Sign up for updates in your city.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 12:00am.
Laughing Liberally comic Lee Camp gives his take on Net Neutrality.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 12:00am.
Laughing Liberally comic Costaki Economopoulos figures out if he can vote for a President named Obama.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Wed, 07/25/2007 - 12:00am.
Laughing Liberally comic Costaki Economopoulos explains the latest on a suspicious package found at the John Edwards Head Quarters.
Submitted by KAT on Mon, 07/23/2007 - 8:00am.
One thing Hurricane Katrina taught us is that a cabinet stocked with cronies is a recipe for disaster in a disaster. That’s why Eating Liberally encourages everyone to keep a well-stocked pantry. In case of calamity—manmade, natural, or a doubly catastrophic combination of the two (i.e., Katrina)--we’re saddled with an ungallant government that’s more likely to gallop off into the sunset at the first sign of trouble than race to the rescue. Just call them the First Absconders.
The Department of Homeland Security does, however, offer a website with advice about what to have on hand for an emergency. It’s chock full o’ half-helpful hints, such as “Choose foods your family will eat,” and “Avoid salty foods, as they will make you thirsty,” followed by a shopping list of sodium-saturated stuff like canned foods and crackers.
You’ll do better to consult a couple of cookbooks that specialize in calamity cuisine: Apocalypse Chow! by Jon and Robin Robertson and The Post-Petroleum Survival Guide and Cookbook: Recipes for Changing Times by Albert Bates. Both books offer plenty of practical tips on preparing for all kinds of emergencies, but they also have recipes that sound so appealing you might be tempted to try them out before the next power outage.
And if you find yourself cooped up ‘cause of a bird flu quarantine, wouldn’t it be comforting to break out a bag of pretzels and dunk them in Sterno-softened chocolate fondue? What if a dirty bomb renders your region radioactive and you can’t get take-out? Apocalypse Now tells you how to make “High-Road Lo Mein” using a couple of canned ingredients you can keep on hand (well, OK, and maybe some fresh ginger and a carrot if you’ve got ‘em.)
Both of these books tackle a serious subject with a dash of humor while providing tons of useful information about the best ways to weather these worst-case scenarios.
But maybe you have trouble imagining the kind of apocalyptic events that call for cookbooks like these. Is The End of the World As We Know It just a jaunty REM jingle to you? If so, we have another book to recommend—Alan Weisman’s The World Without Us. Weisman speculates on what would become of the world if mankind disappeared entirely. Apparently North America would become a haven for herbivores, one gigantic deer habitat--not to be confused with Deer Park, the Nestlé-owned behemoth of bottled water. “As forests would become re-established larger herbivores would evolve to take advantage of all the nutrients locked up in woody species,” according to Weisman.
The world-famous jungle of Manhattan would reportedly revert to a forest. And there wouldn’t be any humans to clear-cut it to make chopsticks and grow GMO crops for livestock. Sounds like the face of the earth would finally clear up, if we cleared off of it. But I’m not rooting for the Rapture, unless you mean the one Debbie Harry delivered on Blondie’s AutoAmerican a couple of decades back. Now there's a timeless soundtrack; it’s got “The Tide is High,” too! What an awesome mix Bush counselor Dan Bartlett could have made for W.'s iPod, as a companion to that groovy highlight dvd of Hurricane Katrina he put together five days after it struck, so the president could be almost as up to speed as CNN’s Soledad O’Brien and Anderson Cooper. Songs like Neil Young’s “Like a Hurricane,” or Randy Newman’s “Louisiana 1927 ”. Something to drown out the sound of people drowning.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Mon, 07/23/2007 - 12:00am.
Lee Camp at the Tank in NYC
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Mon, 07/23/2007 - 12:00am.
Lee Camp at the Tank.
Submitted by KAT on Sat, 07/21/2007 - 4:11pm.
Blueberries are almost unbearably good for you—they’re one of the finest sources of antioxidants known to man (and beast.) That’s because anthocyanins, the phytochemicals that give blueberries their deep, beautiful purple-blue pigment, also do wonders for our bodies and brains, helping us fight heart disease, cancer, and aging, among other ills.
