Via Michael Dougherty.
Mother Jones has a profile of “Christian-libertarian-environmentalist-lunatic farmer” Joel Salatin. Two relevant quotes:
In Joel?s view, the reformation of our food economy begins with people going to the trouble and expense of buying directly from farmers they know??relationship marketing,? the approach he urges in his recent book, Holy Cows and Hog Heaven: The Food Buyer?s Guide to Farm Friendly Food. Joel believes that the only meaningful guarantee of integrity is when buyers and sellers can look one another in the eye, something few of us ever take the trouble to do. ?Don?t you find it odd that people will put more work into choosing their mechanic or house contractor than they will into choosing the person who grows their food??
And
Shortly before I traveled to Virginia, I?d reread an essay by Wendell Berry in which he argued that reversing the damage done to local economies and the land by the juggernaut of world trade would take nothing less than ?a revolt of local small producers and local consumers against the global industrialism of the corporations.? He detected the beginnings of such a rebellion in the rise of local food systems and the growing market ?for good, fresh, trustworthy food, food from producers known and trusted by consumers.? Which, as he points out, ?cannot be produced by a global corporation.? Berry would have me believe that what I was seeing in the Polyface salesroom represented a local uprising in a gathering worldwide rebellion against what he calls ?the total economy.?
Why should food, of all things, be the linchpin of that rebellion? Perhaps because food is a powerful metaphor for a great many of the values to which people feel globalization poses a threat, including the distinctiveness of local cultures and identities, the survival of local landscapes, and biodiversity. When Jos? Bov?, the French Roquefort farmer and anti-globalization activist, wanted to make his stand against globalization, he used his tractor to smash not a bank or insurance company but a McDonald?s. Indeed, the most powerful protests against globalization to date have revolved around food: I?m thinking of the movement against genetically modified crops, the campaign against patented seeds in India (which a few years ago brought as many as half a million Indians into the streets to protest World Trade Organization intellectual property rules), and Slow Food, the Italian-born international move- ment that seeks to defend traditional food cultures against the global tide of homogenization.
Posted on 9 May 2006
The following is a response that the editors of Comment asked me to write following their series on Neocalvinism. It is slated to appear to in the June print issue of the journal.
Perhaps I am a skeptic at heart. Of the four essays published, I found myself agreeing most with Daniel Knauss’ emphatic “No!” While at times I have been a hot or lukewarm follower of the movement (particularly Kuyper), Knauss’ pragmatic criticism of Neocalvinism struck a chord, particularly his critique of the movement’s ecclesiology (or lack thereof). Al Wolters had hinted at such things in his “What Is to Be Done…” essay. The Church, as an institution of cultural change, has been at best minimized and at worst forgotten by many in the movement. Perhaps this is a mutation of sphere sovereignty, or simply an ignorance of the traditions of the movement. Either way, it is a problematic position, and one I find rather ironic given the confessional, Calvinist foundations of the movement. The Church is not simply the house of worship–it is the community of believers, come together to worship, fellowship, and serve God.
This is not, however, a condemnation. In the discussions that have followed the essays, Gregory Baus, David Koyzis, and Byron Borger argue that Neocalvinism should not and cannot be separated from its confessional roots. Worldview, that which drives much of the Neocalvinist agenda, must flow from life within the tradition of Church, in communion with other believers. Without such a basis, worldview becomes little more than an intellectual exercise. This is where, perhaps, the Neocalvinists can learn from their co-belligerents in the Roman Catholic Church. A local parish can be heavily involved in the life of its community, and, in many communities, a parish is able to provide a level of support that the State, or even smaller non-denominational organizations cannot. And this is not a distortion of its mission–the Church is to be in the world, living out the teachings of Christ.
Along with Knauss, I wonder “what is to be done about the Church?” The Church, as Jacques Ellul states it in Presence of the Kingdom, lives “at the point of contact between two currents: the will of the Lord, and the will of the world.” These days the Church struggles against the current of the world, and it is with the Church that we, as followers Christ, succeed or fail. Worldview may help us understand our relationship as Christians to our jobs, our education, and perhaps our government, but in the end, if that worldview lacks an ecclesial foundation, it is no different than the house built on the sand–and such a foundation cannot withstand the currents of the world. Yes, what is to be done about the Church? But perhaps that question is backwards. Should the Church (specifically the reformational denominations that are the true flag bearers of the Calvinism at the root of the movement) ask itself what is to be done about Neocalvinism? Is it time for the Church to rightfully take back what is hers?
