well ridicule people for not having read the great works if I haven\’t read them myself.  So it was on Sunday night, when I had the choice of settling down to read Joseph Heller\’s Catch 22 or watch the third installment of Bret Michaels\’ trashy reality dating trilogy,  \”Rock of Love Bus.\”  I watched Rock of Love Bus.

After having watched an hour and a half long exhibition of venereal fireworks, I have to declare: I hereby retire from watching trashy television.  It has simply gone too far.

Readers of this blog know that I am certainly no prude – I have taken much delight in past Rock of Love episodes, despite the better-than-break-even chance I might catch hepatitis merely by watching them.  But this new version of the show makes seasons one and two look like Hamlet.  It appears the show\’s producers have edited out any scene where a horrifically chemically altered stripper isn\’t 1) drunk and pouring beer on another stripper, 2) throwing up and eating Doritos to cover the stench on her breath when she tongue kisses Bret shortly thereafter, or 3) offering to have Bret do a shot of alcohol from her birth canal.  And yes, that absolutely did happen.  Don\’t believe me?

I am out of ways to describe this show.  It is simply basic cable pornography, and I can\’t justify wasting 13 hours of my life on it.  Economists have a way of measuring the value of time – basically, your time is worth the best possible thing you could be doing with it.  So think of what I could be doing with that 13 hours over the next three months, and calculate all the brain cells I could be strengthening during that period.

As it happens, I just read a book that touched on the womens\’ suffrage movement of the 1920s, and all the work women had to do to gain equal rights in this country.  Here we are, 90 years later, and it appears that those hard-fought battles have been parlayed into the right to use your reproductive organ as a shot glass on national television.  Think about it – some child is going to pass through there one of these days – I wonder if he\’ll know enough to tip the bartender on the way out.  Of course, that will be the last thing he sees of his mother before spending his boyhood with child protective services.

Now that I think of it, this show might actually be the catalyst to revoking womens\’ right to vote.  If any congressman saw 10 minutes of this show, he\’d be drafting a constitutional amendment before any of these tattooed slatterns can cancel out the vote of someone who can read.

The paperwork will be filed tomorrow.

© 2024 Christian Schneider

Follow me at Mastodon