Letters to the Editor
jebldmm
Published Letters: 933 Editor's Choice: 164
-
Food stamps = obesity is their stupidest argument yet
[Read the article: No more food stamps. You've eaten enough]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Any nutritionist will tell you that eating junk is cheaper than eating healthy foods. You can make a cheap, filling meal with high-fat hamburger and hamburger helper for about $5 for the family. Making a meal with fresh vegetables and lean meat will set you back a lot more. The cheapest generic cereals can be had for pennies per serving. Real whole grain (not the stuff marketed as "contains whole grains") will set you back more. Margarine is cheaper than butter (trans-fats, anyone?). Bulk white rice is cheaper than brown (and easier), and both are cheaper than healthier grains.
If we want to cut back on obesity, we need to increase the amount of money available for food stamps and then only allow them to be used for healthy foods. Anybody who wants Ho-Ho's can use their own money, but fresh vegetables, milk, skinless chicken breasts and pork tenderloin should be discounted.
-
I don't think it's spooky
[Read the article: Guatemala's nutrition lottery]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I think it's terrific. In order to change the world, you have to know how it works. That means controlled studies. If you just gave a protein shake to everybody in a village, there would be no way of knowing if positive results came from the nutrition, the calories, or even the interaction with the researcher (people in studies behave differently). By creating a "control" group (people who got non-protein fortified shakes), they turned this into a research study that provides insight into how we can better distribute nutritional resources to hungry people. Keep in mind, they didn't starve anybody, or suject anybody to suffering - one group got what they would have otherwise had, but under controlled conditions, the other got more.
The really spooky part is that we haven't done more to act on this research. We know that providing protein supplements during the first 2 years of person's life are critical... so why aren't we doing it?
-
It's a smart strategy
[Read the article: Pre-spinning South Carolina]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Florida is likely to go much better for Clinton than S Carolina. And it is a much more prominent nation, politically. There may not be any delegates at stake, but the entire nation is going to actually be watching to see who wins Florida. The 2000 debacle isn't that far behind us, and we all know how much of a punch Florida pulls in the general election.
Why do I get the impression that you hate Clinton? Every time they do something you seem to spin it as political calculation, implying that this is somehow bad. Yet you rarely seem to apply the same rules to Obama. You could very well be criticizing Obama here for putting too much emphasis on a state that is very unlikely to go blue this November. Why is the spin always anti-Clinton? And this is a serious question, not a rhetorical point. I've noticed the same thing from others, and I'm trying to figure out why a lot of people seem to hate Clinton. She's doing very well in the polls and has a high favorability rating, so it isn't everybody - just the pundits.
-
@jimblong
[Read the article: Obama and the Kennedy legend]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Obviously, I can't speak for Ms. Walsh, but based on what I've read from her columns, I suspect that "wait and see" means that she isn't going to bias her editorials with irrational speculation about the future, but instead is going to take the rather refreshing tack of reporting the facts, providing her interpretation interpretation, and otherwise letting things play out as they will.
-
@libertyindependence
[Read the article: Obama and the Kennedy legend]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I don't believe that Clinton supporters hate Obama. I think they do hate seeing his supporters attack Clinton repeatedly. For example, the Clinton negative rating that has been so widely reported, and which you quote here. Did you know that Obama has a 44% negative rating? Probably not. I was surprised when I read that on Rasmussen's site. As for Clinton's friends going to jail, well, one of Obama's friends has already been indicted, and he isn't even in office yet. After a few million Republican dollars are spent trying to dig up dirt on him, I'm sure the numbers will go up.
-
@libertyindependence
[Read the article: Obama and the Kennedy legend]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]If Obama loses the nomination, I don't think they'll ban him from ever running again. And I'm not sure what you mean about there being a bunch of women waiting in the wings to run. I can't think of a single woman who is a prime candidate to be running for the Presidency in the next few years. Regardless, this isn't about getting a woman OR a black man into the office of the President. It's about getting the most qualified Democrat into the office. I assume, or rather hope, that black and white, man and woman, we will all choose to vote against the regime that has been hurting all of us for the past 7 years - whether that vote is for Obama or Clinton.