I’ve had it. Really. I’m just livid. The thought was for me to wait a few days before writing this post. I wanted to let the dust settle and just calm down myself a bit. Maybe then there would be a silver lining. Guess what? There isn’t. Nice job, America. I hope you’re happy. You screwed yourself. Hard.

The reason I decided to start writing on this blog sixteen months ago was out of fear that our great nation, which I love as much as anyone despite what some folks on the right tell me, was headed for disaster. My singular voice, even if it was just a distant murmur that barely even registered, needed to be heard, I thought. There is a sensible path towards another century of prosperity, but without swift and bold action we would begin a swift decline to the detriment of all. Well, life got in the way and it was sometimes difficult for me to find the time to express my views. Now, more than ever, I feel that it’s time to speak up.

During the past two years, the Obama administration and Democrats in Congress amassed the greatest list of legislative accomplishments since the Lyndon Johnson years, maybe even since FDR. I truly believe that the stimulus package, TARP and restructuring of the auto industry saved our economy from the brink of collapse. Conservatives in the Bush years irresponsibly nearly drove the car off the cliff. Obama and company stopped it, but we’re still suck. Saying that things could have been a hell of a lot worse really isn’t a great talking point, even if it’s true. They also passed Wall Street reform, the most significant reform of the health care system since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid, credit card reform, gave the FDA the ability to regulate tobacco for the first time, finally signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay act, a significant expansion of the Pell Grant, and an expansion of the hate crime law to include sexual orientation . In addition, Obama signed a new START treaty with Russia, and has been one of the world’s strongest advocates for nuclear arms reduction, increased fuel economy standards from 27.5 MPG to 35.5 MPG staring in 2016, ended the global gag rule, repealed restrictions on stem cell research, and issued an order to close Guantanamo Bay.

So what went wrong? Why did the President see a loss of seats in the US House WORSE than 1994, currently at 61 seats and counting? This is in addition to a loss of six seats in the US Senate, which might have been worse if not for Christine O’Donnell and Sharon Angle. What was it that caused my fellow Americans to crush my hopes and dreams of continuing the progress listed above? Despite what John Boehner and Mitch McConnell will have you believe, this was no repudiation of what Obama agenda. In fact, their policy platform, which currently consists of repealing health care reform, extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy and little else, is incredibly unpopular.

The problem was three-fold:

1) The number of young voters and minority voters as a percentage of all voters dropped from 18% in 2008 to just 11% and from 26% to 22% respectively. The best explanation of why this happened that I have heard goes something like this…these two groups are the most unreliable blocks of all in terms of turnout. They view politics like they do sports and Hollywood: it’s pure entertainment. 2008 was an exceptional year and they were tuned in. Barack Obama, as an orator every bit as good as any our nation has ever seen drove them to pay attention like never before. The dominant story line was that he was going to change the way Washington works and he gave us hope. Facing incredible challenges, he was forced to work within the system in his first two years, which seemed like a broken promise to these groups. Without a compelling storyline in 2008, no matter how strong the President’s argument for two more years was, they tuned out. And they’ll pay for it. The key point here is that their lack of turnout should not be interpreted as a repudiation of the Obama agenda, but rather disappointment that he was too pragmatic.

2. The historically volatile groups of whites and independents broke hard for Republicans after strongly supporting Democrats in 2008. There are a few ways to view this. The liberal caucus actually did fairly well, and there was no correlation to support of Obama’s policies and being voted out. In fact, it was the Blue Dogs who got hit the hardest. They were decimated, losing 24 of their 50 members up for re-election. These are the folks who voted against health care, the climate bill and the stimulus. How do you like them apples? From that perspective, if 2008 was a wave year, many red seats were returning to their natural disposition. Furthermore, Congress has a terrible approval rating. When a President’s party controls both houses, it often spells disaster. In fact, since WWII, I believe 26 years have had both the executive and legislative branches completely aligned versus 40 split years. Americans like divided government. More than anything it was a bad economy that did in the Obama administration. When people’s houses are losing value, or worse they are defaulting on mortgages, they can’t find jobs and have less money in their pockets and retirement accounts, at the end of the day they will vote for the opposition no matter what. No matter if the party holding power supports policies that will ultimately do them right down the road, no matter if it is the most successful Congress in roughly forty years. The one thing that could have kept the House in Democratic hands was a larger stimulus with smarter tax cuts and more money for infrastructure. This is what Obama’s economists had argued for, and the numbers suggest it would have almost certainly been enough to create significant positive job growth. Yet it’s questionable whether or not such a bill could have been passed. I tend to think that the two trillion dollars of stimulus Paul Krugman wanted was out of the question, but we could have done considerably better.

