How do you eat any vegetables or fruits in the winter if you live in the north?

Posted by: watsy | February 13, 2007 10:59 PM

"How do you eat any vegetables or fruits in the winter if you live in the north?" In the old days, folks relied on home canning and root cellars. I think that Napa would probably my preferred place be a locavore.

Posted by: James P. | February 13, 2007 11:16 PM

It sounds like an awful idea wrapped up in good intentions. Why is it more moral to buy from a mega-farming corporation who happens to be a few miles down the road than from an importer bringing fruit from Chile, Mexico? I'm as loud as anyone about the ill effects of illegal immigration, but I want them to have work where they're at. A more productive use of time and energy would be to try an eliminate ag subsidies and price controls that kill small farmer and innovators in this country and others.

Posted by: Derek Copold | February 13, 2007 11:49 PM

About to say.. I live in Minnesota. This time of year, I'd be eating snow...

Posted by: Kannbrown65 | February 14, 2007 12:21 AM

Read " Coming Home to Eat: The Sensual Pleasures and Global Politics of Local Foods" by Gary Paul Nabhan for a detailed account of someone doing mostly this in the southwest. Eating locally takes more work for the person who does the shopping and cooking but it tastes much better and you really get know your neighbors in a whole new way. Amelia

Posted by: Amelia | February 14, 2007 12:38 AM

Why is it more moral to buy from a mega-farming corporation who happens to be a few miles down the road than from an importer bringing fruit from Chile, Mexico? Do you seriously think this is what is being advocated? Talk about a straw man. For those interested Wendell Berry's The Idea of a Local Economy is a good essay on the the subject.

Posted by: Anthony King | February 14, 2007 12:58 AM

James P, I can't believe that you had to tell me that. When we were kids, my parents always had a garden. My mom used to can many of our vegetables and freeze the blackberries and strawberries. She never bought jam from the store. She still freezes the berries but doesn't really bother with the canning.

Posted by: watsy | February 14, 2007 1:07 AM

Right now, I'm holed up in the house as a (literal) blizzard rages outside. Everything is shut down, including all roads and highways. My "diet" at this moment consists of Microwave Popcorn amd Mini Snickers Bars. But it's all local. I went to town and bought them last night at Wal - Mart. ;)

Posted by: Anonymous Also | February 14, 2007 2:10 AM

I've posted this in a different comment thread, but it seems relevant. From one of C. S. Lewis' letters: There is certainly something attractive about the idea of living as far as may be on the produce of the land about you: to see in every walk the pastures where your mutton grazed when it was sheep, the garden where your vegetables grew, the mill where your flour was ground, and the workshop where your chairs were sawn--and to feel that bit of country actually and literally in your veins. Tolkien once remarked to me that the feeling about home must have been quite different in the days when a family had fed on the produce of the same few miles of country for six generations, and that perhaps this was why they saw nymphs in the fountains and dryads in the wood--they were not mistaken for there was in a sense a real (not metaphorical) connection between them and the countryside. What had been earth and air & later corn, and later still bread, really was in them. We of course who live on a standardized international diet (you may have had Canadian flour, English meat, Scotch oatmeal, African oranges, & Australian wine to day) are really artificial beings and have no connection (save in sentiment) with any place on earth. We are synthetic men, uprooted. The strength of the hills is not ours. Richard

Posted by: Richard Barrett | February 14, 2007 2:20 AM

It's fascinating, to me, that the St. Anne's community in Lewis's That Hideous Strength seems to be moving towards supplying at least some of its own food. I can't give you the pages off the top of my head, but they're raising pigs, for example. A great novel for Crunchy inspiration.

Posted by: Major Wootton | February 14, 2007 2:44 AM

Richard, thanks so much. I am adding this book to my must-read list.

Posted by: Jo | February 14, 2007 3:42 AM

It amazes me that no one here has apparently noticed that the guy who raised this issue for discussion just last Friday wrote about his plan to purchase champagne grown 5,000 miles from his funky bungalow.

Posted by: Bubba | February 14, 2007 5:36 AM

Bubba--The contradictions, hypocrisy, and just plain silliness of the Cult of Rod (ooops-Crunchy Cons) is a marvelous thing to behold.

