What Is Sustainable Agriculture?

 Posted by on 7 October 2011 at 11:00 am  Environmentalism
Oct 072011

In preparation for Sunday’s webcast, I’ve been doing a bit of research on the definition of “sustainable agriculture” according to its advocates. Here’s what I found from the page What is Sustainable Agriculture? by the UC Davis Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education Program. (It’s favorably by other members of the movement, including the National Sustainable Agriculture Coalition.) I’ve made the particularly notable segments bold. Read it and weep!

Agriculture has changed dramatically, especially since the end of World War II. Food and fiber productivity soared due to new technologies, mechanization, increased chemical use, specialization and government policies that favored maximizing production. These changes allowed fewer farmers with reduced labor demands to produce the majority of the food and fiber in the U.S.

Although these changes have had many positive effects and reduced many risks in farming, there have also been significant costs. Prominent among these are topsoil depletion, groundwater contamination, the decline of family farms, continued neglect of the living and working conditions for farm laborers, increasing costs of production, and the disintegration of economic and social conditions in rural communities.

A growing movement has emerged during the past two decades to question the role of the agricultural establishment in promoting practices that contribute to these social problems. Today this movement for sustainable agriculture is garnering increasing support and acceptance within mainstream agriculture. Not only does sustainable agriculture address many environmental and social concerns, but it offers innovative and economically viable opportunities for growers, laborers, consumers, policymakers and many others in the entire food system. …

Sustainable agriculture integrates three main goals–environmental health, economic profitability, and social and economic equity. A variety of philosophies, policies and practices have contributed to these goals. People in many different capacities, from farmers to consumers, have shared this vision and contributed to it. Despite the diversity of people and perspectives, the following themes commonly weave through definitions of sustainable agriculture.

Sustainability rests on the principle that we must meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. Therefore, stewardship of both natural and human resources is of prime importance. Stewardship of human resources includes consideration of social responsibilities such as working and living conditions of laborers, the needs of rural communities, and consumer health and safety both in the present and the future. Stewardship of land and natural resources involves maintaining or enhancing this vital resource base for the long term.

A systems perspective is essential to understanding sustainability. The system is envisioned in its broadest sense, from the individual farm, to the local ecosystem, and to communities affected by this farming system both locally and globally. An emphasis on the system allows a larger and more thorough view of the consequences of farming practices on both human communities and the environment. A systems approach gives us the tools to explore the interconnections between farming and other aspects of our environment.

Holy Misintegration, Batman! Well… at least I’ll have fun taking that apart in Sunday’s webcast!

Jun 092011

In Sunday’s Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered the following question about whether to recycle or not:

Should I recycle? When I don’t have to go out of my way to recycle — if both bins are right in front of me, say — should I? And what if I am sharing an apartment with someone who will fish recyclables out of the trash and put them in the recycling bin? Are there cases where one should just recycle in order to avoid confrontations at home or work?

Here’s my answer, now posted to YouTube:

For more details on the economic efficiency (or lack thereof) of recycling consumer goods for raw materials, see Eight Great Myths of Recycling (PDF) by Daniel Benjamin — or rather, the updated version Recycling Myths Revisited (PDF).

Jun 062011

On Saturday evening, I watched the Penn and Teller “Bullshit!” episode on recycling in preparation for Sunday’s webcast. It contained some good information, albeit probably not enough. Mostly, however, I was amazed at the lengths to which their two victims went in order to order to recycle using their slew of made-up bins. It was a remarkable demonstration of the power of morality.

For a more in-depth analysis of the economics of recycling, see the paper referenced in their show, Eight Great Myths of Recycling (PDF) — or better yet, the updated version Recycling Myths Revisited (PDF).

The Disaster of the Gulf Oil Leak

 Posted by on 8 June 2010 at 7:00 am  Environmentalism, Politics
Jun 082010

[Crossposted from Modern Paleo.]

I’ve love to write up some substantive commentary on the BP oil spill in the Gulf, but I’m sure that I won’t have time. So I must content myself with a few quick points, plus some links:

  • The oil spill is clearly a horrid disaster for mankind and our environment, including for our marine food supply, recreation, science, and more. I can only hope that the leak is plugged, and soon. That will require serious money, determination, and ingenuity — not more grandstanding from politicians, activists, and the media. I hope that BP has what it takes to do the job, but I worry they don’t.

