Skip to content

The “E” word applied to food. No, it doesn’t stand for “educated.” Or “empathetic.”

The “E” word applied to food. No, it doesn’t stand for “educated.” Or “empathetic.” published on No Comments on The “E” word applied to food. No, it doesn’t stand for “educated.” Or “empathetic.”

Eric Schlosser lays down the law in the Washington Post:

At the American Farm Bureau Federation’s annual meeting this year, Bob Stallman, the group’s president, lashed out at “self-appointed food elitists” who are “hell-bent on misleading consumers.” His target was the growing movement that calls for sustainable farming practices and questions the basic tenets of large-scale industrial agriculture in America. The “elitist” epithet is a familiar line of attack. In the decade since my book “Fast Food Nation” was published, I’ve been called not only an elitist, but also a socialist, a communist and un-American. In 2009, the documentary “Food, Inc.,” directed by Robby Kenner, was described as “elitist foodie propaganda” by a prominent corporate lobbyist. Nutritionist Marion Nestle has been called a “food fascist,” while an attempt was recently made to cancel a university appearance by Michael Pollan, author of “The Omnivore’s Dilemma,” who was accused of being an “anti-agricultural” elitist by a wealthy donor.

This name-calling is a form of misdirection, an attempt to evade a serious debate about U.S. agricultural policies. And it gets the elitism charge precisely backward. America’s current system of food production — overly centralized and industrialized, overly controlled by a handful of companies, overly reliant on monocultures, pesticides, chemical fertilizers, chemical additives, genetically modified organisms, factory farms, government subsidies and fossil fuels — is profoundly undemocratic. It is one more sign of how the few now rule the many. And it’s inflicting tremendous harm on American farmers, workers and consumers. During the past 40 years, our food system has changed more than in the previous 40,000 years. Genetically modified corn and soybeans, cloned animals, McNuggets — none of these technological marvels existed in 1970. The concentrated economic power now prevalent in U.S. agriculture didn’t exist, either. For example, in 1970 the four largest meatpacking companies slaughtered about 21 percent of America’s cattle; today the four largest companies slaughter about 85 percent. The beef industry is more concentrated now than it was in 1906, when Upton Sinclair published “The Jungle” and criticized the unchecked power of the “Beef Trust.” The markets for pork, poultry, grain, farm chemicals and seeds have also become highly concentrated. America’s ranchers and farmers are suffering from this lack of competition for their goods. In 1970, farmers received about 32 cents for every consumer dollar spent on food; today they get about 16 cents. The average farm household now earns about 87 percent of its income from non-farm sources. While small farmers and their families have been forced to take second jobs just to stay on their land, wealthy farmers have received substantial help from the federal government. Between 1995 and 2009, about $250 billion in federal subsidies was given directly to American farmers — and about three-quarters of that money was given to the wealthiest 10 percent. Those are the farmers whom the Farm Bureau represents, the ones attacking “big government” and calling the sustainability movement elitist.

From Joel Salatin’s article in Flavor magazine last year, Rebel with a Cause: Foodie Elitism:

This winter, the Front Range Permaculture Institute invited me to come to Fort Collins, Colorado, and give a speech at a fundraising event. They filled a huge community theater with people, and ticket sales were enough to pay my travel and honorarium—with enough left over to buy 40 CSA shares for poor families in their community. What a wonderfully empowering local effort. (They didn’t wait for a government program.) Perhaps nothing would reduce perceptions of elitism faster than foodies buying CSA shares for impoverished families.  At the risk of sounding uncharitable, I think we need to quit being victims and bring about change ourselves. Don’t complain about being unable to afford high-quality local food when your grocery cart is full of beer, cigarettes, and People magazine. Most people are more connected to the celebrities in People than the food that will become flesh of their flesh and bone of their bones at the next meal. . .  We can all do better. If we can find money for movies, ski trips, and recreational cruises, surely we can find the money to purchase integrity food. The fact is that most of us scrounge together enough pennies to fund the passion of our hearts. If we would cultivate a passion for food like the one we’ve cultivated for clothes, cars, and entertainment, perhaps we would ultimately live healthier, happier lives.  To suggest that advocating for such a change makes me an elitist is to disparage positive decision making and behavior. Indeed, if that’s elitism, I want it. The victim mentality our culture encourages actually induces guilt among people making progress. That’s crazy. We should applaud positive behavior and encourage others to follow suit, not demonize and discourage it. Would it be better to applaud people who buy amalgamated, reconstituted, fumigated, irradiated, genetically modified industrial garbage?  The charge of elitism is both unfair and silly. We foodies are cultural change agents, positive innovators, integrity seekers. So hold your head high and don’t apologize for making noble decisions.

