Good news for people who like bad news! (Really, though.)
Penguin released the paperback of Michael Pollan's The Omnivore's Dilemma this month. Check it out.
The intersection between food, politics, economics, and the environment should pique everyone's interest, except for that exquisite breed of New York female who doesn't actually eat. Regardless of how politically inclined an American is, he certainly eats the food for sale here. And that's why Pollan's book is required reading, as far as I'm concerned.
Here's an article, by Salon's Eli Rosenberg, that touches a bit on the subject and features an interview with the wonderful Dan Barber, one of the guys behind Blue Hill Restaurant in Greenwich Village.
I have lots to say on this whole topic: organics, the slow food movement, sustainability in farming, petroleum-based agribusiness, Cargill, etc etc etc but I don't want to just regurgitate Pollan's work (chew someone else's cud?). Read it!!
23 August 2007
22 August 2007
usa!, usa!, usa!
HuffPo headline today: another White House possibly illegal/certainly unethical activity exposed.
In this case, it's to do with a White House Manual that provides strategies for keeping protesters away from (or at least out of sight of) Monsieur le President. The article is from WaPo.
Here are a few snippets:
The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 ... was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004...The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.
Arrested, handcuffed and jailed?! WHAT?
The manual offers ... guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says...
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.
..."The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."
At least this makes it a little funnier, but not enough for me to stop being completely horrified.
In this case, it's to do with a White House Manual that provides strategies for keeping protesters away from (or at least out of sight of) Monsieur le President. The article is from WaPo.
Here are a few snippets:
The "Presidential Advance Manual," dated October 2002 ... was released under subpoena to the American Civil Liberties Union as part of a lawsuit filed on behalf of two people arrested for refusing to cover their anti-Bush T-shirts at a Fourth of July speech at the West Virginia State Capitol in 2004...The lawsuit was filed by Jeffery and Nicole Rank, who attended the Charleston event wearing shirts with the word "Bush" crossed out on the front; the back of his shirt said "Regime Change Starts at Home," while hers said "Love America, Hate Bush." Members of the White House event staff told them to cover their shirts or leave, according to the lawsuit. They refused and were arrested, handcuffed and briefly jailed before local authorities dropped the charges and apologized. The federal government settled the First Amendment case last week for $80,000, but with no admission of wrongdoing.
Arrested, handcuffed and jailed?! WHAT?
The manual offers ... guidelines for assembling crowds. Those invited into a VIP section on or near the stage, for instance, must be " extremely supportive of the Administration," it says...
To counter any demonstrators who do get in, advance teams are told to create "rally squads" of volunteers with large hand-held signs, placards or banners with "favorable messages." Squads should be placed in strategic locations and "at least one squad should be 'roaming' throughout the perimeter of the event to look for potential problems," the manual says.
..."The rally squad's task is to use their signs and banners as shields between the demonstrators and the main press platform. If the demonstrators are yelling, rally squads can begin and lead supportive chants to drown out the protestors (USA!, USA!, USA!). As a last resort, security should remove the demonstrators from the event site."
At least this makes it a little funnier, but not enough for me to stop being completely horrified.
08 August 2007
the end of the world, or, just another new york wednesday
The extremely scary and loud thunder that woke me up in the wee hours this morning was apparently a bad sign. Trees were uprooted all over Brooklyn by a severe thunderstorm, and most subway lines closed completely today due to track flooding. The MTA, in its infinite wisdom and preparedness, advised people to "stay home," and did not update their website once between about 9:30 am and 11:30 am. Oh, and their site was down for much of that time, too.
Is this kind of like what the next terrorist attack is going to feel like? I just hope it isn't 90 and humid when that happens (or when it rains again and the entire fucking city shuts down).
All the chaos this morning brings up a few points:
Is this kind of like what the next terrorist attack is going to feel like? I just hope it isn't 90 and humid when that happens (or when it rains again and the entire fucking city shuts down).
All the chaos this morning brings up a few points:
- New York City infrastructure is totally decrepit and will only get older and worse. Meanwhile, the city is growing. MTA = Malthusian Transportation Apocalypse.
- If Manhattan ever has to be evacuated for any reason whatsoever, we're fucked.
- It no longer rains normally. Every storm event makes headlines.
New York City Transit System is Crippled by Flooding [NYT]
03 August 2007
obama naïve?
Ben Smith, who blogs for The Politico, posted an excerpt from Sen. Joe Biden's (D-DE) appearance on the Diane Rehm Show yesterday (Aug 2).
First of all, Diane Rehm is one of things I miss most about DC. That voice!
Second, here's what Biden said:
“… in order to look tough [Barack Obama has] undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence-- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy.”
This is in response to a statement Obama made recently - he said that he would consider unilateral strikes on terrorists within Pakistan. Here's a WaPo article about it.
So, bit by bit:
Going after the real Al-Qaeda (as opposed to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq") has been Obama's (and most Democrats') central anti-terrorism foreign policy for a while. It's no secret that Pakistan is where AQ is. Put them together and you end up with Obama's statement -- seems pretty rudimentary to me.