    “Plug the Damn Hole!” by Tom Bowden of ARC
    Obama’s Metaphysical Frustration by Doug Reich
    A Quick Thought on this Oil Spill and Extraordinarily Callous by Trey Givens

  • If BP was negligent, then it ought to pay for the cleanup in its entirety, even if that means the company goes bankrupt. I suspect it will, given the vast damage done. Our government might subsidize BP or limit its liability, but I hope not. (Or rather, I hope that’s not already the case.) That would be a horrible injustice.

    BP Would Be Toast in a Truly Free Market by Kevin Carson

  • Environmentalists like to blame oil companies for such disasters, then call for further regulations on industry. Yet such disasters are the product of existing regulations that prevent oil companies from drilling in perfectly safe areas, including on land. People who want to prevent these kinds of disasters in the future should advocate for the repeal of environmental regulations in favor of strict adherence to property rights and tort law.

    Environmentalism is Responsible for the Gulf Oil Spill by Jason Stotts
    The Offshore Drilling Controversy: Remember Santa Barbara by Alex Epstein of ARC

  • The oceans should be homesteaded as private property by the people and companies that create value from them. As with all private property, owners would have a strong incentive to maintain the value of the property. In some cases, that would mean protecting access for drilling or mining. In others, that would mean making the property useful for recreation, such as fishing, snorkeling, or sailing. In others, that would mean protecting and enhancing the value of the marine life for food or even study. Such homesteading might not have prevented this disaster, but it’s necessary to preserve and protect the value of the oceans in the long run.

    Deep-Six the Law of the Sea by Thomas Bowden of ARC

For right now, I just hope the leak can be sealed off safely and effectively.

Jun 072010

[This post was originally written for Modern Paleo.]

In the sidebar of the Modern Paleo Blog, you’ll find the following statement:

Modern Paleo offers writings by Objectivists on the principles and practice of nutrition, fitness, and health most conducive to human flourishing. We seek the best that modern life has to offer, informed by a broadly paleo approach.

One implication of that, perhaps unforeseen, is that Modern Paleo is no friend of environmentalism.

No, Objectivists don’t want polluted rivers and seas… but that’s because they’d be damaging to human life, whether directly (via our own consumption) or indirectly (via the food supply). No, Objectivists don’t want to pave the earth… but that’s because most of us find value in wild places, just civilized enough for the fun of hiking, biking, camping, hunting, and more. In essence, Objectivists value human life; we don’t regard nature as an intrinsic good, apart from human life. Yet we’re not blind to the fact that humans can only flourish under certain conditions. We need clean air to breathe, clean water to drink, and nutritious food to eat.

The only way to ensure those values for ourselves — and future generations — is through ironclad respect for private property. All property should be privately owned, and the property owner should be able to do whatever he pleases with it, provided that he doesn’t cause undue harm to other people or their property in the process. Dumping toxic waste into a stream that runs through your property isn’t an exercise of your rights; it’s a violation of the rights of everyone downstream.

Human ingenuity — protected and nurtured by ironclad respect for property rights — is the only moral and practical solution to environmental problems like pollution, endangered species, and soil erosion.

About the problem of pollution, Ayn Rand wrote the following in her 1971 essay “The Anti-Industrial Revolution”:

City smog and filthy rivers are not good for men (though they are not the kind of danger that the ecological panic-mongers proclaim them to be). This is a scientific, technological problem–not a political one–and it can be solved only by technology. Even if smog were a risk to human life, we must remember that life in nature, without technology, is wholesale death.

As far as the role of government is concerned, there are laws–some of them passed in the nineteenth century–prohibiting certain kinds of pollution, such as the dumping of industrial wastes into rivers. These laws have not been enforced. It is the enforcement of such laws that those concerned with the issue may properly demand. Specific laws–forbidding specifically defined and proved harm, physical harm, to persons or property–are the only solution to problems of this kind. (Return of the Primitive)

I’ll post more on this topic in coming weeks, but I thought I’d leave you with an illuminating dissection of environmentalism as an ideology by Keith Lockitch of the Ayn Rand Institute:

Most people have a mistaken view of environmentalism. They see it as a movement whose goal is to protect the environment so that we, and future generations, may continue to enjoy it. Environmentalists might call for certain sacrifices–like stern priests calling upon us to do penance for our sins–but people take their word for it that those sacrifices will turn out to be for the good of “society.” People feel virtuous in paying more for those organic blueberries and spending time washing out tin cans and nasty cloth diapers, because they see it as a sacrifice for the “greater good.” And although “going green” may demand some cost and effort, it need not–on this view–be too burdensome nor demand personal hardships that are too great.

