|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 18, 2008 22:18:14 GMT -5
The latest on the Bush Administration's "conscience rules" wrt abortions and contraception from NPR. This report gives more information that I've seen before about how these new regulations are different from what's already in place, why (supposedly?) they were written in the first place, and what the implications of them are. I haven't checked other other sources yet for their current spin on this story. Can of worms, y'all.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 22, 2008 8:23:23 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Dec 22, 2008 11:29:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 22, 2008 13:29:04 GMT -5
Interesting article. I do think that the marriage issue can attacked both ways, either by pushing for gay marriage or by pushing to extend the privileges that married couples enjoy. I'd support either, but I think (though this is unsubstantiated) that the push for gay marriage was decided upon because it is the path of least resistance, legislatively speaking. Laws tend to pile up on top of each other over time; it's easier to add a new law or two than to knock everything over and start again. I do think it's narrow minded to object to Rick Warren solely because he opposes gay marriage, because he has so much more to say that that. I think choosing Warren to give the inauguration convocation or whatever shows that Obama means it when he talks about moving beyond ideology. What I think Obama supporters need to realize is that he's talking about their ideologies too, not just the opposition's.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Dec 23, 2008 13:44:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Dec 23, 2008 13:55:32 GMT -5
The latest on the Bush Administration's "conscience rules" wrt abortions and contraception from NPR. This report gives more information that I've seen before about how these new regulations are different from what's already in place, why (supposedly?) they were written in the first place, and what the implications of them are. I haven't checked other other sources yet for their current spin on this story. Can of worms, y'all. A mostly calm and civil conversation about this on Student Doctor Net.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 1, 2009 22:51:41 GMT -5
So I wanted to say more about the Slow Food event I attended, but food can get pretty political. For those who don't know the Slow Food movement is meant to be the antithesis of fast food. It was started in Italy in the 80s, by an chef who protested the opening of the Mickey D's by the Spanish Steps in Rome but then decided that rather than getting mad he should get even. The movement has since spread to many countries around the world, including the US. The movement is concerned with promoting organic, local, sustainable foods as well as the pleasures of meals and eating, etc. I've been curious to know more about the movement, especially since, even after reading what I could find on the net, it wasn't clear to me exactly what the Slow Food actually does, aside from the chapters periodically putting on dinners. The one interesting thing that I did glean was Slow Food's Ark of Taste, which is a program that identifies and promotes traditional and heritage foods and dishes that are in danger of extinction, as it were. Well, at the dinner I attended today, I discovered that the reason it doesn't seem like Slow Food does much, at least in the US, is because the US Slow Food movement doesn't really have much direction at present. Whereas in other countries, there are long established food traditions, the US is much newer and has developed concurrently with the industrialization of food. In other countries, the American diet is what Slow Food members are trying to protect their own foods against. The American Slow Food has the challenge of trying to tease apart what is worthy of protecting and promoting and what is not. The speakers did say that American Slow Food is going to be more politically and socially active in the future, though, and work for food justice, so that sounds promising. Though the speakers didn't mention it, I hope and assume that this focus on food justice involves expanding the demographics of the movement. The one thing that struck me about this dinner was how nearly everyone in attendance was white and (I think) upper middle class. And the few who weren't white appeared to have a white spouse. There were no black folk in attendance at all. In other words, the attendance at the event did not reflect the demographics of the Triangle area. And this is just one event at one chapter, but I found it really troubling, particularly since hoppin' john was a dish that originally came from Africa and the speakers specifically mentioned that the version of the hoppin' john that we had was closer to the original dish than the version that is commonly eaten today. It really made me wonder exactly whose food traditions we were trying to preserve and whether this was an example of cultural appropriation and whether anyone else there registered the cognitive dissonance. I also think I understand why these food movements come across as elitist, if people just like me are the only people involved. If the American Slow Food Movement gets serious, I think it's going to have to actively reach out all walks of life and also address the darker parts of American history while exploring American food heritage. For instance, Native American food traditions are probably in most need of preserving and they are most in need because of the extensive damage that White Americans inflicted upon them, particularly by trying to break down Native American cultures and impose the dominant culture in their places. And yet, a lot of Native American food traditions have also been incorporated into the dominant culture and are considered quintessentially American today (much like with the hoppin' john originally from Africa). I'd really like to see American Slow Food address the full scope of food traditions in the US and the histories behind them.