So most of us know that berries are one of the best—and tastiest—fruits we can eat. But nobody seems to realize that they’re also one of the easiest and most rewarding shrubs to grow. There’s even a dwarf variety called Tophat that’s so small you can grow it in a window box, and it’s self-pollinating, too, unlike most blueberries, which require a second variety for cross-pollination. We planted four different kinds, so they ripen a few at a time over the course of the summer, giving the birds—and sometimes us, if we’re lucky—a steady source of delicious berries.
Blueberries are a near-zero maintenance plant, and they’re ultra-ornamental; they give you something to look forward to three seasons out of four. In spring there are delicate little flowers that look like lilies of the valley, which turn into tasty berries in the summer, and then in fall the leaves go all autumnal.
Those weary rhododendrons and azaleas standing sentry in suburbia just make me sad--I say yank ‘em out and replace ‘em with blueberries. It’s a no-brainer, which people would realize if only they ate more brain cell-boosting blueberries.
Submitted by Justin Krebs on Fri, 07/20/2007 - 12:00am.
Laughing Liberally Comic Lee Camp rants about Coca-Cola and Politics.
Submitted by KAT on Thu, 07/19/2007 - 1:50pm.
Here’s a brain teaser for ya: when is a law that President Bush has signed into law still not a law?
Answer: when lobbyists object to the enforcement of the law on the grounds that it will be too costly for their corporate clients to implement.
The Decider’s decided to take a backseat to K street lobbyists and allow our food safety policies to be driven by beefy bullies like The American Meat Institute and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association.
“If W. were a real cowboy, instead of somebody who just plays one on TV, he would have cleaned up Dodge by now,” as Maureen Dowd noted Wednesday. But he can’t rope ‘n’ ride, much less catch Osama bin Laden dead or alive.
The awful truth is that the Leader of the Free World’s been lassoed by lobbyists and roped into doing their bidding at every turn. He’s a docile little dogie, but this gittin’ along is gittin’ kinda old.
As CNN anchor Kitty Pilgrim reported last Monday on Lou Dobbs Tonight:
But Lou was just getting warmed up about COOL on Monday. By Wednesday, his head nearly popped off:
Lou Dobbs: A Consumers Union poll in fact shows 92 percent of Americans want to know where their food comes from. Now, there's a law on the books that calls for country-of-origin labeling of meats and other foods. But implementation has been delayed because of pressure from special interest groups, food industry lobbyists, and others…and, as Kitty Pilgrim now reports, the lobbyists, well, they are still trumping the public interest…
Jay Truitt, National Cattlemen's Beef Association: We have asked for delays in this law from the very beginning. And the law that was passed as a part of the 2002 farm bill has some significant flaws with it.
Kitty Pilgrim: Now, with the House Agriculture Committee working on a new farm bill, some in the beef industry lobby are trying to change country-of-origin requirements by changing the definition of livestock eligible for a "Made in the USA" label. This would allow an animal born and raised in another country and brought to the United States to be slaughtered and be labeled as a product of the United States. And the lobbyists are also pushing Congress to rewrite rules for ground beef, which is sometimes mixed with meat from Canada, Mexico, or Australia, with just fat trimmings from U.S. cattle. Then there would no telling if the package contained meat from Mexico or Canada in so-called U.S. beef.
Some are calling attempts to water down country-of-origin regulations an insult to consumers.
Patty Lovera, Food & Water Watch: What we are afraid of is, instead of delaying it, the beef industry will try to weaken it and get themselves off the hook and not be totally covered.
Kitty Pilgrim: The beef industry says they are fighting country-of- origin rules because they cost too much. Now, the House Agriculture Committee is currently working on the new bill. And the worry is, amendments are being proposed that will basically weaken the country-of-origin labeling rules -- Lou.
Lou Dobbs: Will weaken the country-of-origin rules?
Kitty Pilgrim: They have been delayed twice, basically through appropriations, and now they think they will be diluted -- they will be put in place, but they won't be effective.
Lou Dobbs: So, once again, Congress is filled with gutless wonders rolling over for lobbyists on K Street, in this case, the beef industry fighting these country-of-origin labels.
Kitty Pilgrim: Well, let me tell you, this is in markup right now in the House, and the consumer groups are watching this like a hawk. When those amendments go in, there is going to be a public outcry...
