Midrange Weekly Oct 4
You’re Weekly Round Up On What’s Got The Midrange Staff’s Attention
Midrange Staff @midrangeyvr
Welcome back to Midrange Weekly and oh wow did we ever miss you. We had to take last week off due to a confluence of scheduling conflicts and interceding commitments for everyone on the team. Jamie had family in town and had to marathon them though as many bars and restaurants as possible in a short period of time. Mickey was on a journey of personal discovery and self actualization that he had to incrementally squeeze between work and school. Honestly we don’t know where Tristan was, he usually turns up eventually though. Now that we’re all back and accounted for let’s dive into the week. Let’s start things off on an exciting note as we dive into… the mundane bureaucracies of insider politics in Washington? Oh god, fine.
Let’s Talk About America’s Debt Ceiling Crisis
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
One of the more ornery and mendacious tricks cynical politicians love to deploy- really it’s common across the entire spectrum of political discourse- is the use of convoluted and overly complex language. Ostensibly simple and direct processes or policy initiatives are shrouded and obfuscated by a dense and pretentious matrix of strictly bureaucratic and circumventive acumen to the point where it can become a tiresome exercise to decipher it. We see this in the language of proposed bills or signed legislation, we see it in adjacent legal disputes between municipal, state, or federal actors. Have you ever tried to read a Supreme Court ruling? It’s a slog. I realize a specified and acute vocational lexicon is required for nearly every field and industry, but in something as broad and communal as, oh I don’t know, representative democracy, it seems incumbent on representatives, be they elected or appointed to put at least some primacy on clarity.
I’m often reminded of this cumbersome obstacle to political literacy that hinders all of us whenever debate returns to the ominous and foreboding US debt ceiling. If it seems like several times a year Washington DC becomes consumed with the paralyzing fear of defaulting on US debt should the debt ceiling not be raised, it’s because ya that’s true. Partisan bickering over raising the debt ceiling is such an obnoxious and futile predicament in part because we know how it will end (the legislative branch will vote to raise it). That inevitably of course will get dragged out due to opportunistic moral grandstanding, and it’s a gross mal-appropriation of time that would be more optimally purposed towards actual legislation. Most incensing though is that with each iterative battle over the debt ceiling, no official ever goes to any real lengths to explain to their constituents just what the hell any of the means. They don’t even try.
This leaves the supposed ideological struggles animating both parties’ commitment or recalcitrance to raising the debt ceiling rendered vague and mercurial. Instead it’s an abstract disagreement of which the real life consequences seem inscrutable and theoretical. So just what the hell does the debt ceiling mean and what happens if it is not raised? Firstly there are a lot of economic nihilists and anarchists out there that will tell you it means nothing at all. That things like debt, credit, loans, even money are so non-corporal and intangible that they don’t really exist. Rather they are facile structures that serve no real purpose in the material consequences of reality beyond asserting control. I’m definitely sympathetic to this argument. The idea in a microcosm that a credit score means some of us will or will never own a house seems awfully severe in its pedantic abstractions. However these are systems that the American government has willingly bought into along with all other nations in the developed world since their various inceptions. It may all seem like make believe, but they are all playing by those rules; when one actor breaks those rules, all the others will respond with corresponding synchronicity. So too for all the private contractors and business the US government deals with.
So if one wishes to acquiesce to the idea that global economic theory is axiomatically consequential and binding, explaining what the debt ceiling is actually fairly straight forward. Imagine you went to a restaurant and ordered dinner. After that you get the bill and have to pay for it. Are you going to pull out your credit card and do so or dine & dash like a morally compromised piece of shit? Let’s say you max out your credit card throughout the month on various necessities and frivolities. At the end of the month you can pay it down at least a little or face the foreseeable consequence of no longer having use of that credit card as an option. That’s essentially what we are talking about with the debt ceiling. America bought a bunch of stuff and now they have to pay for it. Construction for foreign and domestic infrastructure, services from private firms, bureaucratic and legal fees, staffing various departments. Hundreds of billions of dollars worth of this stuff and more because that’s what it takes to run the most powerful country in the world. America has a funny and slightly archaic budgetary frame work in which the process of allocating funds for various things (anything from the military to education) and actually having to pay for it are bifurcated into two different legislative processes and thusly require two separate votes: one vote to approve certain legislation and their corresponding price tags, and another vote to later foot the bill for it. Just like first you tell server you want to eat this and drink that, and then later to pay for it. Raising the debt ceiling basically raises the amount of money America can spend to pay for it. It’s referred to via the term debt because America has to borrow money to pay for it. It has to do so because of a budget deficit, which is due to not bringing in enough tax revenue, largely because the rich don’t pay much in the way of taxes- but that’s a rant for another day.