3. The last is more of an “x” factor, difficult to quantify and understand. I think we can all agree that Obama is a superior orator, but in the day to day of taking the temperature of the American people and explaining his policies to them, he is severely deficient to Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. Some say that Obama has a predilection towards doing what is right for the country and not what will boost his poll numbers. Yet he should have sensed how turned off the American people were by the extended battle for health care reform and how much they despised the wheeling and dealing behind closed doors that came with it. Further, a more astute President would have recognized that his efforts to obtain bipartisanship were incredibly futile when the opposition party did nothing by say no, even when he put forward policies they supported. Their sole goal was and is to remove him from office in 2012. Why did he waste time making concessions and pandering to them with Olympia Snowe and company ultimately stuck with Mitch McConnell due to a threat of losing their leadership positions. The thing that baffles me most is the incredible unpopularity of the stimulus. Why could Obama not articulate that in times of depression, and that’s what we were in, a massive expansion of government is the only way to right the course? In fact, in exit polls, most Americans said they wanted the government to spent to create jobs which is in opposition to the Republican platform. Yet they voted for them anyway and oppose the stimulus, as well as the TARP program that made the government a PROFIT. PROFIT!!! I don’t get it. But I do know that when I was growing up, I would watch the great explainer tell me how he felt our pain, and I trusted him to go and make it better. Does Obama have that in him? Can he triangulate or come up with some other strategy? I don’t know.

In surveying the damage, the biggest loss of all was in state legislatures and governorships. But that deserves its own column and will follow shortly. For now, tell me what you think about the arguments I laid out. Am I right?

Malcolm Gladwell recently wrote a fascinating article on social networking and social change. Have you read it yet? If not, I think you ought to.

Twitter, Face and Social Activism

It follows Mr. Gladwell’s signature style and is a classic piece from him. He posits an interesting observation, and uses a series of compelling anecdotes to weave together a convincing argument as to why “the revolution will not be tweeted.” The problem is that while he is fun to read as per usual, his evidence is purely circumstantial. This argument is particularly ripe for being punctured.

In many cases, I think Mr. Gladwell is right in showing how little things can make a big difference, yet in this instance he is all too dismissive of a powerful force. Humans are social beings. It’s in our nature to connect, and form complex webs with others. Our ability to come together and organize as a group is what truly sets us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom. This has been true for thousands of years, be it one hunter-gather telling another that a particular plant is poisonous, to pastors in black churches forming the backbone of the civil rights movement, as Malcolm Gladwell points out. The central point is that anyone with a fundamental understanding of the way humans come together in social networks is essential to anyone seeking to bring about real, tangible change. The power of suggestion is incredibly influential as to the way that each of us acts, and no single factor can more effectively send people into action than someone within our individual social web. Take a simple example, what is more likely to get you to go and see a movie, an exciting trailer, or a rave review from a close friend?

Facebook and Twitter don’t change this central truth, but rather give us new tools to organize around. Mr. Gladwell is probably right in saying that having these technologies available during the civil rights movement would not have made a difference. But that was then. This is now. We are a different generation. Then, 98% of blacks attended church, and there was no better way to get the word out. Let’s now take the modern gay rights movement as an example. I’m not sure that churches are a vehicle for change in this community. In fact, if you wanted to reach close to 98% of it, the quickest way to pass information to interested parties is probably through the internet.

Tonight there is going to be a vigil in New York’s Washington Square Park to remember those bullied teenagers who committed suicide recently. It was organized originally by just a few NYU students, but picked up by varying organizations and elected officials whose pages I subscribe to. In just three days, it’s gone viral with over 35,000 people having been invited. Without Facebook, I probably would not have even heard about it. Now I can tell who amongst my friends is going on their own, and link up with them. I can also share this information with my social network, to see if I can find other interested people to join me. Based on who I saw was involved, I was convinced to join in on a cause I already support. Facebook was simply the organizing tool and the messenger, but not the persuader.

