Politics

I’m a big fan of the New York Times online.  I’ve grown up with the New York Times always on the kitchen table – that is until I went off to school – and I’ve really enjoyed being able to read the paper online, as I find it much more consumable while at a computer, or more recently on my iPhone.

This last week they had an excellent article in the Magazine section written by Michael Pollan about the current state of our nation’s food system and what the next president should take into consideration about the challenges that will most likely face us in the coming decade.

I can’t recommend the article enough, though this is one instance where the paper version might be more digestible as the online article is 9 pages long (impossible on an iPhone, manageable on a computer over a few sittings).

One of the things that Pollan does is suggest a few White House specific activities that I think make a ton of sense and could help spread a message to the rest of the country (assuming people still pay attention to what the president actually does and not just what the news agencies report on what he says).

“..there is the power of the example you set in the White House. If what’s needed is a change of culture in America’s thinking about food, then how America’s first household organizes its eating will set the national tone..

“..You should make a point of the fact that every night you’re in town, you join your family for dinner in the Executive Residence — at a table… And you should also let it be known that the White House observes one meatless day a week — a step that, if all Americans followed suit, would be the equivalent, in carbon saved, of taking 20 million midsize sedans off the road for a year.

“..Let the White House chef post daily menus on the Web, listing the farmers who supplied the food, as well as recipes.

“.. tear out five prime south-facing acres of the White House lawn and plant in their place an organic fruit and vegetable garden. When Eleanor Roosevelt did something similar in 1943, she <started a> movement that ended up making a substantial contribution to feeding the nation in wartime.  By the end of the war, more than 20 million home gardens were supplying 40 percent of the produce consumed in America.

The article gives a lot of detail about the current state of the American food system – a system I feel is quite broken – and he provides some great recommendations for how to make changes for the better.

This is one area that should be of interest to everyone and whether you agree with Pollan or not, the article provides an excellent platform for a real discussion.

I’ve seen several of the T. Boone Pickens ads on television – the ones that talk about “bridging the gap” in our energy needs – and I’ve wondered, from afar, who the heck this T. Boone Pickens is and what his plan calls for.

After the presidential debates this evening, I decided to take a gander at his web site, at http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/

Watching the ads, I was definitely skeptical about the Pickens Plan – it just smacks of one of those friendly, good-for-all issues that ends up in reality as a confusing, misleadingly named stab in the back that the problem it pretends to support.

The website has the same feel to it.

And T. Boone Pickens is an oil man through and through.  But, he claims he’s done making money and he’s interested in what gets left behind for future generations.

Reading through the plan it doesn’t have any gotcha backdoors to it – at least as far as one can tell by the limited information available.  The basic tenants are to support massive infrastructure in wind power and at the same time, invest in natural gas vehicles (mostly for fleet vehicles, not so much for personal vehicles) as an alternative to gasoline vehicles.  This would act more to reduce dependence on foreign oil by transferring that need to natural gas but help less on global climate issues.

For ‘energy independence’ it would help reduce the amount of oil we need to import, and if we could convince other nations to do the same we could reduce the power other nations have gained (Iran, Russia, Venezuela) from the rising price of oil.

From an environmental perspective, it’s somewhat better to burn natural gas than oil and the support of wind power is great.  It’s not a long-term solution, but it doesn’t claim to be.  In the long term we clearly need to figure out hot to get away from fossil fuel engines.  But is this the bridge that’s needed to get us there? Does the cost/time/effort of transitioning fleets to natural gas buy us enough environmental benefit for this to be a really suitable bridge?

For more information about energy and how it impacts the environment and global policies, I highly, highly recommend a couple of podcasts:

The first is a Fresh Air interview with Thomas Friedman who makes a strong case for how our oil dependence has really empowered nations that we’d really prefer not to empower.

The second is a Commonwealth Club of California discussion with Shirley Ann Jackson, Ph.D., President of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and former Chairman of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (search for her name on the linked page).  She speaks very eloquently about the importance of a comprehensive energy plan and all of the ways in which we are impacted without one.

Yesterday I took a break from work and walked down to the Embarcadero to check out the Olympic torch relay. San Francisco was repeatedly referred to as the only North American stop for the torch, and therefore, was the only opportunity for people in a wide region of the globe to show their support for or frustration with the Chinese government’s policies.

The announcement that busloads of Chinese Americans from throughout the state were being brought in to show their support for China and the protests throughout the city earlier in the week pointed towards another torch relay ripe with conflicts.

The scene along the Embarcadero definitely supported this.

There were Chinese supporters along side protesters, each delivering their messages to whomever would listen, all the while a large jumbotron and soundsystem blared images and sounds of celebrations. The anticipation in the crowd kept building as the torch-running time drew near and its crescendo
continued until – there – on the jumbotron – was the torch, being run through a completely different route throught the city.

Everyone was angry and felt deceived. Everyone.

I left feeling completely disappointed in Gavin Newsom and his decision to prioritize a successful running of the torch relay – rather than allowing all those who had gathered in the name of free speech to support their cause to fully support their ideals. The idea that the torch was sneaked through the city to an unrevealed location where it was paraded down empty streets (flanked by an incredible number of security personnel) – it’s just maddening. That is the spirit of the olympics?