Quit trying to kill me, Victorian workhouses

Thrilled

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/health/30diet.html?_r=1&ref=science
So with the whole world being calm as balls and boring and whatever, the New York Times had a bunch of free time on its hands and decided to address the age-old question: did the Victorian workhouses of Dickens' time actually starve little adorable Oliver-esque boys who wanted some mo', or did they give those greedy orphans PLENTY of gruel so kindly shut the shit up about it. The Times is going with option b, shut up orphans, because of really solid scientific evidence they found in an old book somewhere.

Old Book sets out 6 different recipies for workhouse gruel (variety is the spice of life), all of which were found to be nutritionally balanced and adequate by a team of researchers who did not personally try out gruel diet. Obviously, with their time machine for verification that Old Book's instructions were followed to the letter by the well-managed and meticulously overseen workhouses, the Times concluded that Dickens really gave workhouses a bad rap in all those douchey novels.

Given the recession, the housing crisis, and now this article, I think we can confidently predict some business lobby or other appearing before Congress to explain how workhouses would help alleviate unemployment, engage the nation's youth, and improve our whack diets with some yummers balanced gruel. I don't know the specific source of this reasearch/propaganda, but my guess is: Chrysler, or someone else really into the whole child-labor idea right now. We may have thought Victorian workhouses no longer threatened our lives with their subpar conditions, production quotas, and universally loved novels, but they are clearly rallying for Round 2.