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jan 2, 2009 0:19:17 GMT -5
So I wanted to say more about the Slow Food event I attended, but food can get pretty political. For those who don't know the Slow Food movement is meant to be the antithesis of fast food. It was started in Italy in the 80s, by an chef who protested the opening of the Mickey D's by the Spanish Steps in Rome but then decided that rather than getting mad he should get even. The movement has since spread to many countries around the world, including the US. The movement is concerned with promoting organic, local, sustainable foods as well as the pleasures of meals and eating, etc. I've been curious to know more about the movement, especially since, even after reading what I could find on the net, it wasn't clear to me exactly what the Slow Food actually does, aside from the chapters periodically putting on dinners. The one interesting thing that I did glean was Slow Food's Ark of Taste, which is a program that identifies and promotes traditional and heritage foods and dishes that are in danger of extinction, as it were. Well, at the dinner I attended today, I discovered that the reason it doesn't seem like Slow Food does much, at least in the US, is because the US Slow Food movement doesn't really have much direction at present. Whereas in other countries, there are long established food traditions, the US is much newer and has developed concurrently with the industrialization of food. In other countries, the American diet is what Slow Food members are trying to protect their own foods against. The American Slow Food has the challenge of trying to tease apart what is worthy of protecting and promoting and what is not. The speakers did say that American Slow Food is going to be more politically and socially active in the future, though, and work for food justice, so that sounds promising. Though the speakers didn't mention it, I hope and assume that this focus on food justice involves expanding the demographics of the movement. The one thing that struck me about this dinner was how nearly everyone in attendance was white and (I think) upper middle class. And the few who weren't white appeared to have a white spouse. There were no black folk in attendance at all. In other words, the attendance at the event did not reflect the demographics of the Triangle area. And this is just one event at one chapter, but I found it really troubling, particularly since hoppin' john was a dish that originally came from Africa and the speakers specifically mentioned that the version of the hoppin' john that we had was closer to the original dish than the version that is commonly eaten today. It really made me wonder exactly whose food traditions we were trying to preserve and whether this was an example of cultural appropriation and whether anyone else there registered the cognitive dissonance. I also think I understand why these food movements come across as elitist, if people just like me are the only people involved. If the American Slow Food Movement gets serious, I think it's going to have to actively reach out all walks of life and also address the darker parts of American history while exploring American food heritage. For instance, Native American food traditions are probably in most need of preserving and they are most in need because of the extensive damage that White Americans inflicted upon them, particularly by trying to break down Native American cultures and impose the dominant culture in their places. And yet, a lot of Native American food traditions have also been incorporated into the dominant culture and are considered quintessentially American today (much like with the hoppin' john originally from Africa). I'd really like to see American Slow Food address the full scope of food traditions in the US and the histories behind them. I think another reason that the Slow Food movement, as such, hasn't made much headway in the US is that a lot of the impetus behind it in Europe was the resistance of American food culture. Then there's also the Alice Waters/Herb Farm style fresh food movement which goes under different names and is perceived as substantially more elitist than the European slow food movement- haute cuisine instead of Grandma's kitchen, so to speak. Finally, no matter whow it's otherwise romanticized, US agriculture has almost always been larger-scale and more focussed on single crops than in Europe. Production for export of food crops was one of the primary goals of the various commercial ventures that settled the East Coast, and even of the NE (although timber was more important there). Excluding the New World natives, there have tended to be many fewer varieties in cultivation, and less regional specialization in those varieties. Julia, the US has older institutions for conserving domestic plants, but in general they are disconnected with ways of making the plants into food.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 2, 2009 9:06:40 GMT -5
