Home

Oscar-winning scientist Al Gore now wants "A national food policy."  He refers to this "brilliant article" (Actually, it's an op-ed):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-a-national-food-policy-could-save-millions-of-american-lives/2014/11/07/89c55e16-637f-11e4-836c-83bc4f26eb67_story.html?hpid=z2

First of all, nothing in a newspaper is ever "brilliant." They're aimed at someone with a 4^th grade education.

Here are the pallid suggestions:

~~~

All Americans have access to healthful food;

~~~

Well, gee, who doesn't want that?  But you know, I've been helping a couple of recently homeless friends, and the food banks give away food.  Now, a lot of it is starch, because we produce so much of it. But, it's food. Almost no other nation on the planet can do that. This is the typical statist bullshit of creating a panic over something that doesn't exist, making it mandatory, making you pay for it, then providing less than you had before, but at least it's "Fair."

~~~

● Farm policies are designed to support our public health and environmental objectives;

~~~

Translation:  "Let a bureaucrat decide what you can eat." Because that's worked so well with health care, education and drilling for oil.  Oh, and the US Postal Service.

~~~

● Our food supply is free of toxic bacteria, chemicals and drugs;

~~~

It pretty much is.  And if it's not, you can sue or file criminal charges. Why, I remember just last week that 47,000 school children got gastroenteritis from bad school food and sued…oh, wait, no, they all ate perfectly safe stuff (other than being loaded with government mandated starch).

This is probably more anti-GMOtardery.  Fun fact: Without GMO food, we can't feed 7 billion people.  I propose everyone opposed to GMO stop eating.  That will eliminate GMO, and provide enough food for everyone else, mostly poor people in Africa and Asia.  Unless, of course, the anti-GMO crowd are mostly privileged "liberal" racists who hate brown people. Which they are.

~~~

● Production and marketing of our food are done transparently;

~~~
Because the government excels at transparency.  Seriously, did these idiots actually say that?  Why don't they ask for rainbow-colored unicorn jizz while they're at it?

~~~

● The food industry pays a fair wage to those it employs;

~~~

Ah, the "living wage" that destroyed Detroit.  "Liberals" will never learn, because they are not capable of learning.  What we really need is a national policy to declare "liberalism" (as opposed to actual Liberalism) a psychiatric disorder and put them in facilities where they can mumble to the walls and other inmates and not hurt anyone who matters.

~~~

● Food marketing sets children up for healthful lives by instilling in them a habit of eating real food;

~~~

Ah, "Real food." Which the USDA, which is run by...let me check my notes…ah, here:  The US Government.  It endorses eating gobs of starch that cause metabolic disorders, including obesity and diabetes. I even saw one recent report from this "US Government" that diabetics should get 70% of their calories from starch.  The article concurs with this problem, but suggests MOAR GOVERNMENT will make it better.

Hint for the scientifically illiterate:  Starch metabolizes as sugar. That's what it is.

What some of these tofu-munching pussies are hoping for is a law against meat, to stop those ebil, gun-toting, god-worshipping teahadis and make them comply.

Except California famously outlawed Caesar Salad a few years back, leading to literal bootlegging of salad.  Once you put a bureautard in charge, it's hard to get anything rational to happen.

~~~

● Animals are treated with compassion and attention to their well-being;

~~~
Most farmers do this, because maltreated animals don't taste good.  What this will turn into is more "animals are people too!" bullshit from the bunnyfuckers, and retards who try to feed their carnivorous pets weeds.

~~~

● The food systemΓÇÖs carbon footprint is reduced, and the amount of carbon sequestered on farmland is increased;

~~~

Wait, didn't you say you wanted the food to be cheap and plentiful?  So: We will regulate the food and the farmers, require them to spend more money on wages, demand they comply with "Carbon sequestration," and it will magically be cheaper, just like health care.

Actually, though, this is potentially achievableΓÇöwe just reduce the carbon footprint of everyone in favor of this to zero, process them through a logchipper, then through a lime pit. We'll sequester their carbon and they won't produce any more. And, we won't have to listen to them. Win-win-win.

~~~

● The food system is sufficiently resilient to withstand the effects of climate change.

~~~

According to my research, the food system has withstood climate change for a half billion years. What we need to be concerned about is if it can withstand Al Gore, his private jets, his mansions all over the coasts (wait, isn't he afraid of sea level rise? Why would he have mansions on the coasts?) and his considerable bulk that is probably fed by cheeseburgers, not salad.  The carbon footprint of his houses exceeds my entire block.  The calorie footprint of his girth exceeds the local football team, and his bullshit quotient exceeds that of every cow in Kansas.

Even on an ephemeral basis, first we have to actually conclude what specific effects of climate change we are concerned about.  If we lose a week of frost-free days in Canada, their wheat crop fails.  If we lose rainfall, much of the corn belt suffers.  If we lose a couple of degrees in another Little Ice Age or Younger Dryas, there goes the citrus crop.  Then there's hurricanes, El Niño, etc.  "Make it more resilient" sounds cute, but doesn't actually say much.  And of course, doing so will cost money, which will magically make food more affordable.

We have a system in the US that feeds not only us, but most of the world, and so well we actually pay farmers not to grow food.  But what this proposes is to raise the prices, reduce the output, and somehow, magically, cheaper!  And as for all those poor people in Asia and Africa, who cares?  Because at heart, "liberals" are racist, narcissistic, greedy fucks who only care about themselves.

And Al Gore is their spokesJabba.

So, we have an op-ed that's shallow, panders to the wrong market, does so poorly, and is endorsed by a fat albatross.  Ultimately, though, the proposal comes down to, "Government stupidity got us into this mess. We need more government stupidity to get us out."

Or, you could stop "helping" and figure that since people have been eating food for 3 million years, they'll figure it out.

Coming next: A national policy on masturbation and heavy breathing.