But in fact, the goal of environmentalism is not any alleged benefit to mankind; its goal is to preserve nature untouched–to prevent nature from being altered for human purposes. Observe that whenever there is a conflict between the goals of “preserving nature” and pursuing some actual human value, environmentalists always side with nature against man. If tapping Arctic oil reserves to supply our energy needs might affect the caribou, environmentalists demand that we leave vast tracts of Arctic tundra completely untouched. If a new freeway bypass will ease traffic congestion but might disturb the dwarf wedge mussel, environmentalists side with the mollusk against man. If a “wetland” is a breeding ground for disease-carrying insects, environmentalists fight to prevent it being drained no matter the toll of human suffering.

It is simply not true that environmentalism values human well being. It demands sacrifices, not for the sake of any human good, but for the sake of leaving nature untouched. It calls for sacrifice as an end in itself.

Objectivists reject the ideology of environmentalism precisely because we want to enjoy the best that modern life has to offer. We’re not seeking to re-enact the life of paleo man, particularly not when forced on us by an eco-fascist state.

Dec 232009

Yet more global warming alarmists are linking environmentalism with religion. Here are a couple of recent discussions of this topic.

The first comes from Thaddeus Russell, someone who is concerned about AGW but dislikes the religiousity.

Here is an excerpt from his 12/19/2009 piece, “Blame the Smug Climate Warriors“:

…Many climate-change deniers and even some who accept global warming as a fact, like the authors of Superfreakonomics, have attacked what they call the “religion of climate change.” Al Gore is often singled out for raising the discourse on the issue to a supernatural level, thus taking it out of the realm of human questioning.

Though Gore’s books, speeches, and Oscar-winning film on the issue are chock full of secular scientific information, they are also laced with biblical references. And Gore himself has said that climate change is “ultimately a moral and spiritual issue.”

Gore recently told Newsweek that since the publication of An Inconvenient Truth, he has trained Christian, Muslim, Jewish, and Hindu clergy to spread his message.

He admitted that he uses a version of the “Inconvenient Truth” slide show that is “filled with scriptural references.” Moreover, “It’s probably my favorite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing.”

The Gore interview with Newsweek can be found in the 11/19/2009 story by Sharon Begley “The Evolution of an Eco-Prophet“. Here are a couple of excerpts:

Asked how he reconciles that realization with the wonkish content of the book, Gore at first seems stymied. But then, when I prompt him, he points to pages on the spiritual dimension of climate change, the idea that God gave man stewardship over the earth, and that preserving it for future generations is a sacred obligation. Then he opens his laptop to show a commercial by his Alliance for Climate Protection, in which the Revs. Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson make an odd-couple plea for “taking care of the planet.”

Gore allows that he’s been tailoring the slide-show training he gives to faith-based volunteer groups. “I’ve done a Christian [-based] training program; I have a Muslim training program and a Jewish training program coming up, also a Hindu program coming up. I trained 200 Christian ministers and lay leaders here in Nashville in a version of the slide show that is filled with scriptural references. It’s probably my favorite version, but I don’t use it very often because it can come off as proselytizing.”

In the Newsweek interview, Gore cites reason and the Enlightenment (!) as two of his major influences:

So, if efficiency is so great and saves so much money (leave aside the CO2 part), I ask, why don’t businesses do it? “You know, I was raised in an Enlightenment-influenced family,” Gore says. “Both my parents were such believers in the preeminence of reason, and I still believe all that.”

Al Gore is as much a defender of the Enlightment as President Obama is a defender of capitalism.

Dec 212009

FAIL Blog recently posted this remarkably honest card from The Green Game (via Kevin Delaney):

In case you can’t read that easily, it says:

Question: Which is greener; being obese and out of shape or slim and healthy?

Answer: Although obese people do consume slightly more energy than slim people, they will not live as long and therefore, will consume less of the earth’s resources.

