Is the Sustainable Food Movement Hurting Efforts to Curb World Hunger?

I don't normally read Foreign Policy but Slate linked to an interesting article today. Basically, it argues that the first world's sustainable food movement is all well and good but to fight world hunger, we need to continue relying on modern, unsustainable techniques. Money quote:

Influential food writers, advocates, and celebrity restaurant owners are repeating the mantra that "sustainable food" in the future must be organic, local, and slow. But guess what: Rural Africa already has such a system, and it doesn't work. Few smallholder farmers in Africa use any synthetic chemicals, so their food is de facto organic. High transportation costs force them to purchase and sell almost all of their food locally. And food preparation is painfully slow. The result is nothing to celebrate: average income levels of only $1 a day and a one-in-three chance of being malnourished.

Given that there are at least 850 million people who subsist on less than 2,100 calories a day, I find this argument compelling. I also think this is unrelated to what we do with our own food in the U.S. and that we should continue to try to be as sustainable as possible here.

Are the Repugs Panicking?

On Slate, Timothy Noah says they are. He concedes that the GOP will pick up seats in the midterms but argues that the party of the president always loses seats in the midterms. But, all of his points come from the Tea Party's gains into the GOP mainstream. I think the somewhat centrist Repugs are panicking because they are being replaced by the Marco Rubios of the world. But, I don't think folks like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh are panicking at all.

Long-term, I think the Dems' prospects look strong. The economy is slowly turning around, health care reform has already started positively impacting people, and they've pinned to GOP into a corner on financial reform. Still, this could all backslide quickly this November. I'm still worried.

Why Don't They Make the GOP Filibuster?

Ezra Klein explains via an interview with an expert, political scientist Greg Koger, that the Dems won't force the GOP to filibuster because they'll never win and because the rules are more onerous for the majority than the minority. However, toward the end this post Koger gets to why I think they should make the Repugs do it:

The benefit to the majority can be that public attention focuses. They know the bill is there and they know the Republicans are blocking it. That becomes the basis for news coverage. When will the bill be done? What's going on today? In that sense, you can win.

I strongly think that forcing the GOP to stand up and block the financial reform bill will embarrass them immensely leading to ultimate victory on the bill and possibly November.

Rare Moment of Honesty from OH GOP

Via the Washington Monthly: In their campaign against Rep. Betty Sutton (D-OH), the GOP of Medina County circulated a flier with this nugget: "take Betty Sutton out of the House and put her back in the kitchen." Naturally, this has caused a bit of a stir and drawn complaints from groups such as Emily's List as well as folks who aren't stuck in the 1950s. The Repugs aren't backing down, though, and defended it by stating that among the 15,000 recipients of the mailer they have "not received any complaints."

In times like these, I really struggle to understand why any one who's not a straight (or repressed/closeted), Christian white male would ever vote GOP.

This is frightening

The Supreme Court is struggling with the police "sexting" case currently in front of them. Here are actual comments from justices clearly out of touch with the real world.
----------
The first sign was about midway through the argument, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. - who is known to write out his opinions in long hand with pen and paper instead of a computer - asked what the difference was “between email and a pager?”

At one point, Justice Anthony Kennedy asked what would happen if a text message was sent to an officer at the same time he was sending one to someone else.

“Does it say: ‘Your call is important to us, and we will get back to you?’” Kennedy asked.

Justice Antonin Scalia wrangled a bit with the idea of a service provider.

“You mean (the text) doesn’t go right to me?” he asked.

Then he asked whether they can be printed out in hard copy.

“Could Quon print these spicy little conversations and send them to his buddies?” Scalia asked.

Bad Idea Bernie Goldberg

Why, why would Bernie Goldberg of FoxNews want to take on Jon Stewart? He must enjoy being destroyed (please oh please find time to watch the full 11 minute clip):

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/04/21/stewart-fires-back-at-fox_n_545746.html

Obama and the Media

I've seen a few articles over the last week or so about this theme--Obama's disregard for and treatment of the media. Come to think of it, two of them were in the Post. Could have something to do with it. Anyway, I kinda liked the story about how Barry slipped the press corps to go to his daughter's soccer game--but it was reported as a serious breach. I mean, do we really need to track his every single moment for the historical record? It doesn't help that the media are such whining brats.

Justice Stevens Retiring

Via Talking Points Memo, Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is officially retiring. The rumors of this have been swirling of late and he's about to turn 90, so this isn't really shocking. What is shocking is that this guy who was appointed by Ford and who sees himself as a conservative jurist is being described as the Court's liberal leader. That's just a demonstration of how far to the right the Court currently sits on the political spectrum.

So, now we get to have SCOTUS confirmation battles. From the chatter, it appears certain that the Repugs will fight hard against pretty much anyone to the left of Justice Scalia and that Obama is leaning toward a pretty moderate appointment. I understand why he's avoiding the fight but considering just how crazy conservative the Court is right now, I really wish he would try to get someone who could start tilting the scales back. Alas.

Krugman on Financial Reform Basics

Paul Krugman's column today lays out the basics of the financial reform debate, as he sees it. I found it interesting since I know next nothing about it all.

It seems that the debate is basically force huge banks to break up versus just regulate them better. Why not both?