False Economy

Last week I was amused by the fact that it took pointing out that Congressmen got $31,000 in raises since the last hike in the minimum wage before the House of Representatives was willing to put together a bill. Of course this wage hike for millions of workers was attached to a huge cut in estate taxes for people with multi-million dollar net worth that is widely regarded as a “poison pill” Just for reference, the $31,000 in Congressional raises works out to 6,019 hours of work at minimum wage, or at 40 hours per week, just under 3 years of work at minimum wage. Yeah, that’s right. Just the annual raise would take 3 years for a minimum wager to earn. If the rise in minimum wage actually goes through, the raise will only be 4,276 hours of minimum wage work, about 2 years of work assuming a little overtime.

By way of reference, this raise would directly benefit over 7 million workers, 70% of whom are adults — not teenagers. The majority of the workers in question are women, and a third of them are the sole wage-earners for their families. Furthermore, 22 states have enacted higher minimum wages than the federal standard. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics there are 144 million people employed right now in the United States. So by my math, just under one out of every 20 employed Americans would get a raise under this bill.

I confess, I used to be one of those people who was against raising the minimum wage. I was a young worker, and thought that raising the minimum wage would make older (more desperate) workers more attractive to the sorts of employers who pay minimum wage. I now see that wages today are artificially depressed by several factors. Sure, in an ideal world wages would be raised not by government fiat, but by workers saying “no, I can’t afford to pay my bills for that, so you will have to pay me more,” and employers responding “well, that’s what everybody else says too, so I guess I will have to pay you what you are worth.” For those that say a raise in the minimum wage would result in inflation, I reply that low-income people spend most if not all of what they earn; if they have more money to spend, they will spend it, and that is good for the economy.

On one hand, 13% of men aged 30-55 have dropped out of the workforce, due to a combination of not being able to find jobs as good as the ones they lost, wives who do work, home equity loans, and sometimes-trumped-up disabilities. The money quote:

Many of the nonworking American men could find work if they had to, but at lower pay and fewer benefits than they once earned, and they have decided that they prefer the alternative. It is a significant cultural shift in the country from three decades ago, when men almost invariably went back into the work force after losing a job and were more often able to find a new one that met their needs.

Translation: if the economy were really as good as it was in the 70s, these men would have moved on to other jobs that, if not better, at least “met their needs.” Unspoken: or gone into business for themselves. Let’s say for the sake of argument that most of these men should be in the workplace, and that this is an artificial contraint of labor supply. As a footnote, could the low minimum wage and the ability of these men to “just say no to low wages” be part of the reason the majority of minimum wagers are adult women?

Now, it would be easy, nay a cheap shot, to say that welfare reform artifically grew the labor supply by “forcing lazy welfare recipients to get jobs.” Well, that represents maybe 4 million workers, sure. And they are barely getting by, “working long hours despite low wages, shrinking health-insurance coverage and serious trade-offs between work and decent care for their children.” These people would certainly benefit from higher wages, but more so from universal health care and fundamental changes to their childcare arrangements. Oh, and that says nothing of dealing with the fundamental additional expenses of being poor in the first place. Unfortunately, none of those things are on the Congressional agenda, but a minimum wage hike is.

You cannot reasonably talk about why low-wage earners earn so little without talking about the elephant in the kitchen: illegal immigration. Do not get me wrong, I am not against immigration; like almost all Americans, most of my forbears came to this country sometime after 1607. But there are 2 major problems with hiring illegal immigrants. First — as I have said many times before — there is no way to know which of them are just people trying to get by and which of them are involved in drug-running, human smuggling, human slavery, forced prostitution, organized crime, and/or terrorism.

The second problem is that the sort of employer who doesn’t mind if his employees aren’t legal doesn’t mind ignoring other laws while he’s at it. Laws like workplace safety regulations, overtime laws, and even that minimum wage law we were discussing. So not only are we talking about millions of people artificially increasing the labor supply, they might not even be getting minimum wage. Furthermore, they may be working way more than 40 hours a week, and they may be working in an unsafe environment that a legal worker simply wouldn’t tolerate. When one out of every 7 Mexican workers is working in the United States — and most send money home — we cannot be too surprised that Americans are having a hard time finding jobs (I will leave the possible impact on the trade deficit to the reader’s imagination). Although the official numbers estimate 11 or 12 million illegal immigrant workers, some experts think the number is closer to 20 million. Or back to the BLS statistics, or almost 14% of the American workforce. Elephant in the kitchen? It’s a whole herd of elephants.