So I wanted to say more about the Slow Food event I attended, but food can get pretty political. For those who don't know the Slow Food movement is meant to be the antithesis of fast food. It was started in Italy in the 80s, by an chef who protested the opening of the Mickey D's by the Spanish Steps in Rome but then decided that rather than getting mad he should get even. The movement has since spread to many countries around the world, including the US. The movement is concerned with promoting organic, local, sustainable foods as well as the pleasures of meals and eating, etc. I've been curious to know more about the movement, especially since, even after reading what I could find on the net, it wasn't clear to me exactly what the Slow Food actually does, aside from the chapters periodically putting on dinners. The one interesting thing that I did glean was Slow Food's Ark of Taste, which is a program that identifies and promotes traditional and heritage foods and dishes that are in danger of extinction, as it were. Well, at the dinner I attended today, I discovered that the reason it doesn't seem like Slow Food does much, at least in the US, is because the US Slow Food movement doesn't really have much direction at present. Whereas in other countries, there are long established food traditions, the US is much newer and has developed concurrently with the industrialization of food. In other countries, the American diet is what Slow Food members are trying to protect their own foods against. The American Slow Food has the challenge of trying to tease apart what is worthy of protecting and promoting and what is not. The speakers did say that American Slow Food is going to be more politically and socially active in the future, though, and work for food justice, so that sounds promising. Though the speakers didn't mention it, I hope and assume that this focus on food justice involves expanding the demographics of the movement. The one thing that struck me about this dinner was how nearly everyone in attendance was white and (I think) upper middle class. And the few who weren't white appeared to have a white spouse. There were no black folk in attendance at all. In other words, the attendance at the event did not reflect the demographics of the Triangle area. And this is just one event at one chapter, but I found it really troubling, particularly since hoppin' john was a dish that originally came from Africa and the speakers specifically mentioned that the version of the hoppin' john that we had was closer to the original dish than the version that is commonly eaten today. It really made me wonder exactly whose food traditions we were trying to preserve and whether this was an example of cultural appropriation and whether anyone else there registered the cognitive dissonance. I also think I understand why these food movements come across as elitist, if people just like me are the only people involved. If the American Slow Food Movement gets serious, I think it's going to have to actively reach out all walks of life and also address the darker parts of American history while exploring American food heritage. For instance, Native American food traditions are probably in most need of preserving and they are most in need because of the extensive damage that White Americans inflicted upon them, particularly by trying to break down Native American cultures and impose the dominant culture in their places. And yet, a lot of Native American food traditions have also been incorporated into the dominant culture and are considered quintessentially American today (much like with the hoppin' john originally from Africa). I'd really like to see American Slow Food address the full scope of food traditions in the US and the histories behind them. This sort-of reminds me of the talk I hear about people being on "raw foods only" diets, or not quite as drastic, "non-processed" or possibly "non-pre-prepared" food diets. I'm not sure it needs a formal "movement." Well, it may need one, but it is really hard to imagine it catching on, in a formal organized way. It needs a way to speak to the biggest reason people do fast food: It's fast, and they're rushed or tired. You make a good point about the "elist" feel. The name "American Slow Food" is pretty awful, as far as attracting everyday people. No need to be so reactionary. Maybe it could use a name that is independent of its "anti Fast-Food" origins, and speaks to its own "positives" without comparison. Also, "Slow Food Movement" sounds intestinal! Thanks for the interesting info, Liz. I had not heard of this.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 2, 2009 12:08:50 GMT -5