Posted on 8 May 2006
The Giro (the Tour of Italy) begins this weekend, with what appears to be the toughest parcours in several years. There will be several interesting story lines to follow:
* CSC’s Ivan Basso will be attempting to win both the Giro and the Tour de France, a double that has not been achieved in the last decade.
* Discovery’s Paolo Savodelli will be trying to defend Maglia rosa from last year’s victory.
* Jan Ullrich will ride as a “tune-up” for the Tour. Ullrich is horribly out of shape thanks to an early season knee injury, and he’ll be lucky to reach the finish, at least on his bicycle.
Though I’d like to see Savodelli repeat, I’d rather see Basso score the double, especially in what has become an era of specialization.
In anticipation of the race, I found this interview with 1988 winner Andy Hampsten (the only American to win the event), recounting his key attack on the Gavia. Even if you’re not a cyclist, the interview is worth a read–the conditions were horrific, with sub-zero temperatures and snow.
Posted on 3 May 2006
Do you get the sense I’m making up for two weeks without a post?
I will be organizing another alleycat, in conjunction with this summer’s Bike Fest, the Rallycat Pittsburgh. I’m trying something different this time, a longer distance race, where I’ll release the manifest in the weeks before the event, giving participants plenty of time to map out a route. I’m still working out the details of all the various checkpoints, but the course will veer into a few northern suburbs before criss-crossing the city proper.
Posted on 25 April 2006
The journal Comment has been running a series on the merits, or lack thereof, of Neocalvinism. Dan Knauss, of the New Pantagruel, says no to the movement, and his criticisms, especially regarding the rather thin ecclesiology of many members of the movement, are worth reading. Jamie Smith, of Radical Orthodoxy fame, says maybe to Neocalvinists (Smith’s essay actually provides some fodder for Knauss’ critiques). And, finally, Harry Van Dyke says yes in an essay that has left many adherents to the movement wondering why. Gregory Baus, a confessional Calvinist who is also a Neocalvinist, has provided many informative comments following each of the essays, and often he and Knauss find themselves in agreement of the problems haunting Neocalvinism these days.
I’ve been working on a longer response to the essays, specifically Smith’s and Van Dyke’s, as I find both them tend to equate Neocalvinism with political leftism, and claim that Baus refutes with several good links. It strikes me that many Neocals trend leftward because they have, in effect, left the Church. They have not given up their faith, but they have given up on the Church has a critical institution, and the first line of Christian action in the world. When the Church no longer upholds Christ’s command to “take care of the least of these,” that responsibility falls on the shoulders of the State. But more on that later.
Posted on 25 April 2006
President Bush announced that the government will investigate the possibility of price-gouging by oil companies and offer a plan to cut fuel costs. Most interestingly, in the same speech, Bush said:
Our addiction to oil is a matter of national security concern…[The U.S. should] follow suit on what we have been emphasizing, particularly through the energy bill, and that is to encourage conservation, to expand domestic production, and to develop alternative sources of energy like ethanol.
Wouldn’t allow gasoline and oil prices to creep steadily upward be the most effective way to curb our country’s addiction to oil? Instead, Bush proposes a measure (cutting oil prices) that will do little more than feed that addiction by supplying cheap product. And regarding alternative fuel sources, I must admit I’m in the Kunstler camp–the nation’s addiction to oil is only a sympton of our addiction to the car. And, alternative fuels are not the silver bullet that many people believe them to be. As Kunstler points out, the crops used for biofuel would likely be treated with petroleum-based fertilizers, and those crops still must be processed into fuel. The resource might be renewable (as compared to petroleum), but there is still an energy-intensive process to create that resource. Simply put, the problem in not a source of fuel, but the use of fuel.