The Feds are finally starting to come down on employers who break the law by employing illegal workers. But frankly, if they were serious, they would not be going after small time operators with a few dozen employees. Nope, if they want to get the job done, go after some big companies.

Hey, if they need to protect their big-business benefactors, just send a little note to the CEOs of the S&P 500 companies letting them know they have 30 days to get their acts together before the raid.

In closing: 100 years of progress; about freaking time they did something to prevent unwanted pregnancy, the leading cause of abortion; it turns out that people will eat as much as they can fit in the container, regardless of container size; and it’s vaccination time! Quick question, which is cheaper: $360 for a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer — you know, should your daughter be sexually assaulted or have an unfaithful husband or just use the wrong hot tub — or thousands of dollars to treat that cancer?

One House, Two House; Red House, Blue House

So today we learned that consumer confidence is not that bad, but these readings were taken before record gas prices, rising oil prices, yet more war breaking out in the Middle East, and a slowing housing market. I’d like to examine the housing market in more detail today.

Although Mr. Bernanke tells us that “The downturn in the housing market so far appears to be orderly,” it is worth noting that he admits the housing market is having a downturn. The Washington Post outlines the numbers for us: sales slowest since January; weakest price increases in 11 years; condo sales “tumbled”; a decline in sales of 8.9 compared to June of last year; 6.8 months supply of homes on the market, when most realtors sign 90 day agreements. It isn’t a disaster, but it isn’t good either.

This morning, as I was listening to the duelling pundits on CNBC, somebody offered the semi-helpful advice that you shouldn’t “worry” about a declining real estate market unless you are in an “overheated” area of the country — and he wasn’t talking about the weather.

That got me thinking about this item from over the weekend about how high housing prices are squeezing the middle class who can’t afford luxury homes, yet make too much for subsidized housing. But look at some of the cities mentioned. They are the obvious suspects: New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston, San Diego. Places where the local economy is OK and conditions in the city are improving. But unfortunately places where enough people want to live that home prices are rising faster than the wages that would pay for such a home. Although that particular article does not mention the Seattle area, today’s local news informs me that even in suburban areas a county over basic 2 bedroom homes (with no view and a small lot) are half a million dollars.

All these housing markets are in “Blue” states.

Remember this story about people getting out of overheated housing markets? Most of those overheated markets are in liberal areas. The Atlanta Journal Constitution tells us the housing market in the South is holding up well, but then they mention that “Atlanta’s price increases have been far less dramatic” than in other areas of the country. The South was pretty Republican last election. The Real Estate Journal helpfully tells us that Some Housing Markets Are Grossly Overheated

It’s one thing to look at a and it’s another thing to look at a map. And now, compare that map of hot housing markets to this map of 2004 electoral votes.

When you look at those maps together, it becomes even more clear that with the exception of Florida, most of the overheated housing markets — where everybody wants to live and work regardless of cost — are in areas that vote with a progressive agenda. It is reasonable to suspect that voting on local and state issues is more or less in line with voting on Federal issues.

Why is that?

Could it be that progressive policies result in desirable living conditions? Do progressive policies result in relatively stronger local economies?

Alternatively, could it be that states with very conservative policies end up having less desirable living/economic conditions?

Just asking.

In closing: Barry Manilow may be harmful to your budget; a food columnist at the L. A. Times describes KFC’s “Famous Bowls” (because they contain pretty much everything KFC is “famous” for, get it) as “It’s like throwing up in reverse”; “This Isn’t World War III”; normal everyday people might end up on international terror watchlists simply because it’s been a slow month as a result of air marshal incident quotas; survey shows Americans beleive a lot of things that are untrue about Iraq (see sources such as this item on reconstruction and this item on Americans ordered to kill all military aged men and boys — way to win hearts and minds, create desperately poor widows in a society where women can’t work, and commit war crimes all at once — and this item on how the WMD being found are all from the 1980s); The New York Times reports that most states aren’t meeting NCLB requirements; and finally 95 Theses for the technological age.