To say that online activism promotes weak ties – getting more people to do less because they are lazy and unmotivated – entirely misunderstands the capability to Web 2.0. Before there was Google, which my most accounts is the climax of 1.0. In the vast world of the internet, someone needed to come through and sort through the maze of information with a complex algorithm that made it all easy to find with just a few movements of your fingers. Blogging, Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn and other technologies have taken this beyond, by incorporation information sharing with the social aspects that make traditional networking so influential. Now I can find someone I lost touch with years ago and invite them out for dinner, allowing me to have more “friends” than was previously possible. Or I can share this very post with my friends on Facebook, followers on Twitter and readers of this blog. By dismissing where this technology is now, Malcolm Gladwell shuts out the logical next step, Web 3.0. Visions for what the next generation of internet operability will look like vary greatly. I think the focus will be on finding ways to take existing social networks and information on the internet and leveraging them to help people make decisions, to drive them to take certain actions. Think of the popular game, Farmville. I don’t play it myself, but millions of people will log onto the internet at certain times of the day to water their imaginary crops, to gain a reward. Think about the endless applications of this simple contact when the next Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Sergey Brin & Larry Page or Mark Zuckerberg comes around. The possibilities are endless.

The internet has become increasingly integrated into our lives. We are no longer bound by our bulky fixed desktop computer. Now we have 3G and even 4G smart phones, tablets and ultra-portable laptops that can access the web wherever we go. The internet has become our church, in a strange way. Think about that for a second and the way that your activities on the internet shape your life like religion once did to past generations. Maybe the Twitter Revolution is a slight stretch right now, but to dismiss it would be a mistake. With a little imagination, it’s easy to see that we’re closer to it than one closed-minded individual might have you think.

from The Volokh Conspiracy

8.19.10

Washington needs to make a serious move on education policy. Our public schools are failing too many children, and the under-funded No Child Left Behind Act did not bring the sweeping change that was expected. One of the central problems in this debate is tenure. Charter schools that have done away with it have achieved isolated successes, holding teachers accountable and rewarding merit. Public schools have struggled mightily to remove underperforming teachers, leading to horror stories that go unchallenged because a school can’t afford to go through the process required to remove said individual. Yet when there are not enough teachers, isn’t tenure a crucial incentive to hold onto our best by offering them job security? Read the linked article to see a couple of different viewpoints.

http://volokh.com/2010/08/19/rick-hills-vs-brian-leiter-on-tenure/

Alright, let’s start by talking about Iraq. The story of last week was the last combat brigade being drawn out of Iraq and into Kuwait. By no means are all Americans out of danger, as fifty thousand are sticking around for a training mission. But, by the end of the month Operation Iraqi Freedom will finally ending and with Operation New Dawn beginning, the Iraqi military will truly be in charge. This is good news.

Lest we forget, however, America spent over $700 billion, sacrificed 4,400 service members and over 100,000 civilians were killed in the crossfire, all to topple a dictator and create a fledgling democracy. Was it worth it? Is America safer? Better off?

This is a debate I don’t want to get into. What I’m more interested in is what impact this will have on the President and on who will be in the 112th Congress. The Iraq War was central to Barack Obama’s candidacy early on, as he constantly reminded us that he would have voted against it, which apparently counted for something in the eyes of voters and caucus-goers. He promised to get us out and he did. Early, at that. That would score him some points, right?

I really don’t think there way any way for the Iraq war to be a win in the eyes of Americans at this point, the President did achieve the best case scenario: a push. He pretty much broke even by making a promise and keeping it. The thing is, Americans have moved on and the war is no longer an important issue. The economy and job creation, the deficit, health care, and even illegal immigration rank higher on our issues list according to polling data. Recognizing the political dangers of declaring victory, as his predecessor did, the President has been downplaying the transition in Iraq. I just can’t see it being an issue again.

Afghanistan is a slightly different story. Iraq was always George Bush’s war, yet Afghanistan is now largely owned by Barack Obama. He played the Iraq “dumb war,” Afghanistan “smart war” game, and now he’s stuck in a quagmire. As brilliant as David Petraeus may be, and I really think he is, our strategy simply isn’t working and the situation will not be getting better any time soon. WikiLeaks hasn’t helped either. Even so, the nine year old war there won’t spell death in the midterms either so long as there is trouble at home.