Posted on 25 April 2006
The race went off without much trouble today. The day started cloudy and a bit on the cold side (which reminded me that, perhaps, I should have a picked a spring classics theme, featuring the worst cobbles the city has, in honor of the Tour of Flander and Paris-Roubaix), and I absoutely froze at the start line, even with an extra fleece vest. The wind was typical for the spring–cold, stiff, and constant. By the time 2:00PM came around, the sun had broken through and the clouds were thinning out. The racers came in bunches–most before 1:30PM, giving themselves plenty of time to sort out the manifest, which went something like this:
There were seven checkpoints, all at various coffeehouses around the city. At four of the stops, the racers would have to drink a shot of coffee and bring their little dixie cup as proof of the stop. Two other stops simply had tags hanging on the facade. One checkpoint was a “dummy”–that is, unmanned, with nothing for the racers. It was up to them figure that one out on their own. The checkpoints were:
* Tazzo d’Oro, Highland Avenue in Highland Park
* Quiet Storm, Penn Avenue, Garfield
* Crazy Mocha, Butler Street, Lawrenceville
* Crazy Mocha, Liberty Avenue, Bloomfield
* Crazy Mocha, Oakland Avenue, Oakland
* Beehive, Carson Street, South Side
* Beleza, Buena Vista Street, Mexican War Streets (the finish line)
By the time 2:00PM came around, there were 40 riders milling around the tennis bubble in Mellon Park, trying to stay warm. Not a bad turnout at all, though, oddly, few riders were messengers. It’s interesting, because alleycats, at least here in Pittsburgh, have become citizen events, which, ultimately, is a good thing, because it draws a larger, more diverse crowd.
The start was not without incident. As I gathered everyone together for the start, another rider came down the path, wanting to sign up. No problem. As I took his money in exchange for a manifest and a spokecard, *BAM* someone’s inner tube suddenly exploded. Apparently, three quarters of the group thought I was packing a starter’s pistol, and took off. I let out a feeble “ummm, go?” and the rest, minus a few helping the now-flatted racer, took off out of the park. Most riders chose to ride a walking path out of the park, and on to Penn Avenue (the most direct way to Tazzo d’Oro), though a few went directly to Fifth Avenue, and apparently to the Beehive in the South Side. After the group helping the rider with the flat left I park, I gathered the manifests, spokecards, and other random bits of stuff, and headed to the Beleza to sort things out for the finish.
On the way to Beleza, I was to stop at the Crazy Mocha in Bloomfield to pick a bag of prizes donated by the owner. This Crazy Mocha was a “dummy” stop, meaning it wasn’t staffed and there was nothing for the racers to pick up. As I locked my bike, I had to wave along two groups of riders who thought, perhaps, that I was distributing tags and started to head my direction. The prize bag included several pounds of coffee, a mug, a shirt, and, best of all, a goat (the Crazy Mocha mascot) bobble-head doll. The doll would be a perfect first prize trophy, as long as the ride to the North Side in my bag didn’t destroy it.
The wind was stiff heading through the Strip District and heading across the river. The racers were likely getting pounded both in the Strip and in Oakland and the South Side. All the better though. I rolled up to Beleza, stopped in to talk to a few of the owners, and went about the task of sorting out the prize money. With 40 riders, I had $200 to divide among the top finishers. There was, however, a catch. My plan was to have a men’s and women’s division, but only two women signed up, and they were with the autobus group (doubling as a mobile party, as it turned out) that waited around for the guy who flatted at the start. If they got to finish in any reasonable amount of time, I’d include them in the money, otherwise, oh well. The prize breakdown for the men went something like this:
1st: $50 (not a bad haul) and the goat bobblehead
2nd: $30
3rd: $25
4th: $20
5th: $15
6th: One pound of coffee and an insulated mug
7th: One pound of coffee and a t-shirt
8th: One pound of coffee
In retrospect, I probably could have made the money go a bit further, but, oh well. Hindsight and all that. Still a nice haul for the top finishers, and everyone in the top eight made back their $5 entry fee.
It only took about 15 minutes for the leaders to roll up to the finish. Brian R., a Pitt student (riding a track bike) took first, with Dylan and Chris taking second and third. The fourth and fifth finishers were disqualified for not having all their tags (and sadly, Joel in fifth, beat the volunteers to the Oakland Crazy Mocha, but what could I do?). Brad Q (of Dirt Rag fame) would take fourth, Justin fifth, Ian sixth, Brad K. seventh, and Nick eighth. Within the next twenty minutes, the majority of the racers filtered in to the finish. Everyone had good things to say about the race, and the course, so I was a bit relieved to know that everyone had a good time. Apparently, there was one minor fender-bender in Oakland, but it actually happened as two guys left a parking lot trying to sort out directions. No one was hurt, and it sounded as if it was a no harm, no foul situation with the driver.
Roughly 20 minutes after the crowd had dispersed, and Eli, Josh, and I were unlocking our bikes, the autobus rolled up, smiles on all their faces. The mobile party apparently had a great time, and according to the volunteers, took their time at each of the stops, checking out the cafés (which was, of course, one of the points of the event). Josh and Eli joined them for a beer or two, while I rode off into the sunset.
Posted on 10 April 2006