Posted by: Vin | February 14, 2007 2:26 PM

Readers who aren't obsessed with my faults will note that just because I post something for discussion does not mean I endorse it.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 14, 2007 3:17 PM

That is a beautiful quote, Richard: I just have to repeat it here: We are synthetic men, uprooted. The strength of the hills is not ours. BKH, your comments about the "Hawaiian only" diet were interesting. I read somewhere that a health clinic in Hawaii is trying to help native Hawaiians with their medical problems (severe overweight, diabetes) with a return to the "traditional" foods of the island, and is having some success. It would be really hard for me, personally, to truly "eat locally" in every aspect - because that would mean no citrus, banana, mangoes, curry, spices, table grapes, almonds, cashews, peanuts, olives or olive oil, really any fresh fruits or vegetables in winter - IOW, all the things that I personally am trying to incorporate in my diet for health reasons. It would mean no ocean fish, no fish at all except farmed catfish. Many also have to drive more than 100 miles from the metropolis, in order to hunt game. The Germans who settled this area lived largely on pork, potatoes, milk and cream, parsnips, and sauerkraut. It's not a bad diet, but you'd better be working in the fields all day to burn it off. I'm just not sure how "eating locally" really fits in with Midwestern winters and the emphasis on fresh food for health.

Posted by: Stefanie | February 14, 2007 3:58 PM

Doesn't that mean no chocolate?

Posted by: tovart | February 14, 2007 4:44 PM

Go, Bubba! How about the question: "Where's the beef?"

Posted by: tovart | February 14, 2007 5:22 PM

All our food should come from outside our borders. No American should ever have to pick tomatoes.

Posted by: Dick | February 14, 2007 5:44 PM

I guess we're eating snow tonight. That's about all I can see for 100 miles in any direction. The "lake-effect" stuff is definitely within the radius. The "sky-effect" stuff came from Oklahoma, right? Thus spake the Cleveland weatherman. At least they're another O-state. Go Cavs.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 14, 2007 5:54 PM

"BKH, your comments about the "Hawaiian only" diet were interesting." Thanks, Stefanie. This site is about the ethnobotany of the ahupua'a (the main land division of ancient Hawaii; it extended from mountaintop to shore, and contained all the flora and fauna necessary to sustain its inhabitants). http://apdl.kcc.hawaii.edu/~ahupuaa/botany/ "I read somewhere that a health clinic in Hawaii is trying to help native Hawaiians with their medical problems (severe overweight, diabetes) with a return to the "traditional" foods of the island, and is having some success." I'll try to look into that. "It would mean no ocean fish, no fish at all except farmed catfish." In Hawaii, that wouldn't be a problem:) In addition to ocean fish and stream fish, there were (and are) many kinds of fish raised in fishponds built at the shore. We'd have to eschew rice and return to kalo (taro), however.

Posted by: BKH2007 | February 14, 2007 6:46 PM

Richard, I believe you're reading into Lewis what cannot be reasonably inferred if you believe he argued that one must choose between industrialization on the one hand and the Christian command to seek God's kingdom on the other[.] Good thing I didn't say that, then, isn't it? What I said was: He seems to be arguing that as we've sought Heaven less and less an in industrialized world that we as a people seem to think we can perfect, the "strength of the hills" has been diminished. Senses of community and a connection to our locality, to him, seem to be a result of "aiming for heaven." In other words, I think he's suggesting that one of the by-products of industrialism (and globalization, which I think is really more relevant to the specifics of what he's saying) has been that we've "aimed for heaven" less. As Tolkien might have argued, it's not just that we don't have the strength of the hills because of industrialization; we've destroyed the hills, in fact, to make it easier for us to get whatever we want from wherever it comes from whenever we want it without giving a lot of thought to thinking about Who made them or what the consequences might be. Because of globalization, we've also robbed people halfway around the world of the "strength of the hills." Another way we might think about it is creating new problems in the way we solve old ones. A really mundane example might be found in dentistry; yes, modern dentistry means most people keep most of their teeth in the civilized world. However, this has created the problem of wisdom teeth now having no place to go, requiring oral surgery for nearly everybody where none previously was required. We still lose four teeth in the process; we've just the how and the when somewhat more negotiable and intentional. (Note that I am not advocating a return to dental technology of one or two centuries ago; I'm just merely pointing out that to some extent, we've just shifted problems around rather than solving them once and for all.) There's also the example put forth in, of all places, the children's book Mrs. Frisby and the Rats of Nimh: housedwellers in a pre-industrial town are able to keep their homes quite clean using a rag, a mop, and a broom. Then, one day, one of them brings home a vacuum cleaner, and is able to do the same work in much less time. Now everybody wants a vacuum cleaner, and everybody goes out to buy one. Eventually the vacuum cleaner manufacturer opens up a plant in this town because they're so popular, generating lots of pollution, and now even with a vacuum cleaner it takes as much time as it used to with a rag and a broom to keep houses almost as clean as they used to before vacuum cleaners. The point I believe Lewis is making is not a choice necessarily between industrialization and the Kingdom of Heaven; rather that if we are "aiming for heaven," we are going to be considering what the unintended consequences of industrialization might be for everybody, and that we will attempt to correct our errors in doing so. If we just let these forces go as they're going to go, thinking they'll perfect the world, we'll find that we've just put shinier coats of paint on the same problems, and perhaps even exacerbated them. Richard

