Blogs

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
by James Adomian

In preparation for tonight's debate...

How will you dress for the Bush Depression this winter? Me, I'm counting on my slightly tattered but super-toasty flannel-lined OshKosh overalls--so old they were actually made in OshKosh. That, and the sweaters I'll be wearing à la Jimmy Carter, since our thermostat and our bank balance will both be chillingly low.

President Carter tried, and failed, to make cardigans and conservation cool during the seventies energy crisis. He warned of "the serious consequences of our long delay in creating a comprehensive national energy policy" in a speech announcing the Emergency Natural Gas Act of 1977, and called on us all to buckle down and bundle up:

Sadly, the sole American family willing to heed Carter's "make do with less" message was the Waltons, who, alas, resided only in the corn pone-filled cranium of Earl Hamner Jr. Two years later, a frustrated Carter asked, plaintively, "Why have we not been able to get together as a nation to resolve our serious energy problem?" He blamed the loss of community and the rise of materialism in our culture:

Again, Carter channeled the Waltons while the rest of us stayed glued to the oily exploits of the Ewings. We bought into the more-is-more mania, and our collective carbon footprint expanded exponentially. Houses and cars and waistlines grew bigger, while an endless geyser of consumer goods gushed all around us. Will it ever run out of steam?

Consider this astounding statistic I came across in the October issue of Organic Gardening: In 1995, the average number of food items sold in supermarkets was 3,000; by 2006, it had jumped to 45,000. And most it is cartons and cans and clamshells filled with industrially grown stuff that's been processed to death and then schlepped over land and sea. That's why Michael Pollan's "eater's manifesto," In Defense Of Food, advises us to avoid supermarkets altogether and seek out fresh food from local farmers--and our own front yards--instead.

Sure, some folks will continue to fill their cupboards with Campbell's soup--the only stock that didn't tank when the Dow sank. But more and more Americans are rejecting pre-fab faux foods in favor of DIY dining. Today's New York Times cites a report that, as of May, "53 percent of consumers said they were cooking from scratch more than they did just six months before," driven by the rising cost of convenience foods. Hey, when you're unemployed, there's plenty of time to hone those handy Depression-era skills like how to make your own stock, grow your own veggies, and can tomatoes.

We're reverting to old-timey modes of transportation, too--there's been a dramatic spike in bike sales and train travel in recent months. And many of us are buying less, learning to make do, and turning off the lights when we leave the room. We are, at last, achieving Jimmy Carter's dream of a simpler, less-stuff driven life--a dream, by the way, that he shared with another recent U.S. president, George H. W. Bush.

Poppy Bush declared back in 1992 that he wanted to "make American families a lot more like The Waltons and a lot less like The Simpsons". How gratified he must be to see that Waltons-style austerity is finally in vogue. And all it took was his son's catastrophic stewardship of our country.

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
by Lee Camp

There have been events going on all around the country for the debates...and a few of them have gotten fun press.

The Salt Lake City chapter was covered by local TV -- you can see the article here (who knew that Utah residents were "Utahns"?!) and supposedly there's video but I'm too McCainiac in my tech skills to figure it out.

They make a nice contrast between how young progressives party, and how the young Republicans do it...which is also captured in this piece on Dutch TV. It's totally worth watching (the site's in Dutch, but click "Bekijk Item" to see it) as it juxtaposes the passed-appetizer, tie-wearing, buttoned-up conservatives with the sweatier, more raucous, more diverse party at The Tank (photo courtesy of Matt Stoller).

And lastly, a fun article out of Athens, Georgia about the local chapter. Because it's in a college town, it does a good job emphasizing that there are plenty of responsible ways to Drinking Liberally.

There must have been something in the water at Rudy's...oh, right, it was beer.

The backyard where DL began 5 years ago was as packed as I've ever seen it -- and in addition to the Liberal Drinkers, there were some lurkers from the press. Three camera crews came by to get the DL perspective.

Here's what the local CBS station had to say (includes me being snide and former Living Liberally press guru Emily Farris doing a momentary Palin impression).

NY1 and Fox 5 were both there as well -- searching for NY1 footage now.

Last night was crazy in New York City. Drinking Liberally ended up hosting three events in Manhattan just to make sure we had enough space, and our venues still were packed.

Laughing Liberally comedian Elon James White captured the spirit of the night and repackaged it fast into today's episode of This Week in Blackness. Elon interviewed two groups of debate-watchers for their views: people of color, and white women.

Of course, white or black, man or woman, everyone shared one thing: they were drinking...liberally...

(With a click of her mouse, EatingLiberally’s kat corners Dr. Marion Nestle, NYU professor of nutrition and author of Pet Food Politics, What to Eat and Food Politics:)

Kat: You ruffled some high-powered plumage earlier this month when you spoke at the Global Food Systems forum hosted by Jeffrey Sach’s Earth Institute. After listening to executives from Monsanto, Pespsico, Nestlé, Unilever, and Syngenta declare their intention to help solve the world hunger and obesity crises (oh, and climate change, while they’re at it), you expressed the belief that these are social problems that can’t truly be addressed through technological fixes or marketing.