Biden is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee veteran. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable senators when it comes to foreign policy, which is basically the only thing he has going for him as a presidential candidate. That's what makes this excerpt so lame. Clearly it's just part of this noisy political nonsense that Obama is impetuous and naïve about foreign policy. In reality, who's the naïve one? I'd say anyone who supported going into Iraq and who now continues to stand by a Pakistan policy that makes our actions dependent upon "moderates" in the government informing on Al Qaeda is the truly naïve one.
Also, it's necessary to make a distinction here: Obama was not referring to invading Pakistan. Musharraf's government insists it has nothing to do with AQ's presence within its borders, so they shouldn't mind Obama's "willingness" to strike at whomever is hiding in those caves in the least.
First of all, Diane Rehm is one of things I miss most about DC. That voice!
Second, here's what Biden said:
“… in order to look tough [Barack Obama has] undermined his ability to be tough, were he president. Because if you’re going to go into Pakistan -- which is already our policy by the way, if there’s actionable intelligence-- you need actionable intelligence from moderates within Pakistan working with you. Now if you’re already going to say I’m going to disregard whatever the country thinks and going to invade, the likelihood you’re getting the cooperation you need evaporates. It’s a well intended notion he has, but it’s a very naïve way of figuring out how you’re going to conduct foreign policy.”
This is in response to a statement Obama made recently - he said that he would consider unilateral strikes on terrorists within Pakistan. Here's a WaPo article about it.
So, bit by bit:
Going after the real Al-Qaeda (as opposed to "Al-Qaeda in Iraq") has been Obama's (and most Democrats') central anti-terrorism foreign policy for a while. It's no secret that Pakistan is where AQ is. Put them together and you end up with Obama's statement -- seems pretty rudimentary to me.
Biden is a Senate Foreign Relations Committee veteran. He's probably one of the most knowledgeable senators when it comes to foreign policy, which is basically the only thing he has going for him as a presidential candidate. That's what makes this excerpt so lame. Clearly it's just part of this noisy political nonsense that Obama is impetuous and naïve about foreign policy. In reality, who's the naïve one? I'd say anyone who supported going into Iraq and who now continues to stand by a Pakistan policy that makes our actions dependent upon "moderates" in the government informing on Al Qaeda is the truly naïve one.
Also, it's necessary to make a distinction here: Obama was not referring to invading Pakistan. Musharraf's government insists it has nothing to do with AQ's presence within its borders, so they shouldn't mind Obama's "willingness" to strike at whomever is hiding in those caves in the least.
02 August 2007
someone please punch this guy in the mouth
From Salon's "War Room" Blog (posted by Tim Grieve) - Quote of the Day for 8/2/07
"Please understand, Senators, that I have the utmost respect for this committee. And a contempt citation is not something that I take lightly. To the contrary, if a court ultimately determines that Congress' need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege, I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions on the U.S. attorneys matter.
"Until that time, however, I am compelled to abide by the president's directive, particularly given my status as a current White House employee. In light of these considerations, as well as a desire to be as consistent as possible and avoid even the appearance of selectively answering questions, I will be unable at this time to answer any questions concerning White House consideration, deliberations or communications related to the U.S. attorneys matter, regardless of whether specific documents or conversations may already have been discussed publicly by others. To do otherwise would directly violate the president's order."
-White House political aide J. Scott Jennings (29 years young) testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the U.S. Attorney scandal
"Please understand, Senators, that I have the utmost respect for this committee. And a contempt citation is not something that I take lightly. To the contrary, if a court ultimately determines that Congress' need for the information outweighs the president's assertion of executive privilege, I would welcome the opportunity to answer your questions on the U.S. attorneys matter.
"Until that time, however, I am compelled to abide by the president's directive, particularly given my status as a current White House employee. In light of these considerations, as well as a desire to be as consistent as possible and avoid even the appearance of selectively answering questions, I will be unable at this time to answer any questions concerning White House consideration, deliberations or communications related to the U.S. attorneys matter, regardless of whether specific documents or conversations may already have been discussed publicly by others. To do otherwise would directly violate the president's order."
-White House political aide J. Scott Jennings (29 years young) testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee on the U.S. Attorney scandal
rightful home
Bravo, Getty Museum, for deciding to return 40 antiquities back to their rightful home in Italy. These are valuable as pieces of art, but they are invaluable as national treasures and symbols of Italy.
Next up: march on Paris! Demand our treasures back from the Louvre! And we want Corsica, too.
Next up: march on Paris! Demand our treasures back from the Louvre! And we want Corsica, too.
01 August 2007
snap out of it!
A key Sunni political bloc announced that it would be withdrawing from Nouri Al-Maliki's fragile Coalition government in Baghdad today. And all this amidst about 70 people dying in suicide bombings. [Reuters]
This story broke two hours ago.
NYT.com just posted this, though the Sunni bloc withdraw part is not even the goddamn headline. HELLO?!?
The server at NYT is too busy processing the number one most e-mailed story (Findings: The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting) I guess.
What is wrong with this picture?
This story broke two hours ago.
NYT.com just posted this, though the Sunni bloc withdraw part is not even the goddamn headline. HELLO?!?
The server at NYT is too busy processing the number one most e-mailed story (Findings: The Whys of Mating: 237 Reasons and Counting) I guess.
What is wrong with this picture?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
