All Posts By

Hasdai Westbrook

To #SaveBmore, Embrace The Wire

By | #SaveBmore, ChangeEngine | 65 Comments

We’ve all heard it. Many of us have said it. It’s a plea, a prayer – uttered so often it’s damn near a mantra:

“We’re not just The Wire.”

Baltimore wants nothing more than to be seen as something other than a byword for crime and decay, for poverty and violence. We’re not just the wasteland made notorious by David Simon’s landmark series, occupied by drugslingers and sociopathic murderers and sicklied over with impenetrable despair. That’s just the image that’s been conjured up in the public imagination, we say. We’re sick of people’s eyes growing wide in horror when they hear what city we live in, the inevitable questions … “Is it like that? Is it just like The Wire?”

In the past few weeks here at ChangeEngine, we’ve been debating what might “save” Baltimore from a present and a future where so many are condemned to a shadow existence and forced to the margins by poverty and inequality. And yet it seems like what Baltimore wants to be saved from most of all is itself, to be delivered from the stain on our reputation, the shame of The Wire; to shunt those things that cast an ill light on our collective existence back into the shadows.

But that shame, left unchecked, will destroy us. If we truly want to save Baltimore, to save ourselves from the perpetual instability of illusory wealth and the criminal waste of lost promise; if we truly want to fulfill Dr. King’s vision of a “beloved community” rather than languish in the spiritual poverty of a divided society, we must not be ashamed. We must not shy away from what The Wire represents and the heavy burden it lays at our door … because we are The Wire and we need to own it.


What we’re saying when we deny The Wire is that we’re not just ‘those’ neighborhoods, not just a city of poor black people embroiled in the drug war. In trying to sweep those people and places from our consciousness, we not only caricature what The Wire actually depicted but fail to heed its prophetic call. As David Simon said:

“[T]hat’s what The Wire was about … people who were worth less and who were no longer necessary, as maybe 10 or 15% of my country is no longer necessary to the operation of the economy. It was about them trying to solve … an existential crisis. In their irrelevance, their economic irrelevance, they were nonetheless still on the ground occupying this place called Baltimore and they were going to have to endure somehow.”

When we say we’re not The Wire we’re saying we should be like one America, and forget the other. And that we can only succeed if these people, this other Baltimore, disappears. But that’s impossible, it’s unsustainable; it will undermine the very future we hope to create by ignoring the things that horrify and embarrass us. The ONLY way we can make Baltimore not just about The Wire is by embracing the story it tells about us.


“See, back in middle school and all, I used to love them myths,” says Omar, the predatory gunslinger who roams Baltimore’s streets like a swaggering pirate as he schools a sheriff’s deputy about the Greek god of war. So complete a work is The Wire, so vivid and eternally real are the likes of Omar, Stringer and Bubbles that these offending shadows have become our mythology, our epic.

Whether it’s Omar resplendent in a shimmering teal dressing gown, scowling at the terrified ‘puppies’ who fling their stashes his way on his early morning hunt for Honey Nut Cheerios; Clay Davis’s sheeeeeet! stretching on to the last syllable of recorded time; a forensic epiphany derived entirely from a dialogue of f-bombs; the death of Wallace, of Bodie and Sherrod, of Prop Joe; the fall of the Barksdales, Dukie’s descent or Cutty’s redemption – these moments confer an identity that’s deeply ours, as iconic and intrinsic as Poe’s mournful features and gutter requiem.

This is our story, an epic of the American post-industrial city struggling for existence and meaning where all sustaining truths and certainties have been annihilated. It has the power to unify our consciousness and to rouse us to collective action. The Wire didn’t focus on the “bad side” of Baltimore; it cast a glaring light on what was wrong with America. Its creators offered us a study of dysfunction and neglect – a diagnosis, a pessimistic prognosis, and no real hope of a cure. That part is up to us.

And yet the cures we’re presented with are largely exercises in denial – efforts to tell a different story rather than confronting and changing the one we have. We are told to ‘Believe’ in Baltimore, then beggar belief by proclaiming ourselves ‘The Greatest City in America.’ We swear up and down that we’re not The Wire, as though that wire is live and we dare not touch it.