Moving into a different gear, I’d say that one of the most intriguing races this fall will be for the open senate seat in Florida. When the Republican party rallied behind Marco Rubio and effectively pushed the popular Charlie Crist out of the party, it seemed that the young, handsome rising star in the party was in the fast lane. Kendrick Meek, the Democratic standard bearer, was undoubtedly a weak candidate with little statewide appeal.

Charlie Crist, making a move that was a potential career killer, decided to do the impossible in trying to win a big state senate seat without the backing of a major party. Surprisingly, his donors have stuck with him, and he’s polling neck and neck with Rubio. Seemingly Crist is killing with independents, while pulling in moderates from both parties. While Meek assumed that Crist would weaken Rubio enough for him to emerge, he still appears to have zero ability to win with even Democratic insiders writing him off.

Here’s where it gets tricky. If Charlie Crist were to win, there are indications that he would caucus with the Democrats. Should Meek continue to poll under twenty percent, Democrats could abandon ship and flock to Crist. The problem with this is that the DSCC could have its hands tied. Kendrick Meek is the only viable African American candidate for the senate, and with Roland Burris leaving, there is the potential for blacks not being represented at all. This would force them to pump millions into the race, potentially taking crucial Democratic votes away from Crist and handing Rubio a win. No wonder there has been a push to nominate billionaire Jeff Greene. With Meek gaining momentum in the primary, this seems to be a pipe dream.

Things can certainly change quickly in the next few months, but I would guess that Rubio and Crist stay close till the finish. Democratic voters are the “x factor.” If I was in Florida, I don’t know if I could swallow voting for Crist over Meek, who might actually make a good senator. It is the answer to that question that will make the difference, assuming Crist continues to pull about twenty-two percent of Republican voters.

Aren’t you just tired of this story? I know I’ve just about had it. Seriously, it should have just gone away by now and I’ve been hoping it had. From the very beginning of this asinine controversy, more than a few voices of reason put our logical arguments as to why the planned development at 51 Park Street is not just harmless but actually something we should be welcoming with open arms.

Yet the right has co-opted a feel good story with fallacious information, poisoning the public debate. It made me angry that this was even an issue to begin with. Now I’m furious. It’s becoming a go-to GOP talking point as the election nears, and it’s not even a good one. It’s just another sorry attempt for an intellectually bankrupt political party to try and take back majorities in the Congress. It’s a darned shame they have to resort to such ignorant and supremacist rhetoric instead of discussing issues that actually matter such as reforming our education system, fixing the economy, and averting environmental disaster. But when they have no ideas on such issues, what other choice do they have? It’s too bad that many of their Democratic counterparts aren’t beating them down on this (here’s looking at you Harry Reid). It’s alright, though. I’ll do your job for you.

The first thing to set straight is the rhetorical debate. The term “ground zero” by definition is the point on the earth’s surface directly below where an explosion occurred. It’s specifically meant to be associated with nuclear explosions. The mainstream media poorly adopted it to describe the former site of the World Trade Center. Have you visited this site recently? While at the time that may have been an appropriate term, it is no longer. It is among the largest construction sites in the world, where the equivalent of five Empire State Buildings are currently rising far above ground. The so-called freedom tower is over two hundred feet tall. Regardless, this doesn’t matter when you can’t even see the new World Trade Center from the site where the “mosque” is set to open. It’s not on top of “ground zero.” It’s nearby. So is another mosque that already exists, only four blocks away. Further, “mosque” is not a proper term in this case either. It’s actually a community center with auditoriums, galleries, a pool, a gym, a restaurant and classrooms. You mean people are getting worked up because it’s going to include a prayer room? Yeah. That’s right.

Now let’s consider something else. There’s nothing that can be done about it. The local community board voted 29-1 to approve it. The Landmark Preservation Commission chose that the building is not significant enough to stop the community center from opening on those grounds either. It’s private property, and the owners have the right to do what they want on it. Don’t conservatives support individual liberty? I thought so, but they’re full of contradictions. It only applies when convenient. If Rand Paul thinks we should not be able to tell businesses to treat minorities equally, then why should the government have the right to tell a non-profit entity what it can and cannot do on its own property? Does separation of church and state mean nothing to them? Freedom of religion? I guess not. What baffles me most is that the people who are most opposed DON’T EVEN LIVE IN NEW YORK. You’ve got to be kidding me! What right do you have to tell us what to do?