National debt blamed on pussification of America

National debt blamed on pussification of America published on No Comments on National debt blamed on pussification of America

From Mother Jones:

Freshman Rep. Allen West (R-Fla.) has been known to say some pretty outlandish things from time to time. He’s told constituents that “Islam is not a religion,” called the President of the United States a “low-level socialist agitator,” and asked supporters to “grab your muskets!” Now, he’s outdone himself. Late last week, West spoke to the conservative group Women Impacting the Nation, and after West alleged that 33 percent of the federal budget goes to Planned Parenthood, the discussion wandered—as discussions usually do!—to the subject of the increasing sissification of America’s men. No, really, that’s what West talked about. Via Tanya Somander:

We need you to come in and lock shields, and strengthen up the men who are going to fight for you. To let these other women know on the other side—these Planned Parenthood women, the Code Pink women, and all of these women that have been neutering American men and bringing us to the point of this incredible weakness—to let them know what we are not going to have our men become subservient. That’s what we need you to do. Because if you don’t, then the debt will continue to grow.

Right, that’s it. America’s financial weakness, our burgeoning national debt, exists because men simply aren’t manly enough. They have been hoodwinked by America’s liberal women into blowing loads of government cash on reproductive services ($317 million total per year), rather than doing something more masculine…like, you know, spending it on the military ($680 billion for 2010).  But since military spending is contributing to the national debt in such a huge way, and the debt has grown to such an extent because America’s men have been neutered….then that means…*gasp* War is for pussies!  Or to be more accurate, War is for men without testicles!

I will be eager to hear West, who served in the army in Iraq and acted as a civilian advisor in Afghanistan, announce this stunning conclusion at every speaking engagement henceforth.  I also hope he will correct his apparent misunderstanding of the reproductive services offered by Planned Parenthood, as I’m pretty sure neutering is not one of them. At least 58 U.S. soldiers have, by contrast, had their testicles blown off in the last year in Afghanistan.

Just to be clear, I am not making light of the work done by U.S. soldiers or the suffering they have experienced. Rather, I declaim it by pointing out that in telling these lies, Rep. Allen West is not doing them– or the rest of us– any favors.

Quote of the day

Quote of the day published on 1 Comment on Quote of the day

From Glenn Greenwald, via Ed Brayton of Dispatches who says it’s true for him as well:

I always tell people who want to start blogs, it’s a great way to have an outlet. I don’t think I’d be able to pay attention to political issues if I didn’t have the outlet of my blog, like if I just had to keep all that anger and frustration inside and read about lies and have no means of addressing them and exposing them. It’s a healthy way, ultimately, to expunge these negative emotions.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the case for everyone who blogs about politics. It certainly is for me when I write about politics. But blogging is also about pointing to things in the world that are cool or uplifting or fascinating and saying “Hey, this is cool/uplifting/fascinating, check it out.” I suspect that it’s hard to maintain sanity without having a least a little bit of the latter to go along with the former. Some people only point out the good stuff, the cute stuff, the funny stuff, and that’s okay too. But others of us have to, as Greenwald says, expunge the negative emotions. Insofar as Greenwald does it he’s helping the world by criticizing things that very much need to be criticized, so I’m grateful he has those emotions to expunge. Ed, too. For me it might be a little more about personal therapy. 😉

Update

Update published on 1 Comment on Update

Terry Jones is on trial this morning by a Michigan jury which is going to decide whether or not he can protest at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn without having paid a $100,000 “peace bond.”  If that makes you do a double-take and say “Whaa?” I’m right there with you.