In the standard gospel, salvation comes through expanding the ‘white corridor’ that runs along 83, pushing out the ‘bad Baltimore.’ The Grand Prix, the creative class, a shiny new development downtown – these are the pet miracles of urban renewal evangelism. But without justice, they can only be a mirage. Just as civil rights activists were willing to be beaten and bloodied because they knew that no-one is free unless all of us are free, not one of us can say he is truly wealthy as long as any of us is poor. As long as we’re erecting monuments to distraction, condo towers with a stunning view but no vision, we’ll be blind. No sustainable salvation can come of growing that privileged bubble. We’ll fool ourselves into complacency, into thinking we can ignore The Wire, and the bubble will burst.

Saving Baltimore requires a shift in thinking, a hard confrontation. It requires ambition and audacity – the kind that causes a person to get up every day and try to keep children from dying on the streets, to battle slumlords who profit from blight and misery, or fight to keep the prison industrial complex from throttling whole communities. We would do well to pay tribute and attention to those on the front lines of social change, who wrestle with the darkness, who suffer a thousand everyday defeats and win a thousand everyday victories in the struggle to make a better world.


Like them, we must grapple with the darkness. Most urgently, we must fight to end the drug war. As The Wire makes so vividly clear, the war on drugs has become a war on the urban underclass, a war on the most vulnerable and powerless. Each drug arrest in this city costs us at least $10,000. Statewide we spend hundreds of millions of dollars to incarcerate non-violent drug offenders, 90 percent of them African-American. This despite clear evidence that white and black people use and sell drugs at roughly the same rate.

In the starkest of terms, black (and poor) people are being arrested and incarcerated, their lives ruined, for something everyone does. And that is the greater cost. This war destroys families, robs children of their parents and leaves them destitute, cripples chances for employment and advancement, and causes young people to be murdered in the streets as they scuffle over turf in a society that gives them nowhere to call their own.

We can change that story. Think what all the resources squandered on this folly could do if devoted to social change, what dynamism could be unleashed. Think of what it would mean to reclaim all the talent and energy lost to the criminal justice system and to the miasma of distrust and despair that crushes and humiliates the spirit and leaves so many feeling that the game is rigged against them.

This is about more than just one policy. Just as we condemn an addict to the clawing, scraping chaos of the criminal underworld when we force him into the shadows, so too do we deny ourselves a brighter future and invite in all the ills we run from by denying what The Wire says about us. Baltimore could be the one city in America that truly confronts the issue of its underclass and the ravages of exclusion rather than pretending it’s not there and brutalizing it when it rears its head. We must resolve that we don’t want to run from The Wire, but rather change the system that generates those conditions.

The engine of salvation is not in our stars but in ourselves. We need a Manhattan Project for transformation, a space race for social change. Let’s work to provide the greatest rewards to those whose efforts most benefit the least well off. Let’s energize social change makers to move to Baltimore and cultivate those already here. And let’s start treating them like rock stars, not martyred idealists.

Baltimore doesn’t have a PR problem; we have a poverty problem. We don’t need a better image; we need a better way. We need to celebrate and attract those who want to make a difference, not engage in a desperate charade to prove we’re just the same. So Just Say Yes – we ARE the Wire. Only then can we change the story. Only then can we start building a city of which we’ll never be ashamed, a place where every one of us is truly cherished.

 

Biting Galileo’s Style

By | ChangeEngine, Silo-Breakers | No Comments

Yes, we admit it: we’re shamelessly ripping off Galileo’s style for our own purposes. But in this case we come by it honestly. Our impromptu Silo-Breakers series prompted a tremendously thought-provoking contribution from our friend, Rodney Foxworth, on the power of racial divisions in Baltimore. So provocative in fact that it sparked its own spirited back-and-forth via email, even as we were discussing the mundane details of when to schedule publication.

The exchange put us in mind of Galileo’s “Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems” where he framed his argument for the Copernican model of the universe, in which the earth revolves around the sun, in the form of a classic Platonic dialogue. Perhaps the reference is obscure, but then again maybe not. Perhaps there’s as much progress to be made scouring our souls as gazing at the stars. So here, in somewhat briefer form, we present our dialogue on the cosmology of our personal universes and on the forces that keep us apart…

(TAKE THE BREAKOUT CHALLENGE! What’s YOUR silo? And how do you break out of it? Let us know @ChangEngine #breakoutchallengefacebook.com/ChangingMedia, or email hasdai@changingmediagroup.com.)

The Divine Baltimore Comedy

By | ChangeEngine | No Comments

Editor’s Note: inspired by our call for those laugh/cry moments that make you go “Oh, Baltimore,” the brilliant Devan Southerland shares with us her fond impressions of Lexington Market and its environs. (Share your own “Oh, Baltimore” moments and memories by commenting or letting us know via Facebook or Twitter #ohbmore). 