Most people would likely think that’s some kind of horrible mistake: “Surely, they can’t mean that!” Yet in fact, the card perfectly represents the ideological core of the environmentalist movement, often referred to as “deep ecology.”

As I’ve argued before, most self-described environmentalists are motivated by fundamentally human concerns: they want clean air and clean water; they want “open space” for hiking, camping, and other sports; they want to preserve species for future study and enjoyment. Such people often wrongly suppose that government controls are required to achieve these ends. They are often mistaken about the benefits and dangers of certain products or practices. They err in thinking in terms of intrinsic value of nature. Yet fundamentally, their aims are anthropocentric: they wish to protect and improve human life.

Undoubtedly, the creators of that game are environmentalists of a different sort: they are “deep ecologists.” Here’s the description of deep ecology from Wikipedia (with my emphasis added):

Deep ecology’s core principle is the claim that, like humanity, the living environment as a whole has the same right to live and flourish. Deep ecology describes itself as “deep” because it persists in asking deeper questions concerning “why” and “how” and thus is concerned with the fundamental philosophical questions about the impacts of human life as one part of the ecosphere, rather than with a narrow view of ecology as a branch of biological science, and aims to avoid merely anthropocentric environmentalism, which is concerned with conservation of the environment only for exploitation by and for humans purposes, which excludes the fundamental philosophy of deep ecology. Deep ecology seeks a more holistic view of the world we live in and seeks to apply to life the understanding that separate parts of the ecosystem (including humans) function as a whole.

Notice that, in addition to its metaphysical collectivism, deep ecology specifically rejects anthropocentrism, i.e. man-centered environmentalism. Ultimately, that’s why it promotes human suffering and death as a positive good. To understand the why and the how, we need to draw some parallels to altruism — particularly to utilitarianism and impartialism.

The moral perspective of deep ecology is similar to that of utilitarianism — or, more broadly, impartialism. Utilitarianism demands that we always act so as to promote the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism is hedonistic: happiness is understood to be nothing more than pleasure, whether physical or emotional. Today, the widely-accepted variant of utilitarianism is the non-hedonistic doctrine of impartialism.

Impartialism abstracts away from the hedonism of utilitarianism: it is neutral about the nature of the good. Impartialism speaks in terms of “interests,” yet that can mean just about anything: pleasure, wealth, happiness, health — or even obedience to duty or submission to God’s will. However, impartialism is still decidedly collectivistic: the good is neutral between persons. So whatever the standard for the good is, we must promote that good for everyone, not merely ourselves. We must be impartial in our decisions: we ought not concern ourselves with whether something is good for me or my loved ones — or good for a stranger and his loved ones. All that matters is that something is good. (Kant’s ethics of duty shares the same detached view of the good: that’s why I think of impartialism as the distilled essence of both utilitarianism and deontology.)

Technically, impartialism permits each person to consider his own interests when acting. Yet the desires, goals, and welfare of one person must always be deemed inconsequential in comparison to the interests of the other billions of people in the world.

For example, you might think that your choice to buy a latte is your own private business, perhaps just concerning you and the owner of the coffee shop. You aren’t harming anyone by buying the coffee. In fact, you and the coffee shop owner are better off after the transaction. Sounds good, right? No! That’s far too narrow a perspective for impartialism: you must consider the impact of that transaction on everyone else, including the billions of total strangers in the world. Impartialism demands that you consider everything else that you might have done with those few dollars. Clearly, you could be feeding the poor, rather than indulging your desire for luxury. You have no moral right to a cup of coffee while someone in the world lacks bread. (For that argument, see Peter Singer’s classic essay, Famine, Affluence, and Morality.)

The fact that the needs of the one are always swamped by the needs of the many is why impartialism is properly regarded as a form of altruism. In practice, you must always do for others, never for yourself. Unless you are the worst-off person in the world, you have no moral right to your own life or happiness.

That sounds awful, but it gets even worse.

(I’ll speak of altruism from here on, as the rest of my analysis is not specific to impartialism.)

Impartialism and other forms of altruism cannot rejoice in the fact that people’s interests are often in harmony. That only creates epistemic problems when attempting to judge people morally. How so?

Sometimes, a person might act for the sake of his own interests, yet by so doing, he happens to benefit others. In such cases, the person deserves no moral praise or credit — even when the benefits provided to others are tremendous, like when neurosurgeon saves the live of a beloved child. Such a person is motivated by his own selfish concerns — perhaps by the expected payment for the surgery or even his enjoyment of the work — not purely by selfless concern for others.