Among the best pieces I’ve seen written on the issue is by Hendrik Hertzberg. It is a must read. What I would like to highlight is this: his mini-profile of the person in charge of the project, Feisal Abdul Rauf.

-He has been the imam of a mosque in Tribeca for close to thirty years.
-He is the author of a book called “What’s Right with Islam Is What’s Right with America.”
-He is a vice-chair of the Interfaith Center of New York.
-“My colleagues and I are the anti-terrorists,” he wrote recently—in the Daily News, no less.
-He denounces terrorism in general and the 9/11 attacks in particular, often and at length.
-The F.B.I. tapped him to conduct “sensitivity training” for agents and cops.
-His wife, Daisy Khan, runs the American Society for Muslim Advancement, which she co-founded with him. It promotes “cultural and religious harmony through interfaith collaboration, youth and women’s empowerment, and arts and cultural exchange.”

These are the kinds of people that we want to be moving us forward from the ignorance and disharmony brought about by 9/11. Their brave act of opening a community center in this neighborhood will allow others to realize that we are not at war with Islam, but rather a few extremists. Confidence building measures such as the community center can bring together disenfranchised Muslims who so desperately want to be with us and not against us.

Mayor Michael Bloomberg has been leading the charge on this issue. He has spoken with elegance and grace many times in defense of the community center. Take a look at his speech following its approval. Here’s an excerpt:

Media wakes up to Hell and High Water: Moscow’s 1000-year heat wave and “Pakistan’s Katrina”

Climate Progress

8.12.10

Few need a reminder that this past July was the second warmest on record across much of the east coast. Moscow is have a record drought, destroying a quarter of its crops, causing deadly fires, and requiring drastic measures from Vladimir Putin. The worst floods Pakistan has seen in eighty years have displaced two million people. Both are attributable to climate change. Even the media has admitted this. Shocker, I know. The time to act on controlling greenhouse gas emissions is now. Yet the senate couldn’t be further away from taking action and recognizing the gravity of the situation. Despicable. John Kerry seems to be the only one still advocating for the bill. He must be the only one with more than half a brain either. It’s now or never. With a likely loss of five or more seats after November, the window is closing fast. What will it take to get the attention of crucial moderate votes if extreme weather and environmental disasters a la BP are not enough?

http://climateprogress.org/2010/08/12/hell-and-high-water-finally-gets-medias-attention-but-are-moscows-1000-year-heat-wave-and-pakistans-katrina-linked/

Rachel Maddow Challenges Obama On Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: ‘Stand Up For What Is Right’

The Huffington Post

8.12.10

Please watch the clips from The Rachel Maddow Show last night. It is a stark reminder that the lives of American men and women serving our country continue to be put in danger because some of our most talented platoon leaders are being dismissed by their Commander in Chief, President Obama. Just yesterday Jonathan Hopkins, who was fourth in his class at West Point, served three tours of duty and was about to be promoted to Major, received his discharge papers. He was outed. This is a policy that has nothing to do with a person’s actual ability to do the job, but rather something they are born with. Have African Americans or women lessened unit cohesion? No. It’s no different for gays and this has been established. Yet despite Obama’s promise to repeal a policy that requires people to lie about who they are and go against what they are taught at military academies, he is still firing people like Officer Dan Choi, Lieutenant Colonel Victor Fehrenbach and now Captain Hopkins. The repeal is not a done deal and we must continue to demand that action be taken, not assuming that it is a mere formality.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/12/rachel-maddow-challenges_n_680002.html

…then I would say it’s time to replace the coach.

I mean really, c’mon. Their playbook is pretty atrocious, their defense is non-existent, and we all know they’re going to crumble in the post-season without a shake-up.

So the Obama team has this signature move that’s kind of their go-to. I’m sure you’ve noticed it. They fake right, then drive left. Think immigration reform. That miserable Arizona law happened and the Democrats saw an opening to get a slam dunk of a reform bill passed. What did Obama do? He sent 17,000 National Guard troops down to the border. How about climate change? He faked right by making a concession to increase drilling in the Gulf. On health care reform he took a single-payer system off the table from the beginning, and talked the talk on tort reform. He’s done it in countless other instances as well including the stimulus and many other economic endeavors.