John Carpenter Presents “Big Trouble in Little Shorties”

The Bad Idea that Wouldn’t Die! Somehow “Social Security Reform” still includes the idea of private retirement accounts. Private accounts mean less money goes to the Social Security fund, and “everybody knows” the problem is that the fund won’t have enough money! If the goal is really — as proponents claim — to have more people investing more money towards their own retirements, raise the limit on IRA contributions.

Fisher-Price My First Veto. Bush’s first veto — be sure to look at the graph near the bottom of the article — happens to be for a bill the vast majority of Americans want passed! Do not be fooled. Embryonic stem cell research is not “killing babies.” It is using extra embryos from IVF treatments — with permission of the donors — that would otherwise be flushed down the drain. This usage would ultimately help save people who have actually been born. For more information on the bill and it’s possible future, take a look at what Tom Harkin has to say.

A study documents what many apartment managers already knew, the additional expenses associated with being poor in the city are pretty steep. The catch-22 is that if they were in a better neighborhood they would be spending less money, but they can’t afford to get out of the neighborhood because they are spending so much money.

Workplace Zen! A local bar has been fined for not going “smoke free.” The quote that blows my mind, emphasis mine: “[The manager] said the club had tried to establish a smoking room, but it was not approved because employees were exposed to the smoke. She said the law’s protection of employees ‘doesn’t make sense’ because employees can find work elsewhere if they wish.” Now don’t get me wrong, I voted against the smoking ban. I thought it was dumb to make it law. But I am deeply offended by the concept of “If you don’t like a workplace littered with known carcinogens, find another job!” All I can say is that Mr. Smithers had better watch his step if Montgomery Burns ever gets wind of this manager!

There’s Evangelical Christians, and then a bit farther to the right, there’s Christian Nationalists.

And finally, I summon the Iron Science Teacher!

Here We Go Again

I happened to check in on CNN.com and found this article entitled “Republicans unveil $100 million school voucher plan.”

Even though the Department of Education “just released a study that raises questions about whether private schools offer any advantage over public ones,” Congress wants to give families in poor schools up to $4000 towards private school tuition. “Supporters say poor parents deserve choices, like rich families have,” the article points out.

Ok. Time for Google-fu. From this site, you can find out what the accredited private schools in your area are. Remember, if it isn’t accredited, you should ask why. These days, most schools have websites. For example, if you live in Las Vegas, you will find a list which includes Las Vegas Day School, and if you enter that into the search engine of your choice (if ths school name doesn’t include a city, add it), you will find it — oddly enough — at www.lasvegasdayschool.com. With a little digging, you should be able to find tuition information about most schools, in this case $10,500 per year. This does not include uniforms, book fees, extracurriculars, transportation, or “After School Study Hall.” Please keep in mind, LVDS is a top quality private school. If your kid qualifies, and you can afford it, and there is a seat, by all means send them. Please feel free to research each school in your area. Keep in mind that church run schools can afford to provide education at below cost, and a plan which includes religious schools would probably not pass Constitutional muster. Also keep in mind that very small schools have lower expenses, and may be nothing more than a “front” for a homeschool group. Not that there is anything wrong with homeschooling, but homeschool is not a private school.

Finished the research? Good. So now you have a pretty good idea what tuition at a private school in your area costs? I bet it’s more than $4000 per year.

Now let’s move on to this report which tells us (emphasis mine):

[T]his report details the results of the Goldwater Institute’s first annual statewide survey of Arizona private schools, representing over 20 percent of private schools in Arizona. It shows that private schools serve a diverse student population and offer a variety of curricula at roughly half the average public school expenditure of $7,816 per student. The average private elementary and middle school tuition is $3,700, and 89 percent of private schools offer financial aid. Three-quarters of private schools surveyed are sectarian, but 83 percent of those schools do not require religious affiliation for admission. Ninety-three percent of private schools surveyed administer standardized tests annually. Nearly 80 percent of private schools surveyed offer kindergarten, and 49 percent offer preschool programs. Forty-three percent of Arizona private schools surveyed accept special needs students, and nearly half of them have room for more. Private schools typically have half the student population of public schools and have smaller classes, 14 students per teacher compared to 18 students per teacher in public schools on average.