Lou Dobbs: Well, let's get here tomorrow night, let's get those groups that are watching, Food & Water Watch, for example…the Consumers Union, all of them, and give them some credit, and show our audience where they can write, and try to get some -- and the idiot congressmen who would be blocking the enactment of this law. But let's also get the USDA. And who is the fellow from the Cattlemen's Association?
Kitty Pilgrim: Yes, Jay Truitt? He…
Lou Dobbs: Jay Truitt?...Well, Jay Truitt -- Jay Truitt, I want to talk to you, pardner. You're all bull and no beef. And we're going to call you on this. And we're going to go through every one of your objections. And if you don't start thinking just a little about the national interests, you are going to hear from us daily, nightly, hourly. I don't care what it takes, because I have had a bellyful of this. This is outrageous, a gutless administration on this issue, a gutless Congress, and lobbyists rolling over the will of the people.
Kitty Pilgrim: The public will is very clear on this. They want country-of-origin labels.
Lou Dobbs: It's a law, for crying out loud...millions of Americans that have just had it with this nonsense. This is no longer funny. And they are putting the public health at risk…let's see if we can get the existing law enforced and roll back the influence of lobbyists in Washington.
Yeah, let’s see! Food safety advocates and consumers have been huffing and puffing about this issue for years without getting anywhere, but with a prime time populist like Dobbs hyperventilating, maybe we’ll start to feel the winds of change. Tune in to CNN tonight at 6 for more fireworks. And if you think it’s unfashionable to be a Lou Dobbs Democrat, just call yourself a Kitty Pilgrim Progressive.
Submitted by KAT on Wed, 07/18/2007 - 9:05am.
Eating Liberally’s delighted to announce that we’ve acquired a DC correspondent, and just in time to get the inside scoop on the farm bill hearings! Blogger Natasha Chart, a charter member of the netroots who ruminates about all things agricultural (and just cultural) on Daily Kos, myDD, OpenLeft and PacificViews , snagged a ringside seat yesterday and sent us her account of the dueling for dollars between sustainable ag advocates and the agribizness-as-usual crew.
Washington, D.C. - “A sound compromise that no one is satisfied with, but nevertheless represents real reform.” - From Rep. Collin Peterson's (D-MN) opening statement today on the 2007 Farm Bill.
The first House Agriculture Committee markup session on the 2007 Farm Bill began with Rep. Collin Peterson's opening statement, followed by everyone else's. Peterson said that Americans were fortunate to enjoy low, stable food prices, and food that meets the highest standards of quality and safety.
No markup, or voting on specific amendments, actually took place during today's session. The last changes to the legislation weren't made until late last night, and today was the first chance most members got to see the final versions, though Rep. Peterson said that the changes were minor in comparison to the version released a little over a week ago.
Peterson said that listening sessions all over the country indicated that the 2002 Farm Bill was popular and regarded as successful. Building from that as a platform, changes Peterson described as departing from 2002 policies included increased spending on research, investment in nutrition, and help for new farmers. He said it was also the first time there was dedicated baseline funding support for fruits and vegetables, as well as a hard cap on payments under the commodity and conservation programs, such that no one with an adjusted gross income of a million dollars or more is eligible.
Peterson further said that there would be a main version of the bill that strictly adhered to paygo, pay-as-you-go, budget guidelines. Other items not covered by this baseline funding would be included in a separate bill that would need to have budget offsets found for it.
Ranking member Rep. Bob Goodlatte (R-VA) said that he had called for a “modern, forward-looking Farm Bill,” as opposed to an extension of the previous bill, but that there wasn't enough money. He said that the majority party's Budget Committee wasn't willing to pay enough for nutrition, for a modern bill, not with a $60 billion budget shortfall.
Goodlatte said that he wasn't pleased to see the bill going to the floor with funding for some wishes, but only promises and good intentions for the rest. He also said that, though all the Republicans on the committee supported paygo rules, that demands had been made on the committee that they didn't have the resources to meet.
Goodlatte predicted an onslaught of amendments on the floor that would cripple the safety net for agriculture. He said that it was very important to know what outside funding would be made available, and that it be committed to publicly.
Peterson responded that other committees were reluctant to legislate on nutrition and energy issues that were in the jurisdiction of the Agriculture Committee. However, these pieces of legislation would be sent to the Rules Committee to find offsets from other committee budgets.
