Three Things

by tristero

Here, courtesy of the New York Times is a slightly clearer, but still visually obtuse, version of the scariest chart ever:



You can find the original chart Atrios linked to here. Seriously, with approximately 8% of all males in the world suffering from red/green color-blindness, it takes a special kind of moron to lay out a chart of this urgency with thin red and green lines that make it nearly impossible for people like me to grok. And to choose (what I think is) green, not red, for the alarming line? WTF? Sure, you can draw a big ugly (green?) arrow but that kind of undermines the whole point of the graphic, which is that the contrast with past recessions is so starkly apparent. Sheesh!

It is also telling to note that while this article appears on the front page of the printed Times this morning, as of this posting, it is still buried deep within the Times website.

******

Speaking of the Times, there is a bizarre "bloggingheads.tv" with the subject "Is President Obama to blame for the deepening economic crisis?" This is, of course, a completely reasonable question. As I'm sure everyone recalls, there was a nationwide debate right after 9/11 on whether George W. Bush was to blame for neglecting bin Laden's threats during the months before the attack. You don't remember that? You clearly remember Bush being given a clean pass while Clinton was blamed for the neglect and failure instead? Liberals.

******

Recently, I've become interested in the topic of food, something I know very little about. It is an extremely complex subject, more so than I could have imagined. But this Mother Jones article is fascinating for reasons that go far beyond the topic of food.

The argument is between two different kinds of reform of the present food manufacturing and delivery system. Roughly speaking, there is the organic/local foods movement and a newer trend, which the article clearly supports, that believes that a sustainable food culture is not possible or desirable using the current assumptions of the organic foodies. Both positions agree that the practices of the current food industry has become increasingly untenable to the point of imminent catastrophe.

Here's what make this interesting for me. While I'm sure many commentators will beg to differ, the two sides seem to be having a serious argument. One side - say, "the organics" - are clearly advocating a profound restructuring and reimagining of food in the 21st century. The other side - call them "the scalars" for now - are much more conservative, taking some ideas from the organics but also incorporating some apparently useful techniques from the failing status quo.

In short the three positions can be characterized like this:

The current, utterly dildo food industry, maximizing profits for the few while degrading life for everyone else, embodies positions held by modern conservatism. It has no basis in reality, it's financially rapacious, and is extremely dangerous.

The organics/local food movement is a well-articulated liberal, even left, movement. It is transformative, perhaps radically so, but is based on an outlook on the realities of food production/consumption held within a large context regarding the quality of life. Many of its assumptions are admirable, some seem arguable based on where one places emphasis.

The "scalar" movement is also well-articulated, but it is a genuinely conservative movement. To me, a moderate liberal (and vegetarian) who is just beginning to learn about this issue, many of its assumptions seem arguable upon first encounter, but some seem reasonable. I don't think they can be dismissed out of hand, as arguments for perpetuating the assumptions of the current food industry can be, for the most part.

The battle over food seems analogous to battles we're having to fight in many areas. Reasonable people can, and do, strongly disagree about how to confront the multiple disasters left behind by George W. Bush. Unfortunately, the public debate is not between them but with lunatics and extremists like Perle, Gingrich, and their ilk. The sooner these nuts are marginalized, i.e., the sooner it becomes unthinkable for the New York Times to host a debate on whether Obama is to blame for the recession, the sooner we can start to have a serious, and necessary, conversation between liberals and real conservatives. Until then, we're just dealing with dangerous, malicious, and literally murderous clowns.