To review, they got data from one out of every 5 private schools in one state. Most of them offered financial aid despite the fact that I have yet to encounter a private school that did so. Among those schools, 75% were religious and probably won’t be able to receive Federal funds. Is “average” the mean or the median? Does the “average” figure of $3700 include unaccredited schools? Does it include very small schools? Oh yeah, and at over half of these schools, good luck if your kid has any kind of “special need.”

Oh, and by the way, where is the money to fund this going to come from? The Social Security lockbox?? Congress and the President keep talking about bringing the budget deficit down, but then they turn around and offer to spend $100,000,000.00!

A voucher of $4000 is a cruel joke on the middle class. For more of my musings on this topic, see my fourth post. In that very early post I also point out that voucher programs can result in de facto government control of private schools (“If you want the money, you have to do things our way”). I don’t think anybody wants that.

The nice folks at NYC Educator also have things to say about this, and I’m sure other education-centered blogs will weigh in Shortly.

You and What Army?

Some time back, I had the opportunity to discuss the First Amendment to the Constitution. Inasmuch as I support Constitutional Rights, I hope to discuss all of them outlined in the Bill of Rights in due time. That being the case, please forgive the delay as I am quite alarmingly overdue to discuss the Second Amendment. You’ll find it here, but the relevant text is:

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


This poor sentence has been subjected to so much scrutiny and twisting, so much debate and rhetoric. Some people say it means we all have the right to have any kind of gun we like. Others say it only means the military has a right to guns, an idea which seems redundant. Still others say the whole thing is outdated and needs to be reigned in with regulations, a tricky arrangement unless the whole thing is repealed.

When interpreting the sentence in question, it is useful to remember its context. So I direct you to the top of the page, where the Preamble to the Bill of Rights begins:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So let’s keep in mind as we read that the purpose of this sentence and the entire Bill of Rights is “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Government’s] powers.” Indeed, “During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.”

I have often condensed this line of reasoning as “Remember that the Bill of Rights was written by people who overthrew the legal British Colonial Government.”

So let’s begin with the concept of the well regulated militia. Militia is easily understood. Well regulated is another story, because in my opinion it means multiple things. Remember the story of Paul Revere? He rode through the countryside, raising the alarm that the British were planning an attack. This warning allowed Colonial citizens to band together as a militia and repel the attack. Of course his deeds are exaggerated in the famous poem, but Wikipedia informs us that “He used his numerous contacts in eastern Massachusetts to devise a system for the rapid call up of the militias to oppose the British. Although several messengers rode longer and alerted more soldiers than Revere that night, they were part of the organization that Revere created and implemented in eastern New England. Some claim that Paul Revere became famous while Dawes and Prescott did not because Revere was better known and trusted by those who knew him.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Revere illustrates multiple ways that we can have a “well regulated militia.” The militia in question was a group of more-or-less average fellows who stood up to the trained British regiment. However, they weren’t exactly beating Redcoats over the head with copper-bottomed pots! They had guns, and they knew how to use them. Granted, the modern Army no longer makes soldiers bring their own guns; it provides arms to soldiers, and trains them too. But imagine how much faster a country can mobilize against invasion if there are already people who know how to use basic firearms! General Washington must have been very glad he and so many other lads learned to hunt as a boy.

It is easy to see how the right to bear arms might result in the rapid recruitment and deployment of a militia. But don’t forget the other half of the story. The Minutemen were able to inflict “many casualties” on the well trained, well armed British troops. A “well regulated militia” can also mean that if the need arises, citizens can defend themselves against the troops of their own governement.

Both interpretations are absolutely necessary to the security of a free state, the next phrase of the sentence. To have a a continuing “free state,” we must have security from threats. These threats can be external — like an invading army. Or they can be internal — like an occupying army or Old West Outlaws or a military coup.

That’s a lot of philosophical baggage, and we haven’t even gotten to the main clause of the sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It is worth noting that the right is granted to people. Not men, not adults over the age of 21, not people who are not slaves, not citizens, not even people of sound mind. People. People like you and me and that guy you don’t like over there. Not only do ordinary people have the right “keep arms,” they have the right to “bear” them.