Dear ENTIRE AREA within three blocks of Lexington Market,

Your area is something that can’t be replicated anywhere else in the world.

No matter what sidewalk I stroll upon in your vicinity, someone always seems to walk up on me to the point of them bumping into my purse…forcing me to make sure I still have a wallet. Only there is where I can wait patiently to meet a friend and have entrepreneurs of all types stand near me on the sidewalk selling goods including, but not limited to Tims, Big White Tees, “CD’s and movies, ya’ll, “that Precious movie, ya’ll”, ‘loose ones’, $1 gloves, socks, Tussy deodorant, “Weed, weed, weed, got that weed, weed, weed” and a day old student continuation bus pass.”

I love the COMPLETE violation of personal space one feels no matter where they are.

I love that everyone yells their conversations… whether talking to someone next to them….or a couple of blocks away…or on the chirp phone…or to the cashier trying to ring them up.

I think it’s funny that 60 percent of the people walking around are on the dope, looking for the dope, nodding out from the dope, selling the dope or trying to recover from the dope….but failing real hard.

It’s enjoyable that your area’s Rite Aid stays in business not only because it has 1 Hour Photo…but because it sells liquor. However, I hate that it always seems to run out of the reasonably priced Seagrams Iced Tea Vodka. Damn…if only I drank Colt 45 or Remy Martin…

I adore walking into your area’s stores, seeing a pile of other customers’ bags in the corner by the front door and rethinking if I want to leave my bag there with ‘bag check’ to spend money…but it’s just so hard to resist that cute pair of blue boots that will go with my outfit I’m wearing later that night! And they’re $20!!!!

I digress.

Apparently, your area makes people think that even the most stone-faced individuals – like myself – welcome unwanted, unwarranted and UNINVITED conversations from strangers. Even conversations seeking advice! For example, one young lady decided to stop me in the pouring rain and say, “Excuse me, can you tell me if I did the right thing? This man back there said he was hungry so I just gave him the gizzards I just bought. Was that the right thing to do???”

Here’s to you, the entire area within three blocks of Lexington Market. Now you can’t say I’ve NEVER said good things about you.

DevanDevan Southerland, a.k.a. the Lovely Ms. ‘S Page, is an experienced dream doula and legend maker. A proud Baltimorean, she studied Family Studies and African American Studies at the University of Maryland-College Park. If you are worthy, she has rap for you.

 

 

Image Credit: Lexington Market, 1858 Wikimedia Commons

Lindsey Fisks LIVABILITY

By | The Good Plan | No Comments

ChangeEngine’s irrepressible blogger on all things urban, Lindsey Davis of The Good Plan, got a shout-out today from the good people over at Livability — an online hub for cities that punch above their weight — in their weekly round-up of all ideas spiky and intriguing. When alerted to this fact, Lindsey went into what might be described as paroxysms of enthusiastic analysis, producing a set of pithy, punchy, point-by-point responses that bears an uncanny resemblance to Fisking. (“Ooo new word!” says Lindsey.)

So, as a kind of capper of our own on the week, we present Lindsey’s rapid-fire reactions to Livability’s weekly round-up, with a focus on demographer Joel Kotkin’s provocative suggestion that the suburbs, not San Francisco, might be the template for the future of the American city:

“Could urban sprawl be the best indicator or future city growth? Many urban planning theorists prescribe the idea of high density and central cores as the best way for cities to grow…”

-High density and central cores are the “Best way for cities to grow”? No! Smart development of high density and central cores are the best way for cities to grow.

“…but then there’s Joel Kotkin, a demographer who says data shows legacy cities are a model of the past and that the cities of the future will resemble those experiencing more outward growth.”

-Legacy cities are a model of the past and the future will resemble outward growth. Shocker. So alternately, legacy cities would be forgotten, we’d start ALL over in some field somewhere, build brand new infrastructure? Well, yes. Legacy cities are a model of the past YET A FOUNDATION FOR OUR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE HALF THE WORK IS ALREADY DONE. And yes, we’ll have to move out. We certainly can’t keep going up. Unless you live in Hawaii that is.

“Are Sprawling Urban Regions The Next Great Cities?”

-Are sprawled regions the next great cities? I mean, what’s the alternative here. Something has to be ‘new’ and ‘next.’ If we’re making ‘new’ cities I would think we’d place them in an area where economic activity exists. Also, how are we defining a city? Is the word ‘city’ becoming clichéd? Just like “innovation”… (cue dramatic sigh).