Posted by: Richard Barrett | February 14, 2007 7:10 PM

Sorry, Richard, but I think your connecting what Lewis wrote about localism and "reaching for Heaven" is pure speculation: you see a connection between the two because you personally connect the two, not because Lewis himself implied the connection. If you want to assert the connection as your own, feel free, but -- in absense of persuasive evidence to the contrary -- I'm going to conclude your putting words in Lewis' mouth. Lewis' sentiment for pre-modern life is undeniable, but I don't think he ever treated that sentiment as anything more than a sentiment: he certainly didn't try to connect it to his discussion about the core, cross-denominational doctrines of "mere" Christianity. I won't deny that there are tradeoffs with modernization: I mentioned one myself, as we now have to deal with obesity rather than mass starvation. Me, I'd rather deal with the obesity problem; I'd rather deal with wisdom-teeth removal than with the often much more painful condition of pre-modern oral health; and I'm skeptical of the claim either that mice can talk or that modernization has made households marginally less clean. I notice I don't see from you much consideration for the unintended consequences of eschewing industrialization, and it's not that I think industrialization can perfect humanity (again, we're more than mere material beings), but I think the tradeoffs have been worth it, on balance. After all, the Gospels clearly imply that the problems we have now -- pride, hypocrisy, prejudice, lust, greed, hatred -- were alive and well in the first-century Mediterranean world in which Christ ministered: it's not like Eden persisted until Eli Whitney came along. And, I think you're on poor rhetorical footing when you write, "Because of globalization, we've also robbed people halfway around the world of the 'strength of the hills.'" We did not rob them because we did not compel them to trade with us: they chose to trade with us because they thought the trade was beneficial and worth the costs. But, oh, dear, they lost the "strength of the hills." Care to tell me what that actually is? Want to argue that it's physical, that the best of our 18th-century ancestors were in better physical condition than the best our generation? Or mental? Duz eeteen fud not growed neer bye make a pursin dum? Or spiritual? You wanna argue in the face of the Gospels that the food you eat actually does defile? If the strength of the hills did not prevent some of our ancestors from being weaklings, imbeciles, or scoundrels, why are we so worried about it? Good grief, the physical well-being of our fellow human beings are improving at astronomical rates, and we're getting gushy over a red wheelbarrow by some white chickens.

Posted by: Bubba | February 14, 2007 7:35 PM

It's an interesting idea. Of course living in Michigan it would mean no Florida oranges, California wine, or gulf shrimp or Maine lobster. Great Lakes perch is fine, well, and good but one does want more from life. I think sometimes people with real concerns about fast-paced globalization miss that if used properly the global economy could be a useful supplament to local living.

Posted by: Jeff | February 14, 2007 7:42 PM

I find myself agreeing with Bubba's thoughtful posts on this topic. I visited the 100 mile website last night and used their tool to determine a 100 mile radius from a Dallas zip code. The cities of Fort Worth and Arlington, as I recall, were included in that particular radius. Since Dallas alone has approximately 1.2 million people, not to mention the populations of Fort Worth and the other, smaller cities contained within the Dallas 'circle,' it seems evident that this isn't something that even the promoters want *everybody* to do; if *everybody* in a 100 mile radius of Dallas tried to follow the 100 mile diet there simply wouldn't be enough food to go around. But if this isn't something that can feasibly be done by the mass of humanity, then isn't it just another elitist attempt to gain a false sense of moral superiority in the grocery aisle? Another thing that bothers me is the whole idea of 100 miles as an arbitrary division. If we're trying to return to some past utopian state in regards to agriculture, we must acknowledge that for most of human history one's food was obtained within a much smaller radius. Before the steam engine I doubt if it was a common practice to obtain food further than ten or twenty miles from one's home on a regular basis. Except, of course, for nomadic people, who moved their homes around to where the food was, a point Bubba hints at above when he speaks of the artificiality of agriculture. If we're determined to recapture some past purity in regard to the food we eat, wouldn't we have to acknowledge the fact that many of our ancestors followed the food far beyond the 100 mile radius during the hunting season? Perhaps a 'neonomadism' movement can be started to promote the glories of adopting a hunter/gatherer approach to the acquisition of food. It wouldn't be any sillier, in my opinion, than the 100 mile diet concept.