Make no mistake, I think there is plenty of middle ground for common sense regulation that does not “infringe” on the rights in question. I think we can all agree that we don’t want the mentally ill or known criminals carrying guns (with the caveat that we cannot count on known criminals to follow the law). And I don’t really think anybody wants people taking their guns with them to the bank or to school. Furthermore, I do not support “concealed carry” laws; if somebody wants to carry a gun in public, it belongs out in the open so everybody can see it and act accordingly.

I support the right of Joe and Jane Average to have guns; I hope I never feel like I need to have one.

In closing, Lou Dobbs on “The Bush White House and its lackeys in the Senate have reached a new low in their quest to bestow amnesty on 11 million to 20 million illegal immigrants, while doing as little as possible to secure our nation’s borders and ports.” I bet you didn’t even know there was such a thing as Japan’s National Unified Otaku Certification Test. Are the Top Ten College Majors also the next decade’s top ten most glutted professions? Ok, so the problem is that “biases and distortions in the current system had created financial incentives for hospitals to treat certain patients, on whom they could make money, and to avoid others, who were less profitable.” So the solution is to “cut payments by 20 percent to 30 percent for many complex treatments and new technologies.” For reference, “record hospital profit margins” are 5.2%, and that in a year that 25% of hospitals lost money. Here’s two experts on opposite sides of the “Net Neutrality” debate. And finally, Robert Rubin treads lightly as he points out the fact that the growing inequalities in the American economy have possible consequences in the long term, perhaps.

In the Shorties of Darkness

Remember a couple decades ago when kids made fun of fat kids? Aw heck, even films like Full Metal Jacket remind us that being fat used to be stigmatic. Well times have changed! The nice folks at Boing Boing point us to CDC data on the rise of obesity. As one of the Boing Boing commentators points out, this data is based on what people said over the phone to investigators. Now, nobody ever lies about their weight, do they? Yeah right, so these figures are probably optimistic. As if to provide harmony to this continuing song, Alton Brown points out that “Food doesn’t get up and jump down our throats.”

As if it weren’t hard enough for America’s senior citizens to figure out which Medicare prescription drug plan is best for them, it turns out that when they call the companies which offer the plans to ask for more information, they will only get a correct answer about a third of the time, and the mistakes in question can cost “thousands” a year. Oops.

Again, thanks to Boing Boing, a paper on the actual mathematical odds of finding a genuine, bona fide terrorist through the monitoring of “all” phone calls and e-mail. For those of you who are impatient, the odds of finding a real terrorist is almost zero.

Thanks to Atrios and the folks at Eschaton for this one. Will somebody please stick a fork in Leiberman? He’s done! This would be a lovely time for a concession speech. USA Today says his “divisive actions don’t deserve support.” Actions like “fudging facts.” His attempts to form his own political party smell of sour grapes all the way over here on the other coast. What, the Republicans won’t take him? Who is the “Sore Loserman” now? The first DINOsaur* is dying if not dead, let the mass extinction begin; viva Howard Dean.

From Craigslist. “Lost: constitutional rights and safeguards. if found, please return to United States of America.”

New rules promise to reduce welfare rolls by making it more difficult to comply with the requirements, thus insuring an underclass of low wage menial laborers for the next generation.

A researcher finds that there are “two types of genius.” In short, those who peak young, and those who get better with time.

A plan, called Grass Banks, is trying to create a win-win situation for ranchers and the environment. So much for the idea that environmentalism costs jobs.

And in closing, “The Cult of Leia’s Metal Bikini.”

*Democrat In Name Only.

Aw Shoot.

It is my personal opinion — and forgive me if you’ve heard me say it before — that everything that goes on at a school needs to be measured by one double edged yardstick: Is it safe, and does it help educate children? If something isn’t safe, it doesn’t belong in school, end of discussion. If it doesn’t help educate children, it is suspect. There’s a lot of leeway on this side, because sometimes non-educational issues effect learning. For example, school breakfast programs don’t really teach kids much (except maybe what a balanced breakfast looks like when it doesn’t include a bowl of sugary, unnaturally colored breakfast cereal), but hungry kids have a hard time thinking about math.