If it doesn’t, here’s why it should: the content of Jones’ speech is irrelevant to the matter of whether he should be allowed to protest. The Supreme Court has determined this time and time again. So long as his protest is peaceful he has a right to do it, and you cannot attempt to prevent someone from exercising their rights by charging them an enormous amount of money to do so. Ed at Dispatches writes:

All of this is blatantly unconstitutional. The boundaries of the First Amendment are not determined by juries. And the practice of requiring those who wish to protest to put up bonds before holding controversial protests was declared unconstitutional decades ago by federal courts. This principle goes back to the civil rights era, when cities run by racist leaders who wanted to prevent legitimate civil rights marches would try to charge those who organized those protests for the extra police protection needed to keep them safe from the KKK and others who might react violently to them. That it now involves someone who preaches against civil rights for Muslims is not a legally relevant difference; the government must protect the right to protest and protect those who engage in protest from violent reaction no matter how heinous the message of the protest may be. . .  No matter what the jury decides tomorrow, the state court’s ruling is baffling and almost certain to be struck down by a higher court if challenged.

The ACLU supports Jones’ right to protest, and so do more Dearbon Muslims:

Majed Moughni, a Dearborn attorney, agrees that Jones has the right to protest. Moughni is not a fan of Jones, having burned him in effigy last year outside his Dearborn home because he had threatened to burn the Quran. Jones later oversaw the burning of a Quran last month. But Moughni says it’s wrong for the city and county to try to hinder Jones’ rights. Moughni added that this is turning Jones into a hero. “Instead of him being the bad guy, now he’s the hero,” Moughni said. “They’ve turned him into a hero of the First Amendment.” “The prosecutors should withdraw their demands and let him speak as he wishes, which is his right under the Constitution.” 

Update: According to the Detroit Free Press,

A Dearborn jury just sided with prosecutors, ruling that Terry Jones and Wayne Sapp would breach the peace if they rallied at the Islamic Center of America in Dearborn 

What color is the skin in your world?

What color is the skin in your world? published on 1 Comment on What color is the skin in your world?

I realize that I could dedicate this entire blog to making fun of stupid things on Fox and Friends and have more than enough material every day. I don’t want to do that, because a) there are other things to talk about, and b) doing so would require actually watching more Fox and Friends. So I’m going to comment on this and then leave them alone for a while:

Yes, apparently there is a problem with the fact that Crayola offers a marker set which includes colors intended to represent the skin tones of different races.  Because the word “multicultural” is right there on the box, someone like Michelle Malkin (who acknowledges that her own skin is not the “peach” color that was formerly called “flesh” and had to use burnt sienna as a child instead) can accuse Crayola of “pandering to liberal parents.” Because the only people who would like to represent different skin tones accurately are liberals. And they do it out of PC guilt. Steve Doocy points out that when he was a kid he had to draw himself in yellow, which made him look like “that jaundiced guy from Kansas” (what?) and Malkin replies that in spite of all that, “we survived.”

Well, yes Michelle…you did. I’m pretty sure you would have survived just fine without any crayons or markers at all. If you wanted to create an image of something, by golly you could just use a pencil, chalk, pen, or lipstick stolen from Mom and you’d like it. Or hell, scratching in the dirt should be good enough. Actual mark-making utensils are for liberal pansies. They’re the only ones who would want to do something sissy like sit around and draw anyway.

I half-hope that some kid who worships Michelle Malkin (yes, that’s a stretch) decides to draw a picture of her and send it in, having used these markers because he/she wanted to make sure and get the color of her skin as accurate as possible. What would she do– toss the thing out? Pretend it doesn’t exist?  Assume a conspiracy?  An 8 pack can be purchased from Amazon for $5.99. Here’s my favorite user review, and note that it’s from 2006:

It’s as if they’re trying to give Colbert material…

It’s as if they’re trying to give Colbert material… published on 1 Comment on It’s as if they’re trying to give Colbert material…

Colbert has been tweeting all sorts of non-factual statements about Kyl today. A sampling:

Jon Kyl calls the underside of his Senate seat: “The Booger Graveyard.” #NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Jon Kyl sponsored S.410, which would ban happiness.#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Jon Kyl has the world’s most extensive catalogue of snuff films.#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Jon Kyl once ate a badger he hit with his car.#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

Will you quit making it about freedom of speech?

Will you quit making it about freedom of speech? published on 4 Comments on Will you quit making it about freedom of speech?