So I wanted to say more about the Slow Food event I attended, but food can get pretty political. For those who don't know the Slow Food movement is meant to be the antithesis of fast food. It was started in Italy in the 80s, by an chef who protested the opening of the Mickey D's by the Spanish Steps in Rome but then decided that rather than getting mad he should get even. The movement has since spread to many countries around the world, including the US. The movement is concerned with promoting organic, local, sustainable foods as well as the pleasures of meals and eating, etc. I've been curious to know more about the movement, especially since, even after reading what I could find on the net, it wasn't clear to me exactly what the Slow Food actually does, aside from the chapters periodically putting on dinners. The one interesting thing that I did glean was Slow Food's Ark of Taste, which is a program that identifies and promotes traditional and heritage foods and dishes that are in danger of extinction, as it were. Well, at the dinner I attended today, I discovered that the reason it doesn't seem like Slow Food does much, at least in the US, is because the US Slow Food movement doesn't really have much direction at present. Whereas in other countries, there are long established food traditions, the US is much newer and has developed concurrently with the industrialization of food. In other countries, the American diet is what Slow Food members are trying to protect their own foods against. The American Slow Food has the challenge of trying to tease apart what is worthy of protecting and promoting and what is not. The speakers did say that American Slow Food is going to be more politically and socially active in the future, though, and work for food justice, so that sounds promising. Though the speakers didn't mention it, I hope and assume that this focus on food justice involves expanding the demographics of the movement. The one thing that struck me about this dinner was how nearly everyone in attendance was white and (I think) upper middle class. And the few who weren't white appeared to have a white spouse. There were no black folk in attendance at all. In other words, the attendance at the event did not reflect the demographics of the Triangle area. And this is just one event at one chapter, but I found it really troubling, particularly since hoppin' john was a dish that originally came from Africa and the speakers specifically mentioned that the version of the hoppin' john that we had was closer to the original dish than the version that is commonly eaten today. It really made me wonder exactly whose food traditions we were trying to preserve and whether this was an example of cultural appropriation and whether anyone else there registered the cognitive dissonance. I also think I understand why these food movements come across as elitist, if people just like me are the only people involved. If the American Slow Food Movement gets serious, I think it's going to have to actively reach out all walks of life and also address the darker parts of American history while exploring American food heritage. For instance, Native American food traditions are probably in most need of preserving and they are most in need because of the extensive damage that White Americans inflicted upon them, particularly by trying to break down Native American cultures and impose the dominant culture in their places. And yet, a lot of Native American food traditions have also been incorporated into the dominant culture and are considered quintessentially American today (much like with the hoppin' john originally from Africa). I'd really like to see American Slow Food address the full scope of food traditions in the US and the histories behind them. This sort-of reminds me of the talk I hear about people being on "raw foods only" diets, or not quite as drastic, "non-processed" or possibly "non-pre-prepared" food diets. I'm not sure it needs a formal "movement." Well, it may need one, but it is really hard to imagine it catching on, in a formal organized way. It needs a way to speak to the biggest reason people do fast food: It's fast, and they're rushed or tired. You make a good point about the "elist" feel. The name "American Slow Food" is pretty awful, as far as attracting everyday people. No need to be so reactionary. Maybe it could use a name that is independent of its "anti Fast-Food" origins, and speaks to its own "positives" without comparison. Also, "Slow Food Movement" sounds intestinal! Thanks for the interesting info, Liz. I had not heard of this. Well, Slow Food was founded in Italy, so Americans can't be blamed for the name. And the movement not really protesting fast food, at least, not directly; rather I think the idea is to promote the alternatives. You are absolutely right about the appeal of fast food and prepared foods. There's the added problem in "food desert" areas of simply accessing a grocery store with fresh foods, never mind local, organic, sustainably grown foods; in these areas, fast food and prepared food found in convenience stores are pretty much all there is. But relying heavily on fast food, prepared food, and agribusiness as a whole has a very devastating effect on one's health and the environment. With each food scare, I think, more and more people become fed up with our food system and become interested in alternatives. The challenge, as you say, is helping everyone interested connect with better options.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 2, 2009 13:24:34 GMT -5