Rep. Terry Everett (R-AL) said that an industry facing as much uncertainty as agriculture needed a safety net. He singled out peanut farming as a sector that had to deal with the same rising costs as other farm enterprises, but without the benefit of countercyclical payments to redress price shortfalls.
Everett made a point of saying that his district grows a lot, and that he's not opposed to getting a Farm Bill passed just to keep Democrats from passing legislation. He said that preserving agriculture was more important than playing politics.
Rep. Mike McIntyre (D-NC) agreed that it was important to support the $800 million peanut industry, worth $67 million in his own state alone. As the chair of the Subcommittee on Specialty Crops, Rural Development and Foreign Agriculture, McIntyre devoted most of his statement to rural development issues. He highlighted what he considered the critical importance of providing rural communities with libraries, fire trucks, and access to microenterprise development assistance. He said that companies with fewer than 10 employees were a fast growing source of jobs, and that programs like supporting rural broadband would help rural small business, as well as schools and hospitals.
Rep. Bob Etheridge (D-NC) focused on farm finance, talking again about the listening tours that had been held around the country, saying that farmers especially liked three things: direct payments, marketing loans and counter cyclical payments. Counter cyclical payments are intended to compensate farmers for prices that fall below their operating costs. This year, the bill will include the option to sign up for a just released revenue based counter cyclical payment plan (pdf), a proposal forwarded by the president, that would establish target revenue and yield prices on a national formula.
Representatives Marilyn Musgrave (R-CO) and Tim Walberg (R-MI) both expressed reservations about inclusion of Davis-Bacon Wage Determinations in the bill. This standard “determines prevailing wage rates to be paid on federally funded or assisted construction projects,” and is included as a requirement for biorefineries built with federal loan guarantees. The idea is alarming enough to Representatives Randy Neugebauer (R-TX), Steve King (R-IA) and Michael Conaway (R-TX), that they've offered an amendment, number 51, to strike that language from the bill.
King later described himself as a lifetime opponent of Davis-Bacon, saying, “I don't get to die until that's repealed.” He also referred to the 46 percent increase in nutrition spending as “freedom from fear of want,” needlessly addressing the worries of households who weren't worried about the next meal, but a couple meals down the line. He said that this kind of worry was why he thought people got up to go to work.
Rep. Joe Baca (D-CA) started off by identifying himself as a former food stamp recipient. He said that he still thanks God every day that they were there when his family needed that help. Rep. David Scott (D-GA), later reiterated the importance of the food stamp program, and warned the committee that it was important to protect it from moves toward privatization.
Baca also pointed out that while one in ten Americans suffer from hunger, this rate was double in the Black and Latino communities, so it was important to pay attention to nutrition for those receiving assistance. Scott further highlighted racial diversity issues, noting that Black farmers faced “dire and unique” pressures; having been around a long time, but usually running small farms.
Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-NE) said that it was important that the bill support agricultural entrepreneurship, agriculture-based renewable energy, and rewards for creative conservation. He also noted that concentration in agriculture was a problem, and that having 70 percent of payments go to 10 percent of farms didn't help matters. Rep. Cardoza (D-CA) echoed this concern for payment diversity in pointing out that no previous Farm Bills have given specialty crops, fruits and vegetables, their fair share.
Rep. Sam Graves (R-MO), himself a farmer, repeated the concern many Republicans expressed for providing a safety net for farmers. He said they were unique among industries in having to buy at retail and sell at wholesale, accepting prices at both ends. He said that he wanted a bill that would get farmers through the lean times, when, as Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) noted, they face enormous capital exposure and risks beyond their control.
Graves proposed safeguarding the current system by offering an amendment that would allow the USDA to permanently disbar anyone committing fraud against it from further participation in their programs
Rep. John Barrow (D-GA) returned the topic again to rural development. He praised the reauthorization of the Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas (ATTRA) program, a research service that provides technical advice for organic and sustainable farming, and expressed concern at the rate the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was closing rural offices. He also reiterated the interest expressed by Rep. Scott in having a strong country of origin labeling standard.
The committee will meet again tomorrow at 10 am. There were 300 people in line today. I'm going to have to hope I can get into the overflow room for the markup session, not sure I'll be as lucky again as I was today to get a seat in the main hearing room.
Chapter leaders... Please login here.
Subscribe to Blogging Liberally