No, I won’t. Not when people in positions of power to do so, such as Senators Harry Reid and Lindsey Graham, suggest that perhaps they ought to take some sort of action against people like Terry Jones and his congregation for their blasphemy:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says congressional lawmakers are discussing taking some action in response to the Koran burnings of a Tennessee pastor that led to killings at the U.N. facility in Afghanistan and sparked protests across the Middle East, Politico reports.  “Ten to 20 people have been killed,” Reid said Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation.” “We’ll take a look at this of course. As to whether we need hearings or not, I don’t know.”  Sen. Lindsey Graham said Congress might need to explore the need to limit some forms of freedom of speech, in light of Tennessee pastor Terry Jones’ Quran burning, and how such actions result in enabling U.S. enemies.  “I wish we could find a way to hold people accountable. Free speech is a great idea, but we’re in a war,” Graham told CBS’ Bob Schieffer on “Face the Nation” Sunday.

Andrew Sullivan notes:

And there you have a classic example of how warfare abroad can curtail liberties at home. Koran burning is obviously a disgusting act of disrespect and incivility. But that very kind of act is what the First Amendment is designed to protect. And we should also remember that this war has no end, and that therefore the liberties taken away by wartime are permanently taken away.

“A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists”

“A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists” published on No Comments on “A secular atheist country…dominated by radical Islamists”
Doesn’t care about the difference between a secular nation
and a Muslim theocracy, and you shouldn’t either.

That’s what Newt Gingrich is afraid his country will become by the time his grandchildren are adults, if people like him do not themselves dominate. The full quote:

“I have two grandchildren — Maggie is 11, Robert is 9,” Gingrich said at Cornerstone Church here. “I am convinced that if we do not decisively win the struggle over the nature of America, by the time they’re my age they will be in a secular atheist country, potentially one dominated by radical Islamists and with no understanding of what it once meant to be an American.”

Ten years of right-wingers attempting to portray radical Muslims as the bosom buddies of liberals/secularists/atheists (take your pick; they sure treat them as identical), and it hasn’t gotten any more convincing for some reason. Sorry Newt, but I just can’t seem to swallow the idea that a people who are highly religious and morally opposed to homosexuality, abortion, feminism, and freedom of expression (which includes the freedom to blaspheme) are more like me than you.

But of course speeches like this aren’t intended for people like me. They’re intended for people whose gorges don’t rise at the mere thought of electing someone like Newt president. Those are the only people who could listen to someone describe a secular atheist country dominated by radical Muslims with a straight face, unaware of or unconcerned about (not sure which is worse) the utterly nonsensical nature of that statement. The kind of people who would actually turn up by the thousands to hear Newt speak in a church in my fair state. I do not understand these people.

Monday links

Monday links published on No Comments on Monday links
  • Dan Savage reports that pro-gay marriage advocates are protesting outside the home of a florist who refused to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding: “Not cool.”
  • Radley Balko points to a story of New Jersey police arresting five teenagers after a noise complaint…and then leaving them in the police van out in the freezing cold for fourteen hours without food, water, or access to a bathroom. I’m curious what will happen to the officers in question.
  • Hehmant Mehta at Friendly Atheist wants to know how many Christian pastors actually believe in Hell, and whether they mention it at the funerals of people they believe are going there.  
  • Dr. X’s Free Associations posts a Youtube video from an 8th grader about her experiences being bullied that probably matches, word for word, what a lot of us experienced at that age. The difference is that Youtube wasn’t around when we were 13, so we couldn’t post such videos and have it get attention from school officials. Here’s hoping that in her case, they use the information wisely.  

Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)?

Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)? published on No Comments on Why should we care where Sarah Palin got her bunny (and how many shots it took)?

The designated Badass Quote of the Day for today over on Dispatches is from Jason Easley at Politics USA:

Sarah Palin has become the political equivalent of Glenn Close in Fatal Attraction. America regrets the one night stand they had with Palin, but now she has broken into our house and is ready to boil our bunny. Sarah Palin is America’s ultimate political stalker. It all makes you wonder where Michael Douglas is when we need him most.

Which is indeed a great quote, although I’d distance myself by saying that she’s more like the stalker with whom my housemate had a one night stand– I had nothing to do with it, thanks very much, and would have evicted that housemate long ago for entirely different reasons if such a thing were possible.