Now, one thing that The People In Charge say is that they want students to be able to solve problems. Many schools have elaborate programs with catchy acronyms to help kids solve problems. Yet actions speak louder than words, and most schools say through their actions that they don’t really care if problems get solved, as long as we can pretend everything is just fine.

All too many times, a problem is misidentified. You have probably had this experience: you try to talk to somebody about a problem, and that somebody focuses on the example you used instead of the underlying issue, or worse yet they percieve the problem as something completely unrelated to the matter at hand.

This brings me to an item I read this morning. “According to the U.S. Department of Education’s latest figures possible, in 2002, more than 2,500 children were expelled from school for a period of one year for bringing a firearm to school.” That’s pretty serious! Granted, there are over 47 million kids, in almost a quarter of a million schools. But to put this in perspective, the number of kids were expelled for bringing firearms to school in 2002 is roughly equal to the number of American soldiers who have died in Iraq to date. Please remember, this is only the number of kids who brought guns to school who were both caught and expelled. There is no way to know how many kids brought guns to school without being caught, or how many were caught but not expelled for some reason.

The item in question, correctly, goes on: “Statistics like this should give us pause and ask, ‘Why and how are children getting their hands on guns?'” Why and How are exactly the right questions, and in the right order! How unfortunate that the rest of the article focuses on the fact that we must keep guns out of the hands of kids because after all guns can kill people.

When I see the examples outlined — kids wanting to make “another Columbine” or “kill classmates and faculty” — I can’t help but ask why?? What is going on at these schools that this seems like a good idea? What is so horrible in that environment that killing people seems like a perfectly good way to solve the problem?

Of course guns are not safe and therefore do not belong in school. However, an environment that makes kids believe violence can solve their problems is also not safe, and also does not belong in school.

In closing: sure, it’s a great idea to send a bunch of white supremacists to be peacekeepers in a place where everybody is brown; the 10 most powerful figures in the Religious Right; you may have a Bad Boss, but I bet he didn’t try to have you put in jail as a terror suspect; and job growth is less than expected, with 121,000 new jobs being created in June (revised May number is 92,000). Remember, the economy needs between 150,000 and 200,000 new jobs in a month just to keep up with new people entering the workforce. So when the White House points out that 1.85 million jobs were created in the last 12 months, they are hoping you won’t notice that barely keeps up with demand.

Please notice, “Teaching, Learning, and Education” is a new topic category here on ShortWoman. I will be revising the category on old items. If you have linked to them, please be aware that you may have to revise the link. Sorry for the inconvenience.

What Happened to our Food??

It seems like when I was a kid, “food poisoning” was something that happened if Aunt Margaret left the macaroni salad in the sun too long, or what your brother got if he actually ate what came out of that puffed-up can in the pantry. Sure, Great Aunt Gertrude said that you should never ever lick the beaters when she made cookies because raw eggs carried a risk of salmonella, but you’d never heard of that actually happening to anybody, and you secretly beleived she told you that just to keep you out of the kitchen while she was baking.

Then we all got older. We would help out in the kitchen, and if a tablespoon or so of ground beef got put into our mouths intead of directly into the meatloaf mix, that was ok. Just don’t ever do that with pork or poultry, ok? Mom would say.

Maybe you remember Thanksgiving turkey. Mom would always get way-too-big a bird and you’d be eating turkey until December 1. And then she’d get a big roast beef for Christmas and the leftovers would last several days. Last year you cooked a turkey for Thanksgiving and the leftovers were barely palatable on the Saturday after. As much as you like roast beef, you didn’t have the courage to cook it yourself.

Then we got older still, and The Authorities said we must be sure we cook meat completely or we risk DEATH from food-bourne pathogens. Now, some of us who had paid attention in Social Studies remembered reading that in third world nations like Ethiopia, they eat raw beef all the time. Some of us started to wonder how exactly they could serve raw beef safely there when we had to cook it silly here, in the land of refrigerators and cattle drives.

