Alice Waters is symbolic of what's wrong with the U.S. environmental movement. She's symbolic of a movement that focuses on bourgeois consumerism of organics. She's symbolic of a movement that "cultivates their own garden" ignoring the rest of the world. She's symbolic of a environmental movement based on high-priced elitist eating of socalled "gourmet' organic food.

When people in other parts of the world and the U.S. are already climate refugees--New Orleans, Bangladesh, Native Americans in Alaska-- and forced to leave their homes, we have a conservative environmentalism based on eating $70 meals--an environmentalism for the rich only.

If you want to build a real environmental movement, why don't you forget about Alice and start demanding a Civilian Conservation Corps of 3 million jobs filled by people who will plant 4 billion trees. Too much to ask for. The Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s employed 3 million jobs and planted 4 billion trees.

Alice Waters is symbolic of what's wrong with the U.S. environmental movement. She's symbolic of a movement that focuses on bourgeois consumerism of organics. She's symbolic of a movement that "cultivates their own garden" ignoring the rest of the world. She's symbolic of a environmental movement based on high-priced elitist eating of socalled "gourmet' organic food.

When people in other parts of the world and the U.S. are already climate refugees--New Orleans, Bangladesh, Native Americans in Alaska-- and forced to leave their homes, we have a conservative environmentalism based on eating $70 meals--an environmentalism for the rich only.

If you want to build a real environmental movement, why don't you forget about Alice and start demanding a Civilian Conservation Corps of 3 million jobs filled by people who will plant 4 billion trees. Too much to ask for. The Civilian Conservation Corps in the 1930s employed 3 million jobs and planted 4 billion trees.

Alice Water's is emblematic of the leisure liberal class and their elitists ideologies. These folk think that only if everyone would go organic or embrace their true inner self that we would then magically bring about social justice.

The ruling class doesn't fear any ideology, any alternative lifestyle choices, any theories. Elite clubs of intellectual snobs refining radical theories pose no threat to them, either. Intelligent people who have an inflated sense of their own self worth are very easy to buy off and neutralize.

Narcissistic Chez Panisse style antics are useful only to the ruling class and the self-absorbed liberal elites.

Speaking truth to power? You might as well throw marshmallows at a charging rhino. We need to speak truth about power to the powerless.

It is broad participation by the people in politics that the ruling class most fears and works hardest to prevent. That is why saying in essence to millions of people that "you aren't smart enough (or pure enough in the case of the New Agers) to join our elite club" is the kiss of death for any serious political movement that claims to be in any sort of opposition to the ruling class.

This is a chronic problem and blocks or cripples any attempts at mobilizing the working people. I believe that a relatively small group of people control all discussion and all power on what passes for the Left in this country, and that they would sooner surrender anything else - including selling all of us down the river - before they would let go of their sense of exceptionalism, superiority and entitlement.

"Liberal" has come to mean "a superior sort of individual," while "progressive" has come to mean "an individual traveling the path to enlightenment and transcending above their inferiors." No matter how many radical theories or what ideology or superior personal spiritual beliefs you set out as window dressing, the cult of the enhanced and actualized individual will always be contradictory to and destructive of efforts to build the working class solidarity that is essential to any serious political change.

Why are there so many arguments, so much bitter antagonism, such paralysis and confusion on much ballyhooed “Progressive-Liberal-Left”?

Because people fight for their positions as though their personal identity depended upon them, as though their existence depended upon their political position or theory. That is because their personal identity does depend upon their political positions. They are one and the same - "be the change you want to see." People actually mean "seek the change that suits who you are as an actualized individual" since it never involves self-sacrifice or focus on the needs of others, but always on individual personal choices and self-expression. In fact, their political positions are not political positions at all, but narcissistic expressions of their personalities.

Forget Alice Waters and get the movement into the streets.

Wow - the first two responses to this article are pretty sweeping in their condemnation of folks. Not really representative of a "Common Dream."

While I agree that this article is not really helpful and question why it is on common dreams - the focus on celebrity is weak and it does nothing to clarify the issue - the sweeping condemnation of the entire organic movement, progressives, and liberals are extremely harsh and unwarranted.

In my opinion, there is no "bourgeois consumerism of organics." You are condemning the supporters of the practices necessary to reclaim our waterways and soil and produce safe, healthy food. Instead of focusing your venom at organic supporters, why not focus on the fact that it is widespread subsidies for agribusiness that makes organic so much more expensive than conventional. If we flipped the subsidies or paid the true cost of conventionally grown food (including health related costs and a pesticied tax) - organics could compete.

And mcoyote, I generally respect your posts, but I find this post pretty offensive. Perhaps you will dismiss me as one of those progressives that don't really help anything.

In particular, your statement that it, "...never involves self-sacrifice or focus on the needs of others, but always on individual personal choices and self-expression." is a broad generalization that has no support in fact.

Your definition of liberal and progressive also sting of bitterness. If this writing is your way of uniting us and "getting us into the streets." you will probably be out there on your own. You are catergorizing in the same way you condemn.

"This is a chronic problem and blocks or cripples any attempts at mobilizing the working people. I believe that a relatively small group of people control all discussion and all power on what passes for the Left in this country, and that they would sooner surrender anything else - including selling all of us down the river - before they would let go of their sense of exceptionalism, superiority and entitlement."

This statement is right on, but you use the decisions of the power speaking left to represent all those on the left who do not care about the power and are working on local solutions, nonparticipatio, spiritual growth, being the change they want to see, and worker solidarity. Yes, it is possible to work on all these things at once.

Come on people toxic sludge is good for you!
I contains valuable immuno-reducers that leave you open to the low (and high) level radiation that helps build the new super race of Homoubiquitous. If Alice puts it in a bottle I'll buy it, give it to the kids.
Bong Hits 4 Jesus Brigade

Too bad. This is a really important issue. But because of a well-deserved bad reputation, most people do not want to work with OCA. OCA is an organization in name only, members have zero input, it's a one-man operation, i.e., Ronnie Cummins, oh, and his legal sidekick, Alexis Baden-Mayer, author of this slick piece of pr. Cummins is a known quantity and he's always been bad news. He cannot work with people. He only knows how to exploit them. He's at his best as an activist-for-hire. This sewage sludge campaign is bankrolled by Abby Rockefeller, John Stauber gets to play adviser alongside disgraced Hugh Kaufman who's delusional, he's obsessed with avenging his sacking from the EPA a decade ago. What's CFS doing working with OCA? Don't think Rockefeller et al gave CFS a choice. The campaign needed an unethical, scurrilous gutter-fighter, enter OCA/Cummins. It's a sad state of affairs. Like sludge, Ronnie Cummins is toxic. In short, Ronnie stinks. Abby Rockefeller, good intentions are not enough just as the end does not justify the means, fire your advisers, they should have known to avoid OCA like the plague. Cummins and Alexis get out of Dodge.