“Kotkin says low-density, car-dominated, heavily suburbanized areas with small central cores are likely the next wave of great American cities.”

-I absolutely agree with Kotkin in that low density, car-dominated areas are next. The infrastructure exists, moveable people exist, we’d be more likely to start corralling businesses there than go to a field and build a utopian city with bicycle lanes adjacent to tractors.

“He cautions ‘urbanistas’ to wake up and recognize that the future is going to look more like Houston, Charlotte and Phoenix and less like Boston, Chicago or San Francisco.”

-Well, I don’t think the future will look like Charlotte or Houston. The next cities might, but think of it in stages – we have to enter stage one car domination before evolving to city 2.0 with bikes and trams and transit. Its easier to take people who live somewhere and make them dense and miserable and then make their lives easier via light rail, than to build a light rail in middle of nowhere Nebraska and then expect people to move there.

“The best practice for fixing a city’s problems might be staying away from the best practices. Things that make one city livable may not work in another city. That’s the point Lindsey Davis, a city planner and blogger, makes in a recent post about best practices for cities.

-OMG! THAT’S MY NAME! OMG!! AH! I’m KVELLING! AH!

Stay tuned for the next installment of The Good Plan, where Lindsey will take on Kotkin’s thesis in more detail, though with perhaps a touch less kvelling.

IMAGE CREDIT. Livability.

The Top Ten Most Useless Top-Tens About Social Media

By | ChangeEngine, Social Media | 2 Comments

As someone who spends a good deal of time helping organizations great and small harness the power of social media, I often find myself stumbling across “top-ten lists” of social media tips from a never-ending parade of blog evangelists, web-thumpers, and manic e-preachers. It’s intriguing how closely these features tend to mirror the anxieties and misconceptions that I come across in my face-to-face conversations with real-life people seeking insight, which is no doubt one of the reasons they’re so popular.

The top-ten list itself is one of the dominant tropes of the infinitely-aggregating (and often aggravating) digital media age — link-bait for our flicker-quick attention spans, churned out as proven traffic drivers to cater to our jones for simple answers. A vast number are about sex of course, or at least love. In fact, the social media top-tens remind me most of the advice lists written in breathless tones by relationship “experts” that we all click-through eager for some secret insight, even though our rational minds know the premise is absurd…”Ten Ways to Know She’s Into You!”* or “Top Ten Things Your Man REALLY wants!”** Superficially revealing, deceptively empowering, and almost certainly completely useless if applied to your specific circumstances.

So, without pointing any particular fingers, here’s a run-down of the top ten kinds of top-tens for social media, and why you might want to use them for novelty purposes only…

*Because it makes perfect sense that the answer to a mystery that has eluded every poet, philosopher, and evolutionary biologist since the dawn of time can be imparted to you by a freelance “Passion Consultant” in a 500-word post on DudesHealth.com
**Chris Rock has helpfully boiled the list down to three.

Updated1) “Top Ten Reasons You Should Be On <Insert Social Media Site> RIGHT NOW!”

I’m often asked in panic-stricken tones “should I be on…?” And my answer invariably is, “well, that depends.”

Facebook, right? I need to be on Facebook!”

Well, maybe. The real question is who you want to reach and why. Your audience isn’t “Facebook.” There are a billion people on Facebook, and unless you have a cat with a Hitler ‘stache you’re not going to reach them all, nor would you want to.

Oh right, I should be on Twitter.”

Your audience isn’t anyone called “Twitter” either. These things were created to help us communicate with people. Sometimes the most powerful social media tool is e-mail, or that most dynamic of social inventions — a conversation.

2) “Top Ten Twitter Hash-Tags You NEED to Be Using, Like, YESTERDAY!” 

Speaking of Twitter, no magic tags. Event tags good for
events. Build relationships, find your voice. Remember,
you only have 140 charact... #WasteOfTime 

3) “Top Ten BEST Practices for Social Media!”

Nooo. Nope. There are no generalizable social media tips for content or strategy other than don’t post bomb threats, pornography, or pictures of your Weiner.

4) “Top Ten Ways to Go VIRAL!” 

The percentage of content on the internet that actually goes “viral” – as in ubiquitous enough for you to be sick of it (or at least vaguely aware of its virulent existence without even seeing it) – is so infinitesimally small, you might as well have a “top ten ways” to win the lottery or hit a half-court shot. If you insist on chasing the chimera of being the next Gangnam Style, by all means spend your waking hours trying to come up with a hilariously preposterous little dance move that sets the world on fire. But that’s probably time better spent creating quality content that resonates with your audience.

