Politics

In an article of the same title in The Washington Post by Dana Milbank describing President Bush's Thursday press conference:

The session was called to draw attention to the fact that Democratic leaders had just caved in to Bush's demand that the Iraq spending bill have no withdrawal timeline. But as frequently happens at presidential events these days, it quickly became al-Qaeda, all the time. Bush invoked the terrorist group 19 times and even suggested it was going after individual reporters' kids. "They are a threat to your children, David," he advised NBC's David Gregory. "It's a danger to your children, Jim," Bush informed the New York Times' Jim Rutenberg. This last warning was perplexing, because Rutenberg has no children, only a brown chow chow named Little Bear. It was unclear whether Bush was referring to a specific and credible threat to Little Bear or merely indicating there was increased "chatter in the system" about chow chows in general.

In an article of the same title from last month in the NY Times, Michael Pollan answers the question: how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

...why it is that the most reliable predictor of obesity in America today is a person's wealth. For most of history, after all, the poor have typically suffered from a shortage of calories, not a surfeit. So how is it that today the people with the least amount of money to spend on food are the ones most likely to be overweight?

Drewnowski found that a dollar could buy 1,200 calories of cookies or potato chips but only 250 calories of carrots. Looking for something to wash down those chips, he discovered that his dollar bought 875 calories of soda but only 170 calories of orange juice. As a rule, processed foods are more "energy dense" than fresh foods: they contain less water and fiber but more added fat and sugar, which makes them both less filling and more fattening. These particular calories also happen to be the least healthful ones in the marketplace, which is why we call the foods that contain them "junk."

The reason the least healthful calories in the supermarket are the cheapest is that those are the ones the farm bill encourages farmers to grow. A public-health researcher from Mars might legitimately wonder why a nation faced with what its surgeon general has called "an epidemic" of obesity would at the same time be in the business of subsidizing the production of high-fructose corn syrup. But such is the perversity of the farm bill: the nation's agricultural policies operate at cross-purposes with its public-health objectives.

Americans may tell themselves they don't have a national land-use policy, that the market by and large decides what happens on private property in America, but that's not exactly true. The smorgasbord of incentives and disincentives built into the farm bill helps decide what happens on nearly half of the private land in America: whether it will be farmed or left wild, whether it will be managed to maximize productivity (and therefore doused with chemicals) or to promote environmental stewardship.

...the "farm bill" is a misnomer; in truth, it is a food bill and so needs to be rewritten with the interests of eaters placed first. Yes, there are eaters who think it in their interest that food just be as cheap as possible, no matter how poor the quality. But there are many more who recognize the real cost of artificially cheap food - to their health, to the land, to the animals, to the public purse. At a minimum, these eaters want a bill that aligns agricultural policy with our public-health and environmental values, one with incentives to produce food cleanly, sustainably and humanely. Eaters want a bill that makes the most healthful calories in the supermarket competitive with the least healthful ones. Eaters want a bill that feeds schoolchildren fresh food from local farms rather than processed surplus commodities from far away. Enlightened eaters also recognize their dependence on farmers, which is why they would support a bill that guarantees the people who raise our food not subsidies but fair prices. Why? Because they prefer to live in a country that can still produce its own food and doesn't hurt the world's farmers by dumping its surplus crops on their markets.

Check out the video below from Colbert. In it, Dana Rohrabacher (Republican, California) says it's OK to mistakenly abduct and torture 10 innocent people in order to get 90 bad guys off the street. Unbelievable. Extraordinary rendition, indeed.

This bugs me. Giuliani had some attraction as a competent, successful administrator and leader. But this tears it. There is plenty of room for difference of opinion about strategies for fighting terrorism, but with blunder after blunder the Republicans have not demonstrated that they have a superior understanding of the terrorist threat and how to successfully fight it. And Israel/Palestine has nothing to do with it? Please. From an article of the same title by Roger Simon on politico.com (via Drudge):

Rudy Giuliani said if a Democrat is elected president in 2008, America will be at risk for another terrorist attack on the scale of Sept. 11, 2001. But if a Republican is elected, he said, especially if it is him, terrorist attacks can be anticipated and stopped.

"If we are on defense [with a Democratic president], we will have more losses and it will go on longer." "I listen a little to the Democrats and if one of them gets elected, we are going on defense," Giuliani continued. "We will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense." He added: "The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us."

Giuliani said terrorists "hate us and not because of anything bad we have done; it has nothing to do with Israel and Palestine. They hate us for the freedoms we have and the freedoms we want to share with the world."

That's the title of a letter to the editor from today's edition of our local paper. It's by Ted Killinger. You can read it here: link. He explains how people like me are opposed to the war in Iraq because we find it inconvenient. He also tells me how I'm physically, intellectually and morally inferior to our troops. I'm also, apparently, lily-livered, a sissy, and a chicken. Read it for yourself.