There’s a clear reason why Obama is doing this. He branded himself in his successful election campaign as a post-partisan figure, someone who is above politics and the normal pandering that goes on in Washington. Yet the real question is does it work? No. Let’s first take Obama’s talk of off-shore drilling in the Gulf. It turned out to be a major “oops,” but more importantly limited his rhetoric. Instead of using the spill as an opportunity to make one of his dazzling, soaring speeches and rally his base around meaningful reform, his path dependency on finding middle-ground and making concessions to try and draw in the votes of moderate policymakers likely killed any chance of getting the bill this year. In all instances, this move has become so predictable that we can simply see right through it. The right know’s he’s faking, they happily take their bone, and are ready to guard him on his left because it’s so clear that he’s not going to take the middle path when it counts. Prepared for his drive, they push him to the center and he makes a weaker shot. Am I taking this analogy too far?

Let’s go to Shirley Sherrod, the former USDA employee. In case you’ve been living under a rock, a conservative blogger posted a YouTube clip of a seemingly racist statement she made in front of the NAACP. In it she told a story of how she didn’t do as much as she could to help a farmer facing foreclosure. Regardless of the fact that the event happened over two decades ago, Tom Vilsack asked for her resignation before Fox News and the rest of the media even picked up the story. Instead of wearing themselves down defending her and getting caught in a dirty mud-fight, they chose to just give up the point. As it turned out, Sherrod was using the story to explain how she realized it doesn’t matter if someone is black or while. What matters is that they’re poor and we should all work to pick up each other. Making matters worse, the farmer in question has lavishly praised her. On  day when we should have been celebrating much needed financial reform passing, instead the White House was dragged into the mud anyway and the Sherrod story dominated the news cycle. The issue is this is not the exception, but rather the rule. The current administration seems to relish in giving up easy baskets. Remember Van Jones? How about the ACORN debacle? Can someone please enlighten me as to what the White House is gaining by doing this?

Combined these two have me quite worried about November. We’re at the point in the Congressional session where we’re really not going to see anymore significant legislation till January. Even so, if we were to have a second stimulus (which wouldn’t be necessary had Obama not compromised on the first), the economic indicators that will have a lot to do with his fate won’t improve for months. On the other hand, despite popular opinion, he’s had a very successful two years. By running on his record versus the alternative, and hitting some populist notes he should be able to minimize the massive loses for his party both houses of Congress are facing. I’m sure you could imagine someone like Bill Clinton being like look, the Republicans have spent the last year fighting off reform on Wall Street, now they’re coming out saying we need to preserve the Bush tax cuts, a boon to only the rich, while at the same time trying to prevent the middle class folks layed off through no fault of their own from gaining unemployment benefits. This is the strategy Team Obama should be using when it counts, but I just can’t see him going down that road even though it sounds like an absolute slam dunk.

American history values leaders, not politicians. In many ways Obama has been one, having a vision, taking it and pushing it through even if there was no political gain from that victory. Think health care. People have got to respect him for the gutsy moves he made to accomplish something no one, save Lyndon Johnson and FDR were able to accomplish. Yet with his horrible fake move, lack and defense and inability to step up his rhetoric during election season, his record of achievement is being overshadowed. When I said we should “fire the coach” at the beginning of this post, I didn’t mean anyone should literally be axed. But I do think the President’s advisors need to reevaluate the political climate and what it takes to get things done in Washington, because one more false move now, and they could pay for it for the next four years as Bill Clinton did. Unlike the “comeback kid,” I question whether they can survive.

So life has gotten the best of me, and I’ve kind of let the blog go…again. The reason I’m writing is because I’m angry. I’ve got something to say, and I felt that this was the best place to say it. We’re talking about a grave threat to society as we know it. That’s right. I’m telling you right here and right now that the products you buy every time you go to the super market are leading to our demise in more ways than you can count. The dominoes are already falling. Can you believe it? You probably think I’m crazy, but bear with me.

This could easily become a series of articles, heck entire books have been written on just a portion of the debate, but let’s get started by going through why this is something you should care about. I mean really, if agricultural policy gets your juices flowing, raise your hand. Mhm. I thought so. Not one. A popular misconception is that it’s about as exciting as Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack is charismatic (read: not very).

