President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

From the New Republic article Az linked upthread.

 

True. Politics and education are like two married people who hate one another, but refuse to get divorced. They are a terrible match that ideally never should have mixed in the first place, but they are stuck with one another.

 

Oh, man, not the time warp again!

 

Lots of Nazis believed in Hitler to the very end, too.

 

Man Al Pacino could really act.

 

I think the culture wars go both ways. Conservatives are of course too much in many circumstances. And progressives can be, too. It's interesting to me that TNR twists a desire to eat meat into a war. Is it a war? Or is it, however bumpkinized it might be (and it is!) a response to this graf:

Yet the case for reducing meat production and consumption grows by the day. It would cut back on excessive land and water use, zoonotic illness, pollution, and greenhouse gas emissions. That’s not to mention the benefit to animal welfare. As reports from the United Nations and a growing number of publications in leading scientific journals suggest—and as the Economist article pilloried by Cernovich reported—shifting away from meat, and especially beef, especially in high-consuming countries, would go a long way in reducing the ecological hoofprint of our food system. Here, Republican obstruction is not helpful, least of all to Republican-voting constituencies. Consider the Colorado River, which runs through red states as it does blue states, and which has dropped to historic lows due not just to drought but also to its use in irrigating feed crops like alfalfa fed to cattle. In fact, in terms of its contribution to despoiling ground and drinking water, animal agriculture is immediately most harmful to the very rural constituencies that often elect conservative politicians. And of course, the effects of climate change don’t discriminate based on political allegiance.

Now, that's a pretty clever graf of writing there. Especially this line:

In fact, in terms of its contribution to despoiling ground and drinking water, animal agriculture is immediately most harmful to the very rural constituencies that often elect conservative politicians.

In fact, in terms of, I dunno, providing a means of living animal agriculture is immediately most beneficial to the very rural constituencies that often elect conservative politicians.

By the end of the article, once again, the debate's been settled. the winners win, the losers are weird and we might all just perish because of them.

Rinse, repeat.

 

Go ahead and try to take this away too.



They're comin' for our meat!

 

Indeed

 

It takes a tremendous amount of energy - and expense - to raise beef or pork or chicken, etc. relative to the cost of the crops we grow to feed them.

Animal agriculture is hugely inefficient relative to the number of calories it produces for human consumers.

We'd all be better off across the board consuming less meat. Including environmentally.

And smart farmers would earn just as much.

Got Beef? Here’s What Your Hamburger Is Doing To The Climate

 

So you're arguing undrinkable drinking water -- which as noted primarily negatively impacts people who live near the animals, not people who consume them hundreds or thousands of miles away -- is a fallacy?

 

The idea and existence of undrinkable water is not a fallacy.

Are you arguing that we should stop eating meat - or as much meat - because of actual cases of undrinkable water? Or the idea of it? Or as a rationale choice in a cost-benefit analysis?