Links
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(235)
-
▼
Jun 2009
(29)
- Polar Bears and Propaganda
- Anyone Surprised?
- See This Movie!
- Give, Don't Take
- A Wife of Noble Character
- A Math Expedition
- Racism Comes Full Circle
- External slavery
- Feminism's Most Recent Victim: Social Etiquette
- The Truth About Health Insurance
- Taking Chance
- Perspective on Domestic Poverty
- Ban the Minimum Wage
- Naboth's Negative Rights
- OBC?
- The New Morality
- The Third Myth of Capitalism
- Politics Done Iranian-Style
- Smoking and Self-Determination
- Another Clinic Bites the Dust
- The Second Myth of Capitalism
- Voight on Obama
- The Vice of Wealth Redistribution
- Climate Change Video
- The First Myth of Capitalism
- "Jesus is like a mountie"
- Be Gay, Don't Pray
- Richards on Climate Change
- Tiller's Valkyrie
-
▼
Jun 2009
(29)
Labels
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Darius, this paradox has to do the nature of food, not necessarily the nature of poverty. Steyn's quote is a gem, to be sure, but those in poverty cannot typically afford quality food (if they were to buy it, they might buy less of it and be leaner). Poor people tend to subsist on chemical-laden foods filled with toxins and grain by-products. As a result, regardless of whether they eat moderately or eat excessively, obesity will occur. It's not merely a question of calories any more. The advent of processed food has changed all of that. So Steyn's quote is more of an observation about the quality and nature of modern foods - not necessarily the sociological commentary he may have intended.
But it's still a great quote.
True, but the question that has to be answered is what comes first, economic poverty or cultural impoverishment? Authors like Theodore Dalrymple make an excellent case for the view that one is (usually) first lacking in socially healthy attributes before he is lacking material wealth. In other words, economic poverty doesn't cause the rampant fatherlessness in the underclass; missing and irresponsible fathers cause poverty.
So, as Dalrymple has pointed out from his extensive experience with the underclass (he was a prison slum doctor in Britain), a "poor" family eats poorly not because they can only afford junk food but because they never eat meals together as a family since the father is usually missing and the mother too self-centered or busy with work to care for her children. This vicious cycle inculcates future generations with a tradition of eating microwavable dinners in front of the TV or scraping by on pop and candy.
This is an important distinction to make, since if you don't make it, you will tend to believe that all people need is to be rich and they'll get their act together.
Very good points. I see much better what Steyn's quote failed to capture.
I think Steyn's point (here's the context of that quote: http://www.ocregister.com/articles/health-care-government-2462454-life-expectancy) is that even the "poor" Americans are quite well-off. As Dalrymple has mentioned a few times, the richest kings in history could only dream of that which even the poor take for granted.
Post a Comment