Before I give you a few examples of why this is fascinating stuff, let me tell you why I’m writing. Usually I like to discuss things like international development and sustainability on both a global and local level. Food is not my area of expertise, but something I’m really interested in. You see, like many other people who like to pretend their sophisticated, I’m a foodie in training. I love to eat and cook, and I’m pretty adventurous in both regards. Based on this passion and a horrible family health history that includes cancer, heart disease, strokes, diabetes and other fun things, I took an interest in eating things that are good and good for you at an early age. The thing is there’s more to being healthy than eating foods that are low in fat and high in essential nutrients.

What kind of a connection do you have with your food? Do you know what happened to your chicken in between the time it hatched and made it into that package of frozen chicken nuggets in your local super market? You don’t. All you [think that you] know is that chicken is a lean mean, and surely it’s less bad for you than beef.  If only you knew that to mass produce those soulful nuggets, a whopping thirty eight ingredients are required. Thirteen of which are chemically modified bi-products of corn such as dextrose and lecithin, while others are entirely synthetic such as the toxic chemicals dimethylpolysiloxene and tertiary butylhydroquinone (TBHQ). The former is a carcinogen, mutagen, and tumorigen that prevents the frying oil from foaming, and the latter is a form of butane that “helps preserve freshness” even though ingesting a mere gram can cause suffocation and collapse. Five will kill. The FDA thinks that’s okay, just in case you were wondering.

Don’t even get me started on beef. That hamburger you had for dinner? Chances are it passed through one of the country’s thirteen major slaughter houses. They process virtually all of our meat (and have a frightening amount of power over the entire process). If just one cow out of the possibly thousands that are mixed into that one hamburger had e coli, you and most of the country are at risk, leading to a recall of about a million or so pounds of beef. But by the time that happens, it’s probably already too late. Why have there been so many outbreaks in recent years? The antibiotics that we automatically mix into our cow’s feed are creating resistant strains of the bacteria, and since we eat their meat, we’re at risk too. The reason we feed them antibiotics is because the cows evolved to graze on grass and digest it in their three rumens. When switching them to a cheaper diet of corn health caused problems such a bloating so extreme that it caused suffocation, we resorted to technology to solve our problems instead of realizing our error.  Surprise. Consequently when science told us to start putting ammonia our ground beef kill the e coli, we listened and now 70% of our hamburgers contain it. If you’re not scared yet, I hope you’re shaking after reading that the FDA has cut its meat inspections by more than two-thirds over the last twenty years. I’ll expand on all of this some other time but I hope I’ve piqued your interest.

This is just a small taste of where I’m going. If you want to learn more about why it’s time to think twice about what you eat, keep reading. I’ll connect the failures of our government in this area to national security, energy policy, public health, health care, immigration, the economy, the environment and other issues that traditionally sit atop the agenda and garner much more attention.

To be clear and forthright, my purposes in writing this column and the others that will follow it are two-fold. The first is to bring about change on a grassroots level. It is my hope that by reading what I have to say, a few of you will alter the way you personally make decisions about what you eat. If I change just a few minds, I’ve made a difference. The second, and more obvious is to lay out the problem in clear terms, why we should care about it and what I think Congress, the US Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration should do to rectify this dilemma, and thus enjoy a positive net benefit on all of the issues I labelled above.

——

To learn more, I recommend reading Fast Food Nation by Eric Schlosser, The Omnivore’s Dilemma by Michael Pollan, or the Oscar-nominated documentary Food Inc. While each has its own agenda (one that I sometimes disagree with) and takes their argument to the extreme, they are quite informative and are a great place to start.

Part Three of the “Your Personal Chemical Marinade Series.”

The strikingly ineffective chemical regulatory framework of the status quo– that of the TSCA discussed in Part Two– has no doubt given rise to some larger systemic issues.  Most problematic are “the three gaps”: the chemical data gap, the safety gap and the technology gap (Wilson 2006). Although deeply interconnected and reinforcing, each deserves individual attention. The chemical data gap refers to the deficient availability of comprehensive and standardized toxicity information concerning the vast majority of the over 81,000 environmental chemicals in production and use. Absent such information, the chemicals market simply cannot produce an optimal outcome: the “deterrent function” of product liability is diminished and worker’s protection and compensation structures are stifled (Welker-Hood et al 2007: 9).

The safety gap, fueled by limited test data on the human and eco-toxicity of most environmental chemicals, refers to the harmful level of human and ecological exposure to persistent bioaccumulative toxicants (PBTs).[1] At its core is an EPA that has been handcuffed from taking action by the unreasonable evidentiary burdens placed on it by the TSCA. In the absence of sufficient information, government agencies are simply incapable of identifying and prioritizing chemical hazards.