But the following exchange in the comments caught my interest:

Sarah Palin does not boil bunnys.She shoots them with high powered rifles with sniper scopes.you forgot “from helicopters”. And that it takes her an average of 7 shots to hit them. 

We’re probably all familiar with the “hunting from helicopters” bit. But where does the “7 shots” thing come from?  Well, this— an opinion piece in USA Today describing Sarah Palin’s Alaska on TLC:

The caribou hunt episode provides a centerpiece of the series’ excesses, as well as Palin’s ineptitude. According to script, it’s Palin’s turn to replenish the family’s dwindling freezer with wild meat — from an Alaska point of view, all good. But the logistics of the trip defy common sense. Instead of hunting within reasonable distance of home, her party flies 600-plus miles to a remote camp in multiple chartered aircraft. This isn’t subsistence but the sort of experiential safari popular among high-end, non-resident sport hunters. For all that, Palin ends up with a skinny juvenile cow caribou. Boned out, we’re talking maybe 100 pounds of meat, at a staggering cost per pound. Faced with that hapless animal, this darling of Second Amendment supporters nervously asks her dad whether the small-caliber rifle kicks. Then, even more astoundingly, her father repeatedly works the bolt and loads for her as she misses shot after shot before scoring a kill on the seventh round — enough bullets for a decent hunter to take down at least five animals. (Given Palin’s infamous tweet “Don’t retreat, reload,” we can infer she plans to keep her dad close by.) Later, Palin blames the scope, but any marksman would recognize the flinching, the unsteady aim and poor shot selection — and the glaring ethical fault of both shooter and gun owner if the rifle wasn’t properly sighted. Instead of some frontier passion play, we’re rendered a dark comedy of errors.

Why should we give a damn about whether Sarah Palin can hunt, and whether she does so efficiently?  Is making fun of that just a cheap shot (pardon the pun)?  After all, how many of us could go out and easily kill something to feed our family for dinner?

Probably not many, but that’s really beside the point. The point is populism, or what should be a failure thereof.  It’s perfectly okay with me if Sarah Palin is a lousy hunter. What’s not okay is that hunting (presumably well, presumably for a purpose aside from show) is part of the persona she has adopted in order to appeal to a certain demographic, and it seems pretty clear that the persona is contrived. This led to a rather fascinating discussion amongst Ed’s readers, some of whom live in Michigan or other northern states in which hunting is a way of life, about what exactly being a good hunter means. Apparently it means being responsible and trying to minimize suffering. It means not taking a shot unless you are pretty sure it’s the only shot you’re going to need to take. It means you know your weapon intimately and can operate it safely and effectively by yourself. Pretty much common sense, right?  Even a non-hunter should be able to guess those rules, and expect that anyone who claims to be an active hunter would abide by them.

Not Ted Nugent:

To be fair, it’s possible that Nugent just didn’t know that Palin’s hunting abilities are a façade.  He probably just heard all of the rhetoric on the subject and thought “Hey, one of my kind!” I know that Nugent himself is perceived by many as a whackjob and that reputation is not undeserved, but:

  • A lot of people do like and listen to him, and
  • When he talks about hunting and sustainability, I can’t help but half-nod in agreement.
He’s wrong, of course, that hunting is sustainable. America simply could not feed itself on the same diet we’re accustomed to now if the meat we ate came from hunting alone. We could not eat meat to the same degree that actual hunters do now if we all had to get our meat only from hunting– there just aren’t enough wild animals out there. If we all turned into Ted Nugent tomorrow, we would almost certainly hunt the prominent game animals into extinction. There are just too many of us. That doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with being a hunter, but for that reason alone it’s misguided to suggest that we all should become hunters even if we were so inclined (which is a tremendous “if”).
What’s unfortunate is not just that Nugent doesn’t appear to realize that, but that he thinks that just because Palin is gung-ho about hunting (whether she can actually do it or not), she’s on board with his sustainability thing. That she gives a damn about preserving God’s earth, the balance between man and nature, and the general glamorized picture of hunting that Nugent appears to genuinely believe in.  Which means that Nugent, in addition to being a nutter, is a sucker. I feel kind of sorry for the guy– Sarah Palin really isn’t good enough for him, as much as he wants to believe she is. 
Standards, gun-toting God-praising right-wingers….you need ’em.