President Obama declared combat in Iraq over
even while tens of thousands of troops remain
in a fractured, tumultuous, uncertain country.

He declared it was time to turn the page
though we still turn to military contractors
and still pour wealth out our national coffers.

He didn't say "stay the course" --
rather, he insisted we completed it,
even as we sink deeper into the quagmire
of the uncompletable Afghanistan.

The Prez basically said "Mission Accomplished."
We've heard that before...
Let's hope the Mission's now More Accomplished
...for his sake, for ours and for Iraq's.

Share your thoughts, doubts & ideas
as you share pitchers, shots and beers
at your local progressive social club.

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

On August 28th, 1963 , Martin Luther King had a dream.
Now, in a country still haunted by racial division,
Glenn Beck's taking the steps of the Lincoln Memorial
to fuel fear, suspicion and dishonor the "dream."

A hurricane devastated an American city 5 years ago.
Areas of New Orleans are still abandoned
& its residents still scattered & struggling
as the city now suffers again with the BP spill.

Two years ago, Barack Obama accepted the nomination.
He's pushed reforms & reached out to the world,
but also continued wars & presidential secrecy.
And Americans increasingly think he's Muslim.

The dream 47 years ago was a powerful vision
& the hopes of 2 years ago were a great step
but while we've made strides, we're not there yet.

The dream has been deferred...
but we cannot be deterred.

Come out to share a vision, not sow division,
and share what you're thinking & drinking
at your local progressive social club.

DRINKING LIBERALLY
Tonight - and every Thursday
7:30pm onward
Rudy's - 9th Ave btw 44th & 45th
[back booths beneath the DL banner]
Questions: nyc@drinkingliberally.org

Stephen Budiansky, self-proclaimed "liberal curmudgeon," has stuffed together another flimsy, flammable straw man out of boilerplate anti-locavore rhetoric on the New York Times op-ed page, with the patronizing title Math Lessons For Locavores.

It's a familiar formula: start by establishing yourself as the voice of reason by professing your own deep appreciation of the merits of locally grown food as evidenced by the bounty of your own back yard. Then, launch into a diatribe against a mythical army of dour, sour food mile nazis, including 'celebrity chefs and mainstream environmental organizations,' whose support for local farmers is based on wildly misguided and naive notions about curbing one's carbon 'foodprint.'

Throw in a bunch of dubious and/or irrelevant statistics that appear to be truly locally sourced -- i.e. pulled out of your own behind. Add a few disingenuous claims about the environmental benefits of industrial agriculture. Wrap things up with a statement so ludicrous that you have to publish it on your own website because hey, the New York Times is only willing to go so far:

"...eating food from a long way off is often the single best thing you can do for the environment, as counterintuitive as that sounds."

Budiansky's argument tars all eat-local proponents with the same broad brush, warning us that we're turning into a bunch of joyless, sanctimonious schmucks who are flimflamming an unsuspecting public:

For instance, it is sinful in New York City to buy a tomato grown in a California field because of the energy spent to truck it across the country; it is virtuous to buy one grown in a lavishly heated greenhouse in, say, the Hudson Valley.

Sinful according to whom? As I wrote on page 27 of Rodale's Whole Green Catalog:

Bear in mind that buying local is often the most low-impact choice -- but not always: an out-of-season local tomato grown in a fossil fuel-heated greenhouse could consume more energy than one that's been field grown and shipped from Mexico.

But hey, what do I know? I'm just one of those local-food advocates who brandishes statistics that are "always selective, usually misleading and often bogus" to back up our "doctrinaire assertions."

That describes Budiansky's own modus operandi in a nutshell. His op-ed focuses almost exclusively on the question of how much fossil fuel is used to grow and ship food, and concludes that the amount of energy used is negligible in the grand scheme of things.

Sure, and because eggs weigh less than the grain it costs to feed the factory farm hens that produce them, it was presumably quite energy efficient to ship those 380 million factory farmed eggs that have since been recalled for possible salmonella contamination from Iowa to fourteen other states.

But energy efficiency is only one small part of the equation when you add up the reasons to buy local. Other factors include: flavor and nutrition; support for more ecological farming practices; reduction of excess packaging; avoidance of pesticides and other toxins; more humane treatment of livestock and workers; preservation of local farmland; spending one's dollars closer to home; the farmers' market as community center, and so on.

Budiansky totally ignores these issues, except to challenge the assumption that sustainable agriculture is better for the environment than industrial agriculture. After establishing the folly of food miles, he goes on to note:

Other favorite targets of sustainability advocates include the fertilizers and chemicals used in modern farming. But their share of the food system's energy use is even lower, about 8 percent.

Again with the energy usage! Geez. As if that were our big beef with fertilizers and chemicals. What about soil erosion, pollution, loss of biodiversity, the rise of superweeds and antibiotic-resistant infections, the dead zones in our oceans and rivers, exposure to contaminants, and all the other environmentally disastrous consequences of 'conventional' farming?