5) “Top Ten Ways to Make SURE … !”

There’s a great deal of fear associated with social media — of wasting one’s time, of bomb or Weiner-wielding lunatics, but mostly of criticism. Most of these “Make Sure”‘s are of the “something doesn’t happen” variety. But there is no certainty in social media, whether of results or consequences, be they negative or positive. There are ways to watch and listen, to learn, to harness these tools for your own ends. But if there’s one thing that’s true of social media it’s that it’s not an inanimate technology like a crankshaft or an engine; it’s a human system, and so susceptible to failure, horror, and great joy.

Pac-ManReverse2

6) “Ten Creative Ways to Use …!”

To be fair, these are actually the most useful of this breed. It never hurts to be open to new ideas or new ways to use familiar platforms. The key word here though is “creative,” as in being inspired to create something fresh and meaningful in a way that expresses your unique voice. Slavishly following some tip will lead to derivative drudgery, which brings us to…

7) “Top Ten Trends You NEED to Jump On Before It’s TOO LATE!”

People are using video/audio/auto-/wiki/real-time/Vine/ …people are using this… people are doing that. Media trends in the digital world have the half-life of a mayfly. It doesn’t necessarily matter what other people are doing (again, most of these trends probably involve cats.) It matters what you’re doing.

8) “Top Ten Predictions – The Next BIG THING in Social Media!”

Always good for a chortle. If the people who make such predictions really knew what the next big thing in social media was they’d be poppin’ champagne in a solid-gold jacuzzi molded into the fuselage of a diamond-encrusted private jet, not sharing that information with you via a top-ten blog post for the standard digital media industry fee of no money at all.

9) “Top Ten Ways to INCREASE Your Site Traffic Using Social Media!”

… Slow down, think about who you want to reach and why. Most tips for increasing site traffic won’t work, won’t be sustainable and some of them might even get you on Google’s naughty list. Though, of course, a top-ten list is a pretty sure-fire way to drive traffic 😛

10) “Top Ten Social Media BLOGS You Should Be Reading!”

The blog you’re reading is almost always one of these. They all tend to consist of advice that’s either too broad, wrong for you, or too technical (i.e. written for other breathless professionals!!!). You’re better off reading blogs, websites, and content by people in your field, or finding outlets that share your passions and values. Oh, and of course, you should be reading ChangeEngine 😎

RunAway

IMAGE CREDIT. Hasdai Westbrook.

Creative Arithmetic

By | ChangeEngine | 2 Comments

It’s funny what can emerge from a conversation. That, as a matter of fact, is a central premise of CreateBaltimore – the free-form conclave of Baltimore’s creative minds that seeks to go beyond pontification and spark powerful action. (Hmm, must have the pope on my mind.) ChangeEngine‘s own bard of Love & Concrete, Scott Burkholder, is both a co-creator and driving force behind the annual event, which had its most recent incarnation last Saturday, and naturally we want to use our platform to both cover and catalyze the process. But how do you capture the dizzying energy of those few short hours for those who created it, and convey that energy to those who weren’t there? And how do you start to quantify the impact of an “Un-Conference”? What are the metrics of imagination and passion?

Scott came to us with some intriguing figures. They lay a little flat as simple lines of text but got us excited enough to create this infographic. “That’s great,” said Scott. “But could we show how ninety percent of the sponsors were also participants.” And so we created another.

From words to vision to action – the CreateBaltimore way. Here’s to keeping the creative pistons firing…

CreateBaltimoreCreativeArithmetic - ChangingMedia

CreateBaltimoreDonutChart - ChangingMedia

LOLCats Rising for Social Change

By | ChangeEngine | 2 Comments

We were going to unveil our LOLCats for Social Justice series in a few weeks, but our friendly neighborhood sociopath for social change, Robyn Stegman, jumped the gun. No harm done though. It’s for a good cause. ChangingMedia is an enthusiastic supporter of the One Billion Rising campaign and we strongly encourage you to join us today at 5:30pm at the Washington Monument to rise with us and demand an end to violence. Give one billion women the world over the Valentine’s gift of your love and support in their fight to be safe, secure and cherished. Help us give violence against women a swift kick in the ass into oblivion.

Robyn, next project: we are totally doing a Sociopaths for Social Change feature.