Thus, when a person benefits from his actions in some way, we must wonder about his motives. He might be a secret egoist! As Kant observes in the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, even the person himself might be deluded, thinking that he was motivated by duty when instead he was motivated by self-love. The result? A person can only be safely praised by altruistic standards when he receives no benefit whatsoever from his actions — and better yet, when he suffers deeply for them. Only in such cases — when the person clearly and deliberately inflicts harm on himself for the benefit of others — can he be judged moral by altruistic standards.

Moreover, the person praiseworthy by altruistic standards need not really benefit other people much, if at all. A person’s noble plans might go awry for all kinds of reasons beyond his control. Or perhaps a person lacks the resources or power to accomplish much. The critical question is whether the person decided on his course of action using the proper impartial or altruistic principle — or “maxim,” to use Kant’s term. That’s all that this morality demands.

So what does that mean? Altruism demands that people help others, yet shrinks from measuring moral worth by that standard. Instead, a person’s moral worth is determined by his private motives or maxims: he must act for the sake of others, not for his own sake. He clearly demonstrates that only by his choice to suffer for others. Thus, self-inflicted suffering is the measure of a person’s moral worth according to altruism.

Sadly, that’s not some far-fetched, stretched interpretation of the meaning of altruism. It’s exactly what the most consistent altruists have preached as the good throughout history — Kant most explicitly.

Recall that the highest moral ideal of Christianity is that of Jesus, a god who willingly allowed himself to be brutally murdered for the sake of sinners. Jesus didn’t die in a fight against injustice — as might the leader of a slave rebellion. He didn’t die in defense of anything of personal value to him — like a friend, lover, or child. He died for the sake of all humanity, wicked and sinful as we are. He died for the sake of the very people who rejected him.

Moreover, that mythology of Jesus’ death was based on the same altruistic principles he preached during his life, most clearly exemplified by the story of the Widow’s Mite.

[Jesus] sat down opposite the treasury, and watched the crowd putting money into the treasury. Many rich people put in large sums. A poor widow came and put in two small copper coins, which are worth a penny. Then he called his disciples and said to them, “Truly I tell you, this poor widow has put in more than all those who are contributing to the treasury. For all of them have contributed out of their abundance; but she out of her poverty has put in everything she had, all she had to live on.”

Notice that the widow is not morally superior to those who donated large sums because she provided a greater benefit to the poor. She didn’t. Instead, she’s morally superior because she sacrificed more. She will suffer greatly for her donation, as now she has nothing to live on. That’s what makes her virtuous: her deliberate suffering.

So what does all of that have to do with deep ecology? What does it have to do with the suggestion that we die sooner for the sake of the environment?

Deep ecology is deep impartialism: the interests of everything in the natural world must be considered on a par with human interests. After all, why should mankind be so selfish as to only consider its own interests? Shouldn’t we consider the interests of cows, moles, robins, turtles, worms, maples, lichen, and amoebas too? And more: even rivers and rocks have interests that we ought to consider, as well as the planet as a whole! For deep ecology, any form of anthropocentrism — including traditional utilitarianism — is really just another form of selfish egoism.

In practice, just as the interests of one person are totally swamped by the interests of billions of other people in human-focused impartialism, so human interests are totally swamped by the interests of living organisms, ecosystems, and natural objects in deep ecology. Consequently, humans will always be obliged to sacrifice themselves for nature. Just by sheer numbers, we’re always going to lose.

As with altruism, the test of moral virtue for deep ecology is not any benefit done to the natural world but rather the depth of human sacrifices. Otherwise, we might just be pretending concern for nature, while actually secretly pursuing our own selfish ends. We can only prove our morality by eschewing anything that might benefit ourselves. That’s why the morality of deep ecology demands human destruction.

These various moral theories — utilitarianism, impartialism, altruism, and deep ecology — are similar for a reason. The morality of egoism is the morality of life and happiness. To reject egoism as immoral requires adopting suffering and death as the moral standard — whether for a single individual or all of humanity. The form of that ideal differs, as does its window dressing. Yet if you dig a bit, you’ll find suffering and death at its core.

Sometimes, as with the card from “The Green Game,” that’s just a bit more apparent than usual.