According to Budiansky, the real culprit, when it comes to squandering energy, is us:

Home preparation and storage account for 32 percent of all energy use in our food system, the largest component by far.

He cites the miles we drive to do our grocery shopping and the energy it takes to run our fridges, dishwashers, stoves, etc. But what do any of these things have to do with whether you choose to buy food locally? Your fridge uses the same amount of energy regardless of where the food you put in it came from.

If Budiansky sincerely cares to examine what constitutes a truly low-impact diet, why does he ignore one of the biggest sources of food-related wasted energy in the average American household? As New Scientist recently noted:

More energy is wasted in the perfectly edible food discarded by people in the US each year than is extracted annually from the oil and gas reserves off the nation's coastlines.

What's so maddening about sloppy op-eds like this is that they give fodder to folks who hate the very notion that their food choices have any consequences beyond their own waistlines and bank balances. At a time when global warming is surely fueling fires, floods, and drought all over the world, we need to have an honest conversation about how the way we eat contributes to climate change.

What we don't need is dishonest misrepresentations and tiresome stereotypes about the eat local movement. If you actually read what us good food folks have to say about eating ecologically, you'll see that the emphasis is on adopting a predominantly plant-based diet, eating foods when they're in season, limiting your consumption of animal products and processed convenience foods, and avoiding the chemicals and pesticides that are used in conventional farming.

Buying local produce is obviously a part of the equation. But to portray it as the sole consideration of sustainable food advocates is to adopt a lazy contrarian position that is guaranteed to generate controversy, and just as sure to do absolutely nothing to engender a meaningful discussion about these issues. Budiansky needs to be taken out to the foodshed and pummeled with his own lousy logic.

At the end of his blog post elaborating on his op-ed, he writes: "More seriously: environmentalism ought to be about pragmatism, not dogmatism."

Seriously? Such a deeply unserious piece such as his doesn't deserve to take up valuable real estate like the Times op-ed page. Though, like most real estate, it's worth less than it once was. Publishing stuff like this doesn't do much for the Old Grey Lady's property values.

By Adam Bartel

Drinking Conservatively doesn’t have much of a ring to it. After all, who wants to be overly conservative when they’re enjoying a beverage with their friends. A group of Republicans in Seattle that are trying to duplicate the success of Drinking Liberally felt the same way, and decided to come up with their own name. However, their selection – as well as the group itself – leave more than a bit to be desired.

The CEO of a website called Red County ran a contest to see who could come up with the best name for the fledgling group, and offered a prize of “a paid for bar tab of up to $100” (I’m sure Justin & Matt offered up a similar prize when DL was created). After much consideration, the winning name was “Right on the Rocks”, which would be an excellent description of their electoral results in the last two congressional elections.

Where it gets more interesting is when you start reading about their events. Their second meeting (which they say had a smaller crowd than their kickoff event) featured speaker Lynn Brewer, a former Enron executive and current CEO of The Integrity Institute. The Economist lauded her as “the real whistle blower” at Enron, which is extremely impressive… until you do a simple Google search and realize that the only places where this quote appears are sites promoting her. Nowhere in the article in question does it ever refer to her with that moniker. In fact, there’s just as much evidence that she greatly inflated her credentials as both an executive and as a whistle blower.

Regardless of Ms. Brewer’s authenticity, it sounds like she gave a very impassioned speech about the sustainability of corporate cultures to the smaller than expected crowd that was gathered at… Ruth’s Chris Steakhouse. Because really, when you’re trying to show off your grassroots credibility and involve all members of the community, you want to do it at a restaurant where the average steak runs about $35.

In an election year where the Democrats should be making it a referendum on which party works for the common man vs. the well-to-do, it’s also important that we look at the differences between the social groups created by members of both parties. While Drinking Liberally chapters meet in bars with beer specials and cheap food so everyone can afford to attend, and host genuine guest speakers and politicians, groups like Right on the Rocks meet in venues where only the upper class can afford to attend, and bring in questionable former Enron employees to talk about integrity.

That’s a debate we’re willing to have any day of the week.

A judge delivered news the right-wing has most feared:
that their stance against marriage equality is wrong --
not just morally, not religiously...but Constitutionally.

Conservatives switched fear mongering from gays to Muslims
attacking the right to build an Islamic Cultural Center
though free practice of religion is old as the Constitution itself.

And because the right-wing loves to hate immigrants,
the GOP has started an attack on the 14th Amendment
-- a direct assault on out Constitution & its principles.

These guys on the "Right" are just plain wrong.
Being wrong is in their constitution.
But let's keep their hands off of ours.

Whether you want to wash the taste of the Right away
or toast to a Constitution that is stronger than they are,
come out to drink a little & think a little
at your local progressive social club.

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

President Obama followed in President Bush's footsteps
when, he declared our mission in Iraq accomplished
-- while planning to leave over 50,000 troops behind.