This sort-of reminds me of the talk I hear about people being on "raw foods only" diets, or not quite as drastic, "non-processed" or possibly "non-pre-prepared" food diets. I'm not sure it needs a formal "movement." Well, it may need one, but it is really hard to imagine it catching on, in a formal organized way. It needs a way to speak to the biggest reason people do fast food: It's fast, and they're rushed or tired. You make a good point about the "elist" feel. The name "American Slow Food" is pretty awful, as far as attracting everyday people. No need to be so reactionary. Maybe it could use a name that is independent of its "anti Fast-Food" origins, and speaks to its own "positives" without comparison. Also, "Slow Food Movement" sounds intestinal! Thanks for the interesting info, Liz. I had not heard of this. Well, Slow Food was founded in Italy, so Americans can't be blamed for the name. Hmmm. Yes, I guess the Italians are pretty scary. We wouldn't want to cross them with a less than literal translation. I think you're right about the idea - all the more reason to not have a name that's an obvious reaction to fast food. I imagine you are thinking of heavily urban areas. Some cities have a Farmer's Market of some sort- but probably not all. If the movement is serious, it might be a good place to focus - bringing a "Farmer's Market's" to those cities/areas that don't have them. If well thought out and properly marketed, I think it could be succesful. It could definitely a worthwhile effort. It's about a lot more than availability, though - it's about poverty and education and depression and . . . . loads of stuff. Doesn't mean you can't start chipping away at the problem, though. Yep. Well put. And it's about keeping time and income restrictions in mind. Quite a challenge, but it does sound worthwhile.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jan 2, 2009 17:20:50 GMT -5
Well, Slow Food was founded in Italy, so Americans can't be blamed for the name. Hmmm. Yes, I guess the Italians are pretty scary. We wouldn't want to cross them with a less than literal translation. I think you're right about the idea - all the more reason to not have a name that's an obvious reaction to fast food. I imagine you are thinking of heavily urban areas. Some cities have a Farmer's Market of some sort- but probably not all. If the movement is serious, it might be a good place to focus - bringing a "Farmer's Market's" to those cities/areas that don't have them. If well thought out and properly marketed, I think it could be succesful. It could definitely a worthwhile effort. It's about a lot more than availability, though - it's about poverty and education and depression and . . . . loads of stuff. Doesn't mean you can't start chipping away at the problem, though. Yep. Well put. And it's about keeping time and income restrictions in mind. Quite a challenge, but it does sound worthwhile. There are a few urban garden and farmers market projects that have been instituted (by other movements, not Slow Food) in some inner city areas in LA, NYC (the Bronx, I think), and Chicago. At the dinner yesterday, one of the speakers said that she runs an urban garden in Durham, and I assume that that project is directed towards the poorer residents. There definitely need to be more projects of this nature, I think, and I'm hoping that all this talk of food justice means that that's where American Slow Food is going to direct its energies in the future.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 2, 2009 20:19:57 GMT -5
Some great clips - and unsurprising that Olbermann's has listed a version of himself amongst his favorites.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Jan 3, 2009 4:19:46 GMT -5
Abrupt change of topic: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_re_us/mileage_taxOregon exploring the possibility of taxing mileage instead of gas. Personally, I"m agin it. So the person who drives a Prius 100 miles gets taxed the same as a Hummer who drives 100 miles? Maybe they put the same amount of wear on the roads (which is unlikely), but they still do more harm to the environment, as well as using up vital resources. As more people drive more efficient cars, just raise the gas tax, if necessary. Still places a higher burden on those who use more gas which, to me, is more than just a "road-usage" issue.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Jan 3, 2009 10:32:18 GMT -5
Abrupt change of topic: news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090103/ap_on_re_us/mileage_taxOregon exploring the possibility of taxing mileage instead of gas. Personally, I"m agin it. So the person who drives a Prius 100 miles gets taxed the same as a Hummer who drives 100 miles? Maybe they put the same amount of wear on the roads (which is unlikely), but they still do more harm to the environment, as well as using up vital resources. As more people drive more efficient cars, just raise the gas tax, if necessary. Still places a higher burden on those who use more gas which, to me, is more than just a "road-usage" issue. I am definitely agin it, also! Toll roads charge all comers equally, so it's not a new concept - but along with the objections you list above, I also don't like the idea of having my mileage monitored by Big Brother.
|
|