That’s pretty much it! That’s not such a hard concept to grasp but try extracting such streamlined explanations from any politician- especially from republicans right now. Being the minority party (just barely) in the legislative branch they think it is collectively in their craven interest to oppose the raising of the debt ceiling. They are hoping to tie the idea of raising the debt ceiling to fiscal irresponsibly that they can blame the democrats for, even though this is a gallingly false equivalency. To return to the previous metaphor, fiscal responsibility would be saying you don’t have enough money to go out to dinner and opting out. But once you have made the decision to do so and order, you gotta pay up. Republicans have further gone on record (which is to say, lying in public) to say that they don’t want to raise the debt ceiling to fund democratic progressive initiatives, but that erroneously implies that raising the debt ceiling is done so in preparation for future costly legislations when it’s the exact opposite in reality. Slate has more on this:
Congressional Republicans say they’re being fiscally responsible, not hypocritical. They insist that the debt limit hike applies only to future spending, not to spending that has already occurred. That claim is preposterous. If it were true, there would be no need to raise the debt limit until Congress passes a new spending bill. In reality, as Republicans have acknowledged, the government is on track to hit the debt limit in mid-October because it has to cover expenses and revenue losses that were previously approved by Congress, including President Donald Trump’s tax cuts.
Much of the reason the debt ceiling currently has to be lifted is to pay for already approved legislation, such as the massive deficit of tax dollars brought about the 2017 Trump tax cut for the wealthiest of Americans.
This brings us to another frustration brought about the influx of both hyper and negative partisanship in American politics, which is the near self immolating tactics political caucuses will take just to screw over the other side. Both parties for generations have acknowledged that once the- often bitter- policy battles are settled, once the bill comes, it’s incumbent on all representatives to cover America’s costs. However the republicans, in a freshly insane iteration of destructive brinkmanship are proudly boasting they will never vote raise the debt ceiling, even though all who were in office did just that when such action was required under Trump. Republicans even admit it would be really bad not to raise the debt ceiling, as that would prevent America from borrowing any more money to pay for, again, what they already bought. Republicans embroiled in a weirdly self incriminating spat of tactical manoeuvring are claiming they will all vote against it, knowing full well that the democrats will vote for it and since they are in the majority, the ceiling will get raised and disaster will be averted. This implies that were republicans in power, assuming they would hold on to such misleading economic virtues (they wouldn’t) America would default on its payments and tank the economy. So I guess their message is it’s a good thing the republicans aren’t in power. Weird message to advocate with just a year away from the mid terms but okay! Anyways, should you ever find yourself in conversation with someone that would say no to raising the debt ceiling, just nod your head politely at all of the grandiose and tangled terminology or obscure economic theorem they throw at you, and know that that person at one point in their life was probably a dine and dasher. They suck. -Tristan
Animal Welfare — Are We Making Progress?
Sometimes a little momentum is all you need.
Back in August, I discussed in a weekly California’s Prop 12 initiative. If you are unfamiliar, the new law, which goes into effect on January 1st, essentially gives more space and freedom for female breeding pigs and egg-laying hens. The law is transformational and groundbreaking for animal rights activists who’ve been clamouring for more humane treatment of livestock for decades. It will dramatically alter how these animals are raised throughout the US.
When I initially read this report, my first thought was: How are Canada and other parts of the world going to react to this?
The wait was short lived.
This week new broke from Vox that the EU will ban cages for all animals by the year 2027.
From Vox:
The confinement of farmed animals in excessively small cages and crates has long been a trademark of our industrialized food system. There’s been progress here and there — several countries and about a dozen US states have banned cage confinement to varying degrees, and increasingly, food corporations are ridding the practice from supply chains.
Still, the problem is pervasive, and most of the world’s egg-laying hens — about 6.5 billion — and tens of millions of female breeding pigs, or sows, remain in cages.
But this summer, Europe took a bold move to break away from this status quo, putting forward essentially the most ambitious plan ever by any government to end the cruel practice.