The President also walked his predecessor's walk
by declaring the economic recovery underway --
while the unemployed & underemployed feel no relief.

Then with Afghanistan, where the military urges the Prez
to revise any drawdown & plan a longer stay,
the Presidential path he's following is that of LBJ.

President Obama needs to choose a new pair of shoes.

Maybe f he walked a day in the life of the millions
of Americans who just want to go back to work
he'd find the resolve to invest less in war & more in jobs.

Come out tonight to share your views over some booze,
as we vent & rant, debate & drink, toast & roast
at your local, progressive social club.

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

Pundits obsess with elections. Will the Democrats hold both houses of Congress? Will Obama voters return to the polls in the midterms? Do recent primaries send a warning to incumbents -- and if so, what warning: that they should move left, right or center?

Around the country, though, the politically-minded population has had more than election cycles on their mind. They care about the systemic structural issues in the Senate and the temperament of the administration, issues which won't change with a single vote. They are equally obsessed with local transit and neighborhood redevelopment. They exchange book and move recommendations and argue over favorite news anchors and comedians.

These people belong to America's Liberal Tribe: a growing community of people who share attitudes and culture rooted in common values that transcend single election cycles.

And good news America: the liberal cause is growing.

Over the past six weeks, I have had the chance to meet local liberals around the country, as I've toured with my recent book, "538 Ways to Live, Work and Play Like a Liberal." I have been visiting chapters of Drinking Liberally, the ubiquitous progressive social club. What is really remarkable is how much the members of these groups -- separated by city, state and region -- have in common.

They love Rachel Maddow and are getting to love Ed Schultz. They are split over who prefers Jon Stewart or Stephen Colbert. They know when the local green market is open. Many of them are surprisingly knowledgeable about local beers. They can often tick of local and national bloggers as though they were naming network anchors. They are more familiar with their public transportation options, even in cities with anemic mass transit, than the average barfly.

And yes, their commonalities extend into more conventional politics. They debate whether they are disappointed in the President's resolve, or whether they sympathize for him being hemmed in by a constitutionally-conservative Senate. They are often as versed in the contours of their local races as they are in the contests to send representatives to DC. They know the name "Alan Grayson." They also know the name "Michele Bachman."

I visited groups that were majority senior citizen and groups that were recent college grads. I visited the classic "red state" of Kentucky, the urban liberal oasis of San Francisco, and states Obama tipped over like North Carolina and Indiana. While the accents varied with the beers on tap, many of these cultural-political markers remained the same.

The politicians themselves differ -- a Democrat in Orange County, California, may not offer the same assessment of what it means to be a Democrat as one in Cambridge, Massachusetts. The candidates focus on different issues and hedge their talking points.

The self-identified liberals, though, aren't defined or divided by narrow parochial issues. They may diverge on many issues: limits of gun ownership, best ways to improve public schools, which favorite local industry to invest in. However, they share a larger set of values about investing in common resources, pursuing shared goals, and building diverse, inclusive, sustainable communities that connect them more than any local differences may parse them.

I had a conversation with a woman in Indianapolis active in neighborhood organizing in the city's Near Eastside. What she expressed as their goals, resonated with conversations around the country: improved transit, which is a major effort in DC and Cincinnati; more community gardens, a hot button issue in New York and San Francisco; greater neighborhood involvement in schools, which I heard in Durham and Los Angeles; and the hope to draw more options for fresh, affordable food into the area, which was a conversation in Covington and central New Jersey,

She would immediately feel comfortable at a Drinking Liberally chapter anywhere around the country. Wherever she went, people would discuss Olbermann's latest special comment. They'd laugh and vent about Andrew Breitbart. They'd give recommendations for local movie theaters, music venues and bookstores. They'd share a tasty local beer.

They'd know she was part of their Liberal Tribe, and they'd welcome her home.

As I continue to travel through the midterm elections, I'll report back about our Tribe -- and if I come to your town, join me for a drink.

The Drinking Liberally family would like to extend a most-enthusiastic CONGRATULATIONS! to Ted and Saskia of Lexington, Kentucky. The two were married last month after having met in 2007 at -- you guessed it -- their local Drinking Liberally chapter.

How did this come to be?

Mellow Mushroom pizzeria, downtown Lexington. Chance meeting at a gathering of our Drinking Liberally friends. Lots of pizza, eye gazing, and political sparring, um that means flirting. That was December 2007. Many beers and political debates later, the happy couple wants to get married, and we hope you will join us in celebrating the nuptials...

You can read more about how they met, see pictures of the wedding and even send your own well-wishes by visiting their wedding page at http://www.mywedding.com/webecoolenwright/index.html.

On behalf of everyone at Drinking Liberally, we'd like to raise our glasses and toast Ted and Saskia as they begin their wonderful life together.

Did you meet your special someone at Drinking Liberally? Know someone else who did? Be sure to let us know in the comments!