But the agronomists who spoke at the forum insisted that Africa’s soil is so poor, so depleted, that our only hope for eradicating hunger there lies in increasing crop yields via the patented biotech seeds and chemical fertilizers proffered by Monsanto, Syngenta, et. al. OK, so if agricultural conditions are so lousy in Africa, why, then—as this article in Sunday’s Los Angeles TImes reveals—are wealthy nations like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait snapping up Africa’s cropland “hoping to turn the global epicenter of malnutrition into a breadbasket for themselves?”

According to the Times, the Saudis are so worried about insufficient irrigation in their own country that they’re leasing land from Sudan, whose government is waving export taxes and granting low-cost 99-year leases to foreign investors on the grounds that “the new deals will help, not exploit, their country by creating jobs, promoting commercialization, and pumping much-needed investment into its agricultural industry.”

But what about pumping out Africa’s finite water resources onto crops for export when its own people are starving? Many African nations are facing the specter of water shortages and drought along with much of the rest of the world. Presumably, this isn’t what Jeffrey Sachs had in mind when he called for “increased food production in Africa.” What good do genetically modified drought-resistant seeds do for the world’s poor if the resulting crops are grown for the benefit of the affluent?

Dr. Nestle: Ruffling plumage was not my intention and, as usual, I just thought I was stating the obvious: American and European food and agriculture companies that exist for the purpose of earning profits for stockholders are not going to be able to do much to help poor farmers in Africa make a living. For one thing, Western companies depend on government subsidies to keep the prices of their products down and this undermines the ability of African farmers to sell crops at a decent price. For another, political instability and extreme poverty in Africa make it difficult to establish the conditions necessary for agricultural production.

Poverty means that people won’t have enough money to buy the seeds, fertilizer, and farm equipment that are required to make the “green revolution” work. That is why biotechnology companies spend most of their resources developing—and patenting—seeds designed for temperate zone agriculture and invest so little in research on crops that can grow under harsh tropical conditions. Mind you, genetically engineering crops that can grow in hot climates with poor soils and little water present difficult scientific problems that will not be solved easily. But no agricultural biotechnology company of which I am aware is putting much money into this kind of research quite simply because it has no obvious payoff other than public relations. Hence: Golden Rice.

I do not claim to know how to solve Africa’s need for agricultural development but I applaud efforts to help its farmers grow enough food to feed themselves and their families—and to have enough left over to sell at a profit. I thought the absence of Vandana Shiva at the conference was a big gap. It would have been interesting to see how its audience reacted to a report on what her Navdanya Center is doing to help small farmers in India grow multiple crops under sustainable conditions appropriate to their particular location. This approach seems to be working well to raise farmers out of dire poverty and is a model that I would think deserves serious consideration. Its one major drawback? It only helps farmers help themselves and will do little in the short run to raise the profits of the food and agriculture corporations represented at that meeting.

In the long run, of course, a population that is better off economically will be interested in buying better food and more consumer goods, which is what we see happening in China. China invested in its own agriculture right from the start of its economic development, but it has a stable government. All I was saying was that government stability and poverty are social problems unlikely to be solvable by genetically engineered crops, at least as currently managed.

Laughing Liberally To Keep From Crying
by Katie Halper

Everyone in the office Living Liberally office is already excited/petrified/ambivalent/crouched over in empathy pain about tonight's debate. Though we wonder if it'll be as Jim Lehrer-y as last Friday's - to provide a quick recap, Katie Halper has kindly offered a flashback at the top ten debate moments thus far.

As though seeing Biden v. Palin isn't enough fun already...here are some party games that will turn your Debate Watch Night into a Debate Watch Fiesta.

Chief among them: Palin Bingo. (By sheer coincidence, we're told that friends of the sister of our intrepid Boise chapter leader created this little delight.)

When she says "trade missions," "glass ceiling" or the more obvious "Russia" and "maverick," it could bring you one tile closer to winning the game.

For those looking for fewer tiles and more drinks, check out Josh Nelson's drinking game rules. Including such faves as:

- Everytime Biden mentions a foreign leader he has met: sip wine -- every time he mentions a Senator as a friend: drink beer.

- When Palin claims she said "Thanks but no thanks" to the Bridge to Nowhere: Demand a new drink from your hosts, say "thanks but no thanks," and then when no one's looking, take it anyway, then claim you never wanted it.

(For more straight up sip / chug rules, visit Time Out New York's blog for their drinking game guidelines.)

Cheers.

Biden has been at the lead in the Senate
proposing alternatives to Bush's foreign policy.
Palin's unfamiliar with the Bush doctrine.
But to push her on that is elitist.

Biden pressed & opposed Roberts & Alito.
Palin can't name a Supreme Court decision
other than Roe that she supports or opposes.
But to call her out on that is aggressive.

Biden's record has been through public scrutiny.
Palin can't explain how being next to Russia
counts as foreign policy experience,
& won't even tell us what she reads.
But to press her on that would be sexist.

You have one candidate known for talking too much
who'll try to say a lot less to not be aggressive.
And one who knows so little she has nothing to say.

Biden'll be biding his time & Palin pale in comparison
...this could be the quietest debate ever....
or is that an elitist, sexist thing to suggest?

Nobody should have to watch alone, or sober,
so join the debate -- share a drink & a night
with your local progressive social club.

DRINKING LIBERALLY
Find - or start - a chapter near you.

In NYC? Join our debate watch parties
at Rudy's - 9th btw 44th & 45th
or The Tank @ chashama - 217 East 42nd St.