Comments on: The Politics Of Wired: Saucy, Ignorant Contrarianism

By: G Money 2008

G Money 2008 — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 19:54:59 +0000

Personally, I find 6 foot tall D breasted 11 year olds enough for me to chose organic Milk and Meat whenever possible.

But you know America – Bigger is Better – that is until they become 250# whiskered adult diabetics.

By: Ikono Seidler

Ikono Seidler — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:56:00 +0000

This is reminiscent of the very 60s-ish character of the Bush gang. They portray themselves as the envelope-busting freethinkers not constrained by the “pre-911 way of doing things”, or “creeping usurpations of power by Congress”, or “reality” or “common decency”. We’re edgy! (See “The Conquest of Cool”.)

They’re here to free the true creative souls in our midst (rich people, people who run large businesses, and cranky white guys) from the powerful evil oppressors who’re keeping them down, all of whom look exactly like either Willie Horton or “Mallard Fillmore”’s depictions of Professor Ponytailsteinbergowiczstein or of Hillary Clinton.

By: jus777

jus777 — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 20:47:40 +0000

I believe that it’s cow burps, not cow farts, that are responsible for the majority of their co2 emissions. Non-organic cows (and organic cows, too, in the last few weeks of their lives) are given diets high in grain and even corn which creates a build-up of acids in the stomach. This buildup creates gas which is not only unhealthy for the cow (and one of the reasons they need to be given antibiotics) but makes them burp a lot. The devil is in the details.

By: Mugsy

Mugsy — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 14:22:14 +0000

My experience has ALWAYS been that Conservatives can’t see beyond two-steps-down-the-road. That’s how we got stuck in Iraq; that’s how we have no energy policy, that how cutting interest rates resulted in an explosion of bankruptcies… and on & on.

It were Conservatives that pushed for NAFTA in the ’90’s, which Bill Clinton foolishly co-opted (against his own Party’s wishes) to score some cheap political points.

And it is Conservatives, despite the mess in Iraq in 2004, that voted to put George Bush back in office in the misguided belief that if you put sour milk back in the fridge, “maybe it’ll be better tomorrow.”

By: coaxial

coaxial — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 05:45:34 +0000

Of course this focus on organic == good, is a bit single-minded. Organics have a lower production rate, and consequently cost more. Food has to be manufactured somewhere, and food transportation costs (both economical and environmental) are non-trivial. There’s a finite amount of land, and you simply can’t produce enough food for large metropolises near by. (Unless of course you’re in Northern California, where that’s about the only place where you can get sufficient locally grown produce.) Then of course you there’s the problem that not all kinds of food can be grown in all places. You still have the transportation problem.

So now you have more expensive food, that still has to be trucked in, all because you’ve decided to forgo modern agricultural methods.

My whole problem with this post is that it screams of “B-b-but that was my holy calf!” If you really want to refute the article, then refute it with real data instead of whining about political bias and links to equally shallow blog posts.

I thought this was the Wonk Room. Get wonky damn it.

By: aaaa

aaaa — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:02:07 +0000

sorry, i meant conventional milk–what this is ostensibly about.

By: aaaa

aaaa — Mon, 09 Jun 2008 03:00:54 +0000

If you’re right then it’s more carbon-efficient to drink organic milk than regular milk. Pumping cows full of hormones might still make sense though–the carbon savings from needing fewer cows might outweigh the costs of manufacturing the hormones. The same is true of the first two bullet points. Making pesticides costs carbon, but maybe the increased productivity is worth it. Some organic farmers use hot steam to kill weeds–does that really burn up less carbon than manufacturing herbicides? You’re mentioning the cost of everything and the value of nothing. As for the last point, maybe feedlot beef is unhealthier, but is conventional meat really that bad? Your analysis is wider-ranging then Wired’s, but both of them are basically hand-waving.

By: gerryblog

gerryblog — Sun, 08 Jun 2008 17:20:00 +0000

I wrote a little bit about this myself the other day, making much the same points. But mostly the Wired issue stands as a noteworthy testament to what happens when you allow an unholy trinity of technopositivity, kneejerk know-it-all contrarianism, and fierce resentment of hippies to drive your coverage: even your good insights get drowned in smarm.

By: LiberalVoter

LiberalVoter — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:03:13 +0000

Wired is a washed up rag trying to boost its ratings by appearing to be a maverick. Just like another washed up maverick running for a Bush third term. It is ashame what they turned into compared to what they could have been. I would not waste my time with either.