Religious Environmentalism

 Posted by on 17 December 2009 at 8:00 am  Environmentalism, Religion
Dec 172009

If you’re wondering about the state of the nascent merger of religion and environmentalism, some useful data can be found in this USA Today article: “Religious Groups Active in Climate Debate.” The article examines the emergence of explicitly religious arguments for environmentalist controls at the UN Summit in Copenhagen.

For example, consider the views of Tyler Edgar, the assistant director for the environmental arm of the National Council of Churches:

Edgar, who also is traveling to Copenhagen, sees things differently [than the religious global warming skeptics]. Broadly speaking, America’s religious communities have shed their long-standing suspicion of the environmental cause “as that hippie, tree-hugging thing,” she says. In the past three years or so, many have rallied behind the belief that “we are all called upon to protect God’s creation and God’s people” by acting to stop climate change, Edgar says.

Indeed, that’s the doctrine what’s known as “creation care” or “stewardship.” As the web site of Creation Care for Pastors explains:

This site is to serve pastors who are interested in a growing emphasis within the Christian community called “Creation Care”: applying biblical principles of stewardship to the environment we share with all living things. We like the word “creation” even better than the word “environment” because it includes all that makes the earth a wonderful place, and it reminds us it’s all a gift, a sacred trust from the hands of the Creator.

From a biblical perspective, “the environment” is God’s creation. Creation care does not just mean caring for “nature,” apart from humanity. It means caring for the entire creation: the environment and “all creatures great and small” including humanity. As those who confess Jesus Christ to be Savior and Lord, our relationship with all of creation must be in keeping with Christ’s relationship with all of creation. When we explore what the Bible says about creation, we interpret each text in light of our relationship to Christ and his relationship to all of creation. If the Bible teaches us that Christ has created the universe, gives it life and sustains it, and has reconciled everything to God, then our actions should participate in Christ’s creating, sustaining, and reconciling work.

Here’s another telling example from the USA Today article:

[Jim Ball, head of the Evangelical Environmental Network], who arrives in Copenhagen on Friday, says he plans to spend most of his time “hanging out in the hallways” of the Bella Center conference hall, where international delegates will be negotiating a deal. He’ll be looking to speak with senior Obama administration officials and members of Congress.

Ball’s pet cause is a proposal for rich countries, including the USA, to send poorer countries money — at least $10 billion a year will be needed, the U.N.’s Ban says. The funds would help the countries overhaul their economies to pollute less, and cope with possible consequences of climate change such as lower agricultural yields, or rising seas that could devastate island nations.

“Our role is to remind (politicians) that this is a profound moral issue, and that the basic moral teachings of religion apply to these environmental problems,” Ball says.

Particularly in light of the scientific scandal of ClimateGate, I believe that religion will bolster environmentalism with the faith-based moral fervor that it needs to survive — just as faith-based altruism has kept socialism alive and kicking after the supposed science of central planning was demolished with the economic collapse of the Soviet empire.

Hsieh LTE in WSJ on Climate Change

 Posted by on 7 December 2009 at 2:00 pm  Activism, Environmentalism
Dec 072009

The December 7, 2009 Wall Street Journal printed my LTE in support of Dr. Richard Lindzen’s December 1 OpEd, “The Climate Science Isn’t Settled“.

My LTE is on the page entitled, “The Science Behind the IPCC Climate Report Is Sound” (4th of 5):

If a respected MIT scientist like Mr. Lindzen argues that “the science isn’t settled,” and other scientists disagree, then doesn’t the very dispute itself prove that the science isn’t settled?

Paul Hsieh
Sedalia, Colo.

(The title applies to the first letter on the page, not to mine.)

This is also my new record for LTE brevity — 30 words!

Jon Stewart on Climategate

 Posted by on 2 December 2009 at 2:00 pm  Environmentalism, Funny
Dec 022009

Jon Stewart on Climategate:

“Poor Al Gore: global warming completely debunked via the internet you invented.”

“Why would you throw out raw data from the eighties? I still have Penthouses from the seventies!

I’ve not watched The Daily Show regularly in years, but Jon Stewart seems more willing to mock his side of the aisle of late. If so, good! These days, both left and right deserve boatloads of mocking scorn.

(Via Instapundit.)

Suffusion theme by Sayontan Sinha