Although it is beyond the scope of this series to provide an exhaustive account of the scientific linkages between public health and environmental chemicals – those exist elsewhere in the literature — it isn’t sufficient to proceed without providing a general overview. For starters, it is critical to establish the public health context within which much of the current research on environmental chemicals is being commissioned, mandated, or catalyzed. Indisputably, the 20^th century saw a dramatic increase in the incidence of chronic disease. Caroline Baier-Anderson et al., in their important work entitled The Health Case for Reforming the Toxic Substances Control Act, provide some alarming evidence:

• —A woman’s lifetime risk of breast cancer is now one in eight, up from one in ten in 1973.

• —  The cancer incidence among children overall has risen significantly over the previous two decades, particularly the incidence of childhood leukemia and brain cancer.

• —  Asthma approximately doubled in prevalence between 1980 and 1995, rising from approximately 4 percent to 8 percent.

• —  Autism diagnosis has increased more than 10 times in the last 15 years.

• —  Birth defect resulting in undescended testes has increased 200% between 1970 and 1993 (2010).

Much like the case with asthma, these increases led to a surge in research regarding the suspected linkages between environmental chemicals and various forms of health problems and chronic disease. Among the most notable and well-established findings of this emerging research concerns the acute impact that carcinogens, development and reproductive toxicants, mutagens and neurotoxics have on children (Commission for Environmental Cooperation 2006). Landrigan et al. have been able to approximate that the prevalence of certain chemicals in air, food, water and communities contributes to 100 percent of lead poisoning, 10 to 35 percent of asthma, 2 to 10 percent of particular cancers and 5 to 20 percent of neurobehavioral disorders in children (2002).[2] Further, specific examples of often-used chemicals with known human and ecological risks include naphthalene, royal demolition explosive (also referred to as RDX or hexahydro-1,3,5-trinitrotriazine), formaldehyde, trichloroethylene, tetrachloroethylene and dioxin (Stephenson 2008).

Finally, the technology gap pertains to the depressed motivation of chemical manufacturers to invest in regenerated, green (environmentally safe), chemistry technologies. This is the unfortunate outcome of the coupling of limited toxicity data with a sluggish chemical regulatory system. Magnifying this dearth of market incentives is highly unsubstantial government investment in research and development of green chemistry, biotechnology and advanced materials,  and in the education of scientists in this field.

These respective gaps, of course, don’t occur within a vacuum. Their impact is felt throughout many sectors and in a wide diversity of contexts. First, the chemical safety gap further strains our already broken health care system. It is estimated, for example, that the state of California alone could save $700 million per year by reducing human exposure to many known chemical hazards. This savings estimate is even somewhat conservative as it is based on an analysis that projects savings from merely reducing the incidence of chemical diseases by .1 percent. Savings increase to $5 billion a year when considering the U.S. as a whole(Baier-Anderson et al. 2010; CHANGE 2010). Further, the technology gap has contributed to U.S. businesses falling behind those in places like Germany in terms of developing safer chemicals and materials (Scott 2010).

A final, more recent, problem regarding our current chemical regulatory framework is that it doesn’t comply with new international regulatory regimes, such as the  European Union’s (E.U.’s) new REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances) policy.[3] This, effectively, closes off from U.S. chemical manufacturers the world’s most lucrative market. According to Angela Logomasini of the Competitive Enterprise Institute: “The U.S. exports more than $20 billion in chemical products and invests more than $4 billion in the E.U. chemical and related industry sectors annually. In addition, U.S. firms export more than $400 billion in products containing chemicals, some of which may fall under the scope of REACH regulations” (2006).

[2] Directly from Baier-Anderson et al. (which cites peer-reviewed science extensively), further chemical linkages to the incidence of chronic disease in humans: (1) “clinicians found that a history of toxic exposure was associated with cognitive decline [particularly Alzheimer’s disease and Parkinson’s] at significantly younger ages” (2010: 10). (2) “Prenatal exposure to phthalates found in personal care products and in items made from vinyl has been linked to birth defects of the male reproductive system and feminized behaviors in boys” (2010: 13).

[3] REACH (EC 1907/2006) entered into legal force on June 1, 2007.