LOLSocialChangeCat

How Sweet It Is…

By | ChangeEngine | No Comments

Congratulations to the Ravens

 on a scruffy,

                      scrappy,

                                      ugly,

                                                 utterly BRILLIANT season.


 

PHOTO CREDIT. Chris Graythen/Getty Images.

 

Quoth the Raven: “It’s On!”

By | ChangeEngine | No Comments

So we tried to turn our little Twitter birdie icon into a Raven and change our logo colors to purple and gold in honor of our gridiron champions but our theme threw a hissy fit. (Not for nothing, but the guy who started WordPress is from San Fran – hmm.) No matter. Nothing we were going to do could be as cool as The Baltimore Love Project’s masterstroke above. Well played, Michael Owen and ChangeEngine blogger Scott Burkholder. And Go Ravens – let our scrappy, gaypositive crew crush those homophobic clowns.


 

IMAGE CREDIT. The Baltimore Love Project.

 

The Weight of Evidence

By | Exeter Gardens | No Comments

So I was reading The Economist‘s recent special report on obesity. It’s pretty standard Economist fare – on the one hand but on the other, government can only do so much, meanderings down the path of arguments from left and right only to end up right back somewhere in the middle. (Don’t get me wrong. I love The Economist, but it’s rather like having a conversation with that uncle of yours who knows more than you’ll ever know and loves to sit there dismantling your preconceptions, but never seems to move from his seat.) My mind was beginning to meander a little itself when this little tid-bit caught my eye:

“Removing corn subsidies is a much-touted solution. However, a paper by Bradley Rickard of Cornell University argues that removing America’s subsidies for corn and soyabeans would have produced only a small dip in calorie consumption.”

That corn subsidies distort and pervert the American food system by incentivizing the production of unhealthy food (think high-fructose corn syrup; think soda, corn chips and almost the entire contents of your nearest 7-Eleven) is something of a catechism among advocates for food justice and sustainable agriculture. I know I’ve made the argument several times myself. But is it true?

Through the power of the inter-webulator, I pulled up the paper in question. I must confess that much of it is well over my head, involving statistics and differential equations and many other things that were presumably covered in school while I was thinking about girls. Essentially though, the paper attempts to model the effect of removing all farm subsidies on the cost of commodities and the behavior of consumers, concluding that removing such subsidies would have only a minor – and diminishing – effect on either.

I would think it’s very difficult for fellow economists to evaluate the soundness of those predictions, let alone a layman. It’s hard to imagine the withdrawal of subsidies wouldn’t disrupt the profit models of agribusiness and major corn peddlers like McDonalds and PepsiCo to some extent. Their vociferous lobbying efforts certainly suggest so. Any attempt to bring some analytical rigour to this question is welcome, though (oh god, now I’m starting to sound like that Economist editorial voice). It just may be that the authors didn’t quite focus on the right one.

Unless I’m missing something in the thicket of equations and statistical terminology, the study seems only to explore the question of whether the elimination of farm subsidies (including indirect subsidies through trade tariffs) would lead to lower consumption of calories, and so a drop in obesity rates. It does not explore what would happen if the production of healthy fruits and vegetables were subsidized and incentivized in the same way that corn is subsidized today. (Interestingly, it mentions several restrictions on the growing of fruits and vegetables, and concludes that the withdrawal of the current system of subsidies would cause people to eat more of them.)

Perhaps agribusiness would simply turn all the apples in the orchards into high fructose apple syrup and perpetuate the calorie-bomb system of food manufacture. But perhaps not. Surely there are ways to incentivize the growing (and the eating) of healthy foods. Supporting urban agriculture and local food initiatives comes to mind.

One other note from the study is potentially revealing – “marketing input” in the selling of cereals, baked goods, beverages and food that’s consumed outside the home (eating out – meaning, to a great extent, fast food) accounts for over 90 percent of the “cost share” of those (highly-processed) products. Ninety percent. That figure suggests that it’s dirt cheap to produce crap and that its producers spend enormous amounts of money convincing you to eat it. (Note too: “The cost share of marketing inputs is relatively low for food products that involve little processing.”)

The authors take this as evidence that the removal of subsidies would have a negligible effect on the cost structure of production, essentially because these commodities are so cheap to produce already. And they may have a point. Technology has made it possible to produce so much corn so cheaply that subsidies may not make much of a difference either way. But doesn’t that result from it being in the interests of industry to create such a system? Couldn’t all that ingenuity, innovation, and technological wizardry be put to use to produce an abundance of healthy food choices for all? All it takes is the right … incentives.