The European Commission — the executive branch of the European Union — announced in June a ban on cages for a number of animals, including egg-laying hens, female breeding pigs, calves raised for veal, rabbits, ducks, and geese, by 2027. The plan would cover hundreds of millions of farmed animals raised in 27 countries. It puts Europe on track to implement the world’s most progressive animal welfare reforms within the decade. If ultimately enacted, it could turn out to be a pivot point in the decades-long fight to ease animal suffering.
If passed into law, which undoubtedly will be an up hill battle for sure, the future of animal welfare globally should feel a sense of optimism that things are finally, all bit slowly, moving in a positive direction.
I understand that for the vast majority of us, eating animals is just what we do. I’m not advocating to disrupt this reality. However, how we care for our livestock should carry with it a bit of compassion and understanding towards the sacrifice these animals give to us for our survival. It’s photos such as the one at top which should prompt a momentary pause and cause one to wonder: WTF?
Do their cages really need to be that small?
Should they even be in cages?
I hope we’re all in agreement that no is the answer.
On a side note to this fantastic news, while skimming away through the New York Times on Wednesday, I came across Pete Wells most recent feature. He’s the Times iconic food critic. His latest column discussed the revival of sorts of Daniel Humm’s Eleven Madison Park. Known as one one of the most revered restaurants in the world, Humm shocked the dining world early last spring when he announced that Eleven Madison would no longer be serving meat.
From The New York Times:
The man with the hammer treats everything as a nail, the saying goes. Something like that seems to be afflicting Eleven Madison Park in its new vegan incarnation. The restaurant’s chef and owner, Daniel Humm, is using the skills he brought to meat and seafood to whack away at vegetables.
Almost none of the main ingredients taste quite like themselves in the 10-course, $335 menu the restaurant unwrapped this June after a 15-month pandemic hiatus. Some are so obviously standing in for meat or fish that you almost feel sorry for them.
We should have seen something like this coming when Mr. Humm announced the animal-free policy in May. Eleven Madison Park is one of the most closely watched restaurants on the planet, drawing press coverage even for its minor adjustments. This one, not minor, made headlines around the world. Many articles quoted a line from Mr. Humm that gave his decision a soft glow of social responsibility: “The current food system is simply not sustainable, in so many ways.”
That last quote is one where I want you to pause and consider how it correlates with the news I first touched on at the top. All the decisions we make globally with regards to animal welfare have ramifications which affect us all, no matter where you live. Prop 12 in California and the EU report are small steps towards a more stable and viable food system. This doesn’t mean that to achieve this all restaurants need to drastically alter their menus, as chef Humm has done here, but seeing him do so does showcase the influence and progress we can achieve when forced to recognize our past transgressions. I think it’s pretty awesome what Humm has done here. What a great example to lead with.
In his own words he felt a sense of duty.
The anxiety, political upheavals, protests — even the boredom — of the pandemic period have conspired to produce an urgent sense that people with power, in the restaurant business as much as any other, need to work for change or get out of the way. Mr. Humm acknowledged this in his announcement in May, writing, “It was clear that after everything we all experienced this past year, we couldn’t open the same restaurant.”
We are making progress. - Jamie
Things From The Internet We Liked
Jordan Klepper Hangs Out With Some Anti-Vaxxers
He’s doing it so you don’t have to. We wanted to feature this last week and it’s still too fun to pass up. Daily Show corespondent Jordan Klepper spent the day at anti-vaxxer protest to try and gain some insight into the mind of such a person. Rather than letting the conversation devolve into an argument Klepper mostly just lets them talk until they reach the limits of their own myopic logic. That’s how you do it.
Vox Drops An Excellent Explainer Into The Troubled World Of Beef Production In The US
As is the case with most farmers around the globe, it’s the big corporations which have little involvement in the actual production of things who take up and receive the most compensation. As is the case, this is horrible for those at the bottom. This video does an excellent job of showcasing this reality.
Check Out This Prototype King Of The Hill Pencil Test
This might seem a bit niche due to the less than prolific fan base of the subject matter and the fact this was apparently posted way back when in 2007, but fans of the subversively excellent slice of Americana that was King Of The Hill will get a kick out of this. It’s essentially a proof of concept pitch by series creator Mike Judge to sell the show all the way back in the 90s. It’s rough as hell but the potential is clearly already there. Some characters like Peggy are very prototypical at this point, but it’s amazing how Judge already had Boomhauwer figured out. When is this show coming to Netflix??