Posted by: Erin Manning | February 14, 2007 8:18 PM

You know, Bubba, I have a hard time understanding where all of your hostility comes from. This seems to go beyond any kind of intellectual disagreement; that anybody would even consider these things worth talking about seems to genuinely get you riled up. So I'm putting words in Lewis' mouth? If I am, then so's Joseph Pearce, vis a vis the entire chapter of that book that uses that letter. I guess we'll just have to let that go at this point. Lewis' sentiment for pre-modern life is undeniable, but I don't think he ever treated that sentiment as anything more than a sentiment: he certainly didn't try to connect it to his discussion about the core, cross-denominational doctrines of "mere" Christianity. With respect to the former, maybe he did and maybe didn't; as far as the latter goes, I can't say I see that as conclusive one way or the other, given that it was a popular apologetic and not an exhaustive treatment of anything in particular. Me, I'd rather deal with the obesity problem; I might add that you can't have it both ways; either we have an obesity problem or our people are in better physical condition than our ancestors, on the whole. Which is it? I'm skeptical of the claim either that mice can talk or that modernization has made households marginally less clean. Ever hear of an object lesson? How about a parable? Did the Good Samaritan incident literally occur or not? Does it make it any less applicable to our lives if it didn't? After all, the Gospels clearly imply that the problems we have now -- pride, hypocrisy, prejudice, lust, greed, hatred -- were alive and well in the first-century Mediterranean world in which Christ ministered: it's not like Eden persisted until Eli Whitney came along. No, but now we've got all these wonderfully useful ways to amplify all of those problems. It's not like there was world peace before the nuke; now we've just got an incredibly efficient, long-distance way to kill millions of people. But, oh, dear, they lost the "strength of the hills." Care to tell me what that actually is? In the context of Lewis' quote, I'd suggest that he means that we've lost the spiritual benefit of being intimately connected to our communities, to our land, to our surrounding area, to what's come before us. If you want to claim that's a tradeoff worth having, fine; you're entitled to your opinion. Clearly, we don't agree. ...the physical well-being of our fellow human beings are improving at astronomical rates... And yet we have a growing obesity problem in some parts of the world and we haven't solved the starvation problem either. If you'd care to more firmly establish how your assertion works to describe a general case for the world, I'm all ears. Richard

Posted by: Richard Barrett | February 14, 2007 8:28 PM

Richard: You know, Bubba, I have a hard time understanding where all of your hostility comes from. This seems to go beyond any kind of intellectual disagreement; that anybody would even consider these things worth talking about seems to genuinely get you riled up. This is why, as a rule, I never respond to Bubba's posts, even when they are thoughtful and challenging. I get it that Bubba doesn't like my book. Fine. But judging by the things he's written on his blog, he takes all this extremely personally, and tries to play a game of ideological "gotcha" in the guise of thoughtful criticism. He's being polite on this blog because he knows I'd kick him off like I kicked off his confreres who didn't know how to behave civilly. But having seen his writing about me and my book elsewhere, the personal, spiteful quality of his agenda is plain to me, and sorry, I'm not going to play along, though certainly I encourage the rest of you to interact with him. The idea that drinking a bottle or two of French wine for my 40th birthday somehow makes me a fraud, and anything I say about localism hypocritical, is precisely what I mean by "ideological gotcha." It's childish, and beside the point. I said in my book and have repeatedly said on this blog that the kind of neotraditionalism I advocate is not a strict set of rules, or an ideology, but a sensibility, a way of seeing the world and trying to live in it in a responsible and meaningful way. I can't see how the 100-Mile Diet can be made to work for most of us, but I posted the link to it to get a discussion going about localism and food. And in comes Bubba to use my mere posting of a link to the website of a concept I don't even endorse as yet another example of what a phony I am. You do wonder what's up with that boy. I would expect that even Wendell Berry drinks a bottle of French wine from time to time. Does that make him less of a localist? Or is it simply thoughtful and wise to try to build up a diverse local economy by patronizing farmers and artisans in your own region when you can? JohnT, as a matter of fact we drank a bottle of Texas wine when my Washington guest arrived on Friday night. I find it silly to think that if I drink any wine other than Texas wine, then I've sold out my principles. Your position assumes that all wine is the same. Let me hasten to assure you that the white burgundy and the bordeaux we had was quite different from the Texas wine we had the night before. Anyway, I don't want to subscribe to any ideology that forbids, for example, ever drinking wine from anywhere other than Texas. Happily, no one is proposing any such thing -- and if the 100 Mile Diet people are doing so, I won't join them.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 14, 2007 8:52 PM

