The Myth of Michelle Obama's "Food Desert"

Townhall.com ^ | May 2, 2013 | Political Calculations

[Little Ray]

No sausage casings? No chitlin’s? No smoked mullet dip?

Sounds like a food desert to me!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

I just brought up a map of “food deserts”.

http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/food-access-research-atlas/go-to-the-atlas.aspx#.UYKAMspv9Mg

Many of these places are “deserts” because they ARE deserts! Few people live there! On some it is very rural areas and people have been traveling long distances for groceries for the last 100 years or longer.

In other cases a “food desert” may be right next to a county that has plenty of food.
Example: Southern Deleware County OK is a “food desert”. Yet is is right next to Benton County AR which has large numbers of grocery stores right next to the State line.

Union County NM is a desert. Few people live there and Clayton, does have a large grocery store. Many people there choose to shop at Dalhart, TX. The panhandle of Oklahoma is the same way. Dry, High Plains with few people living there.

San Juan County NM. The West side is a food desert because it is Navajo Reservation! Yet Farmington, Aztec, and Bloomfield NM have large numbers of grocery stores.

The “Food Deserts” are a myth.

[ctdonath2]

Yup. If the major health problem in the area is obesity, the area is not a food desert. If calorie acquisition is not a problem but nutrition is, the infrastructure is in place but the demand - to wit CHOICE - is a self-imposed problem.

[hinckley buzzard]

Social ‘science’ is not science.

Well, hold on there. It can be. Remember, "science" is a set of methods, not a subject matter. If you are willing to follow the rules you can study anything scientifically.

[allmendream]

Not really. Is Eisenhower or Dewey going to win the Presidency according to ‘scientific’ polling?

[The_Sword_of_Groo]

Bad data = bad science. You can study anything "scientifically', but the accuracy or "repeatability" of the outcome will be limited by the quality of the data.

AKA: Garbage in, Garbage out

[allmendream]

You cannot study any number of things utilizing the scientific method. The fall of Rome is not reproducible or measurable or predictable. It happened once due to various causes that cannot be reinancted holding everything else constant while changing one variable. There is no control group.

[The_Sword_of_Groo]

Sure you could, If, as you mentioned, you had a control group or enough data to compare. I am speaking in general, conceptual terms. "The Fall of Rome"...ok, whats your hypothesis? "Did Rome Fall" ? Yes. next question. Like I said, garbage in, garbage out. Its a poorly worded topic. Would you have to be more specific? Of course. However, you can easily study the causes of decline in civilizations using any number of criteria and a control groups. Examples that have been studied comparing greeks and romans to modern day civilizations: Rates of disease and methods of sewage treatment; any number of medical treatments, global warming ( barf), immigration patterns, etc, ad nauseum.
Additionally, in an ad hoc study, all events are predictable. And lets be honest...if you didnt think you could identify indicators that an empire would fall (unpopular leadership,unchecked immigration, over regulation, disproportionate tax rates) you probably wouldnt be posting on FR.
My point is, in theory, any topic that can be studied can be studied using the scientific method provided the search area is large enough or the time frame is large enough to provide appropriate data.

[allmendream]

The Fall of Rome is not reproducible or conducive to controlled experiments; where with ONE Rome you hold everything constant - and with a DIFFERENT Rome you change one variable.

You can study literature as rigorously as you wish - it will not be science. Science is not just rigor. It is a method for gaining reliable information utilizing experimentation and observation to develop useful and predictive models about the natural world.

[The_Sword_of_Groo]

Nobody is saying literature is science. I'm simply saying that you can apply the scientific method of study to any set of quality data. Again, "literature" is way too broad a topic. Either Davinci or newton( I forget which, but I know it was one of Dan Brown's heroes) studied and wrote on the differing influence of Catholicism based on geography.
back to the Rome example, we don't know tht the "fall" of Rome is a one-off event. Much depends on how you define "fall". Economically, militarily, etc. Those things can certainly be studied via scientific method. Again, the history book definition of the fall of Rome is way too broad. There is no hypothesis. You'd have to study the subsets of data and their contribution to the whole

[allmendream]

History is not science either. Science can be useful to history - in dating things, in analysis of pottery shards, etc. But science is a specific thing, not applicable to NUMEROUS questions, fields of study, etc.

I can understand why things would WANT to be science, to don the mantle of respectability that science has earned - but quite simply no matter how rigorously they study a nonscientific subject - it will not be science.

“Groo never retreats! But he does run away. RUN AWAY!!!”

[The_Sword_of_Groo]

I agree with you...I an not saying that hx is science. I'm also not saying that I agree with much of the so-called science thats out there. we all know that enough grant money will pretty much guarantee whatever outcome you'd like. (See: Climate Change). I'm just saying that, in theory, you can apply the methodology to ( just about) any field of study. You simply have to lower the bar enough to find comparators, either by expanding the search area, timeline, or both. Obviously, the lower bar opens the door to challenge the P values.

I think I should clarify something, because it seem like this is where we are diverging.... Simply studying something using scientific method does not make it a science. I simply mean that the methodology can be utilized in other fields.

"Taste the sword of Groo! One taste per customer!"

[Impy]

Obesity is caused by consuming a bunch more calories than you burn, the nutritional value of the food is not very important in that sense. Tell little Timmy to skip the second helping of dinner and ride his bike for half an hour instead of playing X-box and he won’t be so fat.

[JoeProBono]