Time continued to move, and now Great Aunt Gertrude’s caution is standard, and most people would never think to order a hamburger medium rare — assuming they are someplace where a burger is thick enough to be more than either “raw” or “well done”. I haven’t done beef since 2003, when the United States identified its first case of “mad cow disease.” Now, of course, we are all waiting to see if bird flu will effect poultry flocks in the Western Hemisphere, and whether or not it will spread to humans and become a pandemic.

As if the risk of pathogens was not enough, I first became aware that the food we were eating was maybe not as nutritious as might be optimum a dozen years ago after reading a book called “Please, Doctor, Do Something.” I quickly progressed to the writings of people like Andrew Weil, and came to think that just maybe, more of the household food should come from places that sold organic products. It turns out that many other households have decided the same thing, and now demand for organic products exceeds supply. We already risk weakened rules on organic food, and this news will put further pressure on the system.

My vegetarian friends know that around the beginning of the year, I started asking questions and prowling around for favorite cookbooks. I do not run a fully vegetarian household; it’s loosely pescatarian if not flexitarian. Nor do we eat this way for any kind of spiritual ideal. When I started to consider the idea that “all life is sacred,” I failed to come up with any reason why animal life should be more sacred than plant life. Since just about everything that humans can eat comes from animals or plants, I quickly decided that this was not an adequate yardstick by which I could measure a diet.

Nevertheless, it was clear that our food supply was in trouble, and meat was a riskier proposition than veggies, so we tried “going veggie” for a week. Then we went on a second week. I emptied the freezer of leftover meat one meal at a time, and we kept on eating a largely pescatarian menu. Week after week progressed, and we ate more veggies, fish a couple times a week, but no real meat except occasionally at restaurants. We don’t use a lot of meat substitutes, either.

Fast forward to last week, when for the first time in months, I bought and cooked chicken. More specifically, I bought frozen chicken, took it directly home, put it directly in the freezer, defrosted it days later, and immediately cooked it. If you care, I made Chicken Stroganov, a family favorite that just doesn’t work with tofu. We put the leftovers away immediately after dinner.

The next morning, the leftovers were not fit for human consumption. It was a plastic container of gamey, unappetizing goo.

Our food quality in this nation is continuing to decline. Casual conversations reveal that it is not my imagination that meat just doesn’t keep like it used to. For that matter, onions are much more bitter than they used to be, and tomatos are much mushier than they used to be. The very idea that food quality is declining in quality in “the richest nation on earth” is quite repugnant to me, but I am at a loss for what to do.

What has gone wrong with our food supply, and what can we do to fix it?

In closing, Dick Cheney betting on economic collapse; a late cartoon for Independence Day; we don’t have an illegal immigration problem but rather an illegal employer problem; 20 amazing facts about voting in the United States; maybe we can’t find Osama because we are no longer looking but at least he helped Bush win in 2004; and gas prices stall prices of big vehicles.

The Shorties Have Eyes

It’s a small world, after all. Is so happens we are all more closely related than you probably thought. We all have a common ancestor who lived about 3000 to 5000 years ago.

Experts aren’t sure whether we should actually tell obese kids the truth. The important quote: “If that same person came into your office and had cancer, or was anemic, or had an ear infection, would we be having the same conversation? There are a thousand reasons why this obesity epidemic is so out of control, and one of them is no one wants to talk about it.” Let’s stop pretending that “little” Johnny and Susie have some “baby fat” and admit that maybe their parents should pay a little more attention to what they eat.

In other medical news, “Docs seem to know when speedy C-section is needed.” All I can say to that is I certainly hope so!

The President and his ideological cousins say “How dare the New York Times actually talk about a supposedly secret program that was already openly talked about over 4 years ago!” Excuse me, does anyone beleive that the Evil Terraists are so dumb they don’t know how to launder money?

“Gosh, it seems like soldiers get younger and younger.” Or at least the recruiting materials do.

George Lakoff has more to say. To put it succinctly, “It’s not Bush the man who has been so harmful, it’s the conservative agenda.”

A cartoon you might like.

In this day and age, it is absolutely amazing the strange places you find sexism. What is even more amazing is that many people just won’t talk about their own sexist views.

Remember, “They” hate us for our freedoms.

And finally, a warm welcome to the blogosphere for Maya’s Granny! This is a lady to watch in the future. This post on the HPV vaccine is absolutely on target.