Let me remind you, Rod, of what you've written before: "You don't have to be a religious believer in the formal sense to be a crunchy conservative, but you do have to believe that accumulating wealth and power is not the point of life. Now, if you took a poll, ninety-nine out of a hundred conservatives would deny that they subscribed to that vulgar credo. But that's not how they live even if they profess to be religious." Rod, if you had never accused mainstream conservatives of being hypocrites because (according to your omniscient vantage point) their lives do not perfectly match their ideals, I truly doubt that I would have quite the same problem with your hypocrisy as I do now. If your drinking French wine doesn't make you something of a phony on the issue of localism, pray tell, what behavior would you consider hypocritical? I would expect that even Wendell Berry drinks a bottle of French wine from time to time. Does that make him less of a localist? YES, ROD, IT DOES. Obviously. Or if it doesn't, no behavior does. Eating meat makes you less of a vegetarian. Eating pork makes you less of an adherent to kosher dietary regulations. And drinking French wine makes you less of a localist UNLESS YOU LIVE IN FRANCE. And, I understand that you don't -- indeed would never -- subscribe to the 100-mile diet, but you have supported "some form of localism and protectionism to buffer the destructive effects of globalism on local communities," as part of a political movement to revive conservatism: I have no doubt you'd exclude Your Favorite Things from that protectionism, but either way it's dishonest of you to pretend that your supposedly rule-less sensibility doesn't have some policy ideas attached to them.

Posted by: Bubba | February 14, 2007 9:25 PM

Since Rod is talking to me, let me ask everyone else here to consider the following three facts: 1) Rod considers himself a localist. 2) Living in Dallas, Rod occasionally consumes French wine, wine produced from 5,000 miles away. 3) Rod believes that the accusation of hypocrisy based on #1 and #2 is not only childish, it's inaccurate. ("I would expect that even Wendell Berry drinks a bottle of French wine from time to time. Does that make him less of a localist?" Rod obviously expects the answer to be no.) Perhaps my criticism has run its nearly full course, as other writings indicate; perhaps it should have not gone as long as it has. But is it not obvious why I find Dreher is so frustrating?

Posted by: Bubba | February 14, 2007 9:35 PM

I find it silly to think that if I drink any wine other than Texas wine, then I've sold out my principles. This is what people find so frustrating. Why doesn't this violate your principles? How does one know when one is allowed to deviate from localisms. Your position assumes that all wine is the same. That position assumes nothing of the kind. It assumes that the principle of localisms takes precedence over being able to enjoy a tastier wine.

Posted by: Mark Adams | February 14, 2007 9:43 PM

In fact, the focus of localism on making sure food comes from the right places seems to be just another instance of getting one's priorities out of whack, which was the whole point about "aim at earth and you will get neither." I'm trying to suggest that "food coming from the right places" is less the specific goal and more the function of a broader point worth discussing; you don't seem to want to hear it. Looking at American life expectancies over the last 150 years it's hard to swallow the claim that we're less healthy than our ancestors: we live nearly twice as long as they do. Life expectancy/span is not necessarily the same as health--or is there not a distinction between quality and quantity? Indeed, I understand what parables are, but that makes no more persuasive the claim that households are marginally dirtier thanks to the net effects of industrialization. You are missing the point. Oh, well. I also seem to remember aircraft carriers helping the recovery from the tsunami, so the force-multiplying effect of improved technology cuts both ways. Which is exactly my point: it cuts both ways. Now that we've established that, let's revisit the context in which I made that point--that is, that thanks to all of these useful advances, now we've also got all of these wonderful ways to amplify greed, lust, pride, hypocrisy, etc. WHAT SPIRITUAL BENEFIT? Are localists demonstrably more moral in any area? If you don't intend to be hostile, what's with the shouting? In any event, this is interesting; I said a spiritual benefit, and you asked about morality. One is not predicated on the other; there have been very spiritual people who have made horrible moral decisions (King David, anybody? Peter?), and very moral people who have rabidly denied that spirituality even exists. Morality might be a function of spirituality, but even within Christianity that's hardly going to be a universal case. Without a common understanding of terms, much less a common context, I'm not sure I can answer your question in any way that will satisfy you. Still, an example that comes to mind can be found in this sixth century Syriac Christian chronicle: http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/joshua_the_stylite_02_trans.htm It seems difficult to me to imagine the interpretation of signs and portents the way Pseudo-Joshua describes without a closer, more immediate connection to local land and community. Today we'd just shrug our shoulders and say, "More wars, more natural disasters," and anybody claiming otherwise would be considered a kook. Maybe you'd like to subsequently suggest that the "spiritual benefit" is really just what you would call superstition, then. Nonetheless, I argue that Christianity presupposes divine interaction with historical and natural forces. Richard

Posted by: Richard Barrett | February 14, 2007 9:54 PM

Of course the 100 Mile Diet is not practical for most people. The point of the 100 Mile Diet is to make people stop and think about where their food comes from. I own a 74 acre family farm and raise most of my own meat, eggs, fruits and vegetables. I use olive oil, coffee, oranges, tea - foodstuffs that are not native to western Pennsylvania (my home) and must be imported to my region. I can accept that. However, what I cannot accept is food imported from overseas or produced by mega farms (it is an insult to call those places farms) at the expense of American jobs, health and national security. Example #1 Pennsylvania not too long ago was #1 in mushroom production. Our mushrooms were sold under many different brand names. Pennsylvania Dutchman is the one brand that comes to mind. No longer are the mushrooms in a Pennsylvania Dutchman can from Pennsylvania; they are from China. Hundreds of people have lost their jobs and now there is no longer a use for abandoned coal mines. Thank you Rick Santorum & Arlen Spector. Example# 2 I have many Amish neighbors. 10 miles from me is a local cheese plant where the local Amish sell their milk. It is their only outlet for milk because the Amish don t have electricity and they cannot qualify as a Grade A diary. In the last 6 or 7 years Pennsylvania has been importing milk solids from Russia & Israel - a Free Trade fiasco ( Rick & Arlen again.) The imported milk solids has had a negative impact on the Amish. Many have gone out of business and are working jobs away from their families and farms. If the Amish can t make a living farming nobody can. The Amish cannot compete with Russia & Israel. Worse still, Russia & Israel are permitted sprays, chemicals and hormones that are illegal for use here. My question: Since when does Pennsylvania need to import milk? It s simply outrageous. The increase monopolization, regulation and centralization of the national food supply is now a matter of national security. Even the USDA recognizes this. The National Animal Identification System is their response. Where you food comes from DOES matter. There are social, moral and economic consequences of how and what you eat.

Posted by: Granny Miller | February 14, 2007 10:19 PM

"Your position assumes that all wine is the same." that's a bizarre statement. bubba's position is that you shoujld give up your particular french wine experience for the sake of your principles of localism. although the french wine experience is unique, sadly for you it must be sacrificed, otherwise your localist principles are meaningless. this seems to cause cognitive dissonance on your part, rod, which leads me to believe the notion of sacrifice for one's principles has never even occurred to you.

Posted by: go bubba | February 14, 2007 10:34 PM

Rod I find it silly to think that if I drink any wine other than Texas wine, then I've sold out my principles. Yes I do believe that you have compromised your principles. I do not think you are a hypocrite, because I believe you are trying to be crunchy. But when you drink a luxury import like French wine you are definitely compromising your principles. I won t even bring up Australian wine. Just think of the fuel it took to bring that wine to you. Plus you are denying a Texas winery a couple hundred dollars a year that you spend on French wines. By purchasing luxury imports like French wine, you are continuing our dependence on oil. Which is one of the reasons we are at war in Iraq. If you have to buy non-Texas wine how about, Cali, Oregon, Washington, New York, Virginia where there would be less petroleum used to bring you that bottle. Your position assumes that all wine is the same. Let me hasten to assure you that the white burgundy and the bordeaux we had was quite different from the Texas wine we had the night before. I am assuming that this is an appeal to quality. French wines may be better than Texas wines, but that opens you up the snob criticism. Which is one of the constant criticisms that people like us face. Just because the subjective quality was better for you, does not excuse compromising your principles. It lends credence to the notion that crunchy conservatism is nothing more than elitism wrapped up in a Wendell Berry flannel shirt. Your logic is all over the place. The quality of a McMansion is higher than a rundown inner city bungalow, but we should forgo quality, and live in the bungalow. This is how I read you. But then how can we urge people to not live in a suburban McMansion because of the high petroleum costs related to commuting, when it is okay to drink better quality wine despite the higher petroleum cost? Can you see the problem?

Posted by: JohnT | February 14, 2007 11:16 PM

A FINAL NOTE: I for one would like to see Rod address the questions JohnT Mark Adams raises here, and I do admit (and hopefually am always willing to admit) that I'm stubborn and sometimes abrasive. In my defense, I believe the bulk of my criticisms of Rod have been substantive -- including, but certainly not limited to, his embracing many of the Left's worst stereotypes of mainstream conservatives: that we're greedy homophobes who never until very recently criticized Bush or any other Washington Repbulican. Even in the face of evidence to the contrary, a retraction or a much-deserved apology has never materialized. On the issue of localism, either you see the reason for my skepticism or you don't. And either you see the problem with Rod's inconsistency in living out localism, or you don't. I think I might bow out with one rhetorical question. Rod wrote how his family "drank a bottle of Texas wine when [his] Washington guest arrived on Friday night." What actual benefit -- spiritual or moral -- did Rod Dreher experience that his DC friend did not experience and could not experience from driking Texas wine? I believe that there was no conceivable moral or spiritual benefit inherent to Rod's drinking a local wine: to the degree that such behavior fosters conceit it may actually be detrimental. In the area of Christian belief I call home, there is unfortunately a tendency for some to take passages like John 14:12-14 the wrong way entirely: they begin treating prayer like incantations, in the hope that saying the right words will produce the desired result. Here, with sacramentalism taken to an extreme, I fear that I see the dangerous idea that eating the right things will produce the desired spiritual result. But ultimately, Christianity is not a faith that has room either for magic words or magic potions.

Posted by: Bubba | February 14, 2007 11:24 PM

Granny, "The system cannot find the file specified." How come I'm not surprised?

Posted by: Mark Adams | February 15, 2007 12:10 AM

Let's see if this one will work http://www.stjoan.com/ecosp/docs/pleasures_of_eating_by_wendell_b.htm

Posted by: Granny Miller | February 15, 2007 12:15 AM

Sorry, but I'm not understanding this. I don't follow a religion called Localism Part of the problem is that the amorphous and ambiguous nature of all the main crunchy principles seems to insulate you from any criticism when you deviate from the those principles.

Posted by: Mark Adams | February 15, 2007 12:19 AM

Look, Mark, I certainly don't hold myself impervious to criticism. I'm being honest when I tell you that I don't understand what the problem is here. It seems to me that I'm being called out as a hypocrite for not living up to a standard I don't in fact advocate. Take homeschooling. I think it's ideal, but as I wrote in the book, not every family is cut out for it. We tried it in our family, with out oldest child, and for reasons having to do with a learning difficulty he has, we had to put him in school. Does that make my a hypocrite? It would if I had said, "You must homeschool, no matter what." I don't know anybody who would be so into localism that they wouldn't, I dunno, drink Scotch because it wasn't made within 100 miles of their own place. And if I did know that sort of person, chances are they'd be so uptight about things in general that they'd be no fun.

Posted by: Rod Dreher | February 15, 2007 1:07 AM

I know you are being honest Rod. I don't think you understand what I am saying. Of course you're not an absolutest on these things. It's by not being an absolutest that you insulate your ideas from critique. Any time someone wants to point out that your practices are incompatible with your principles you reply that your principles are merely a sensibility. Okay, fair enough, but in the end it sounds like "heads I win, tails you lose". It seems to me that to say, "local is better. beauty is more important than efficiency. but there are 1,001 exceptions to all that" makes such principles functionally useless.

Posted by: Mark Adams | February 15, 2007 1:24 AM

Rod I don t see you as a hypocrite. You are trying like the rest of us. But your book advocates for a move away from materialism. How is it consistent with your book, that you drink any French wine over local Texas wine? You ve made several posts on the wine topic, and as I recall they have been all French. Have you ever posted on Texas wine? I hope you have. It takes a lot of fuel to get that wine over here to the states. If we didn t buy French wine we would be conserving petroleum, same thing for most imported produce. That s one reason why we buy our food locally and organic when we can. Like I said above purchase your commodities from the most efficient source, and buy your specialties from local producers. It is a good compromise. As a leader and proponent of crunchy conservatism you are called to a higher standard. I cannot imagine where I would buy locally produced flour, but I can support small bakeries who purchase their bulk commodities from the usual national suppliers. We can set the example buy purchasing local wines and other produce to show others it can be done. I actually calling you to a deeper conversion, and to live out your convictions in a more radical countercultural way. If the guy who wrote the book can't see that these posts are inconsistent then, what do you expect from the indifferent?

Posted by: JohnT | February 15, 2007 2:07 AM

Can there ever be a discussion on here that doesn't end up being nitpicked to death?? Jeez.

Posted by: Anonymous | February 15, 2007 10:53 AM

That said, the "hundred mile" concept _does_ seem a little artificial. There was a book a few years back, called "Salt" (I forget the author) which detailed the ingenuity people have excercised over millenia in preserving, storing and shipping food (and for which salt was essential). Olives were cured and shipped across the Mediterranean, fish was cured and shipped from the Baltic, the grain of Egypt helped feed Rome. The grand banks off of Newfoundland supplied cod. Through it all spices travelled across Eurasia (before travelling around Africa). And all of this done with muscle power, or wind. Was the Portuguese artisan of, say, 1670, somehow "inauthentic," because the salt cod he ate on Fridays was plucked hundreds of miles out to sea?

Posted by: Franz | February 15, 2007 1:30 PM

Franz is right. Of course, you should do your best to support your local farmers, veggie growers and such, but y'know what? It's a big world out there. There's always something new to be tried, and IMHO, I see nothing wrong with trying it. The 100 mile concept is just that, a concept. And like Rod said, if there's someone out there who's such a purist about this, they would be way too uptight to be around.

Posted by: Anonymous Also | February 15, 2007 2:00 PM

This has been a fascinating read, even the parts that diverged into personal sniping. 1) I buy Toyota cars, for two reasons: American cars are just generally of a poorer quality, meaning I expect to save money on maintenance (and I do); my local dealer has the best service department, bar none. 2) I think you all should read or re-read Granny Miller's excellent analysis. I live near a major mushroom producing part of the state (PA), and I'm apalled at the amount of imported mushrooms I find at every market. This by itself should be a caution to all you free-market types, because those imports are their solely by the grace of trade subsidies and politicians who look the other way. I am very pleased to see that farmer's markets are making a come back in my city, Philadelphia. They will need a new name soon, since "local" farms have been steadily disappearing for several decades, but the slack is being more than made up by bakers and craftspeople. One lady makes better breads than all the local "micro" bakeries. I'm very happy to pay her a dollar or more extra per loaf for her work. But that doesn't address the asinine tendency to take an isolated process and try to apply it universally. Urban centers can make almost no hay from any 100-mile diet... um, all puns intended. I'd love to take advantage of having one of the few backyards around me, if the soil weren't toxic from dumping while the property was vacant. As it is, even the rose bushes are sickly at best. The simple truth is that economy of scale is the only sane approach to a large society with high-density urban centers. Don't get me wrong, I love gardening, I loved supplying my family's dinner table with vegetables throughout the year, but that is not something any significant number of people are going to have the opportunity to do, let alone the skill.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | February 15, 2007 3:22 PM

One more observation on sacramentalism and magic words. I'm rather surprised that, 88 comments into this thread, nobody has mentioned where the phrase "the strength of the hills" comes from. Lewis was making a liturgical reference. Specifically, this phrase is from the Venite (Psalm 95), one of the Morning Prayer canticles in the Book of Common Prayer. Lewis surely had sung that phrase many times. (The historic versions of the Prayer Book, including the 1662 version that was in use in Lewis' day, incorporate Miles Coverdale's translation of the psalter (1535). It's not the most accurate translation, to be sure, but it is stunning beautiful English and very lyrical, as befits texts that are to be sung.) So here's the phrase in context: "1 O come, let us sing unto the Lord: let us heartily rejoice in the strength of our salvation. 2 Let us come before his presence with thanksgiving: and shew ourselves glad in him with psalms. 3 For the Lord is a great God: and a great King above all gods. 4 In his hand are all the corners of the earth: and the strength of the hills is his also. 5 The sea is his, and he made it: and his hands prepared the dry land. 6 O come, let us worship, and fall down: and kneel before the Lord our Maker. 7 For he is the Lord our God: and we are the people of his pasture, and the sheep of his hand." Personally, I share Bubba's high regard for the moral value of efficiency. But I think his criticisms of Rod are misplaced. Isn't it reasonable to advocate leaning a bit in the local-food direction, without taking a rigid, legalistic approach to it?

Posted by: ScurvyOaks | February 15, 2007 4:19 PM

Well, this is a nice idea up to a point, but I can't see being all hard and fast about it. I live in Virginia and would never get to eat citrus fruit or bananas or shrimp again. That would really suck. We do have a garden and I do freeze and can stuff, that is when it's not so dry the garden dries up or the bugs don't eat everything. I guess if we lived back in the day, we'd go somewhat hungry if we couldn't can stuff. I don't have a problem with trying to raise your own stuff or buying from a local farmer's market, etc. The produce would be fresher anyway. But I don't see being doctrinaire about it. One year we had such an infestation of potato beetles that we ended up spending far more money on bug spray to get rid of the bugs than we would have going to buy a 10 pound bag of potatoes at Kroger. So no more raising potatoes, it's not cost effective. And the farmer's market is only open two days a week, April to November, a few hours a day. Boy, that makes it real easy to get local stuff, fer sure! Depending on where you live, the 100 mile diet could be pretty boring. I don't think I'd want to eat seal blubber all the time if I lived in Alaska. I guess the operative word is moderation in all things. Tried that back to the land thing back in the 70's, didn't work out so well. I actually like modern technology and global markets, so sue me.......

Posted by: Marty | February 15, 2007 4:48 PM

Rod One more thing , you said. . . But going from that to deciding that I'm a fraud for drinking the occasional bottle of claret is just ... weird. Jeez, lighten up. I never said that you were a fraud. I actually went out of my way to say that you were not a hypocrite. Please go back and re-read my comments. I explicitly said that I do not think that you are a hypocrite for drinking a bottle a French wine. It is very difficult to be completely local, but we should not be promoting French wine either. We should be trying to support our local producers. Similar to what they suggest in the 100 mile diet. Your critics complain that you resort to name calling when the argument is not going your way. You called me weird . Probably because you mistakenly thought I called you a hypocrite. Nevertheless you called me a name. This style is not helping the cause. You have to be better than your critics since you are asking them to change their lifestyles. Just thought that I d point that out.

Posted by: JohnT | February 15, 2007 10:18 PM

Erik--mostly off topic, but you might be interested in the FAQ for the google food preserving group. It's at http://rfpfaq.jaclu.com/rfpFAQ.htm and has a TON of information regarding preserving just about anything. New techniques, old ones, unsafe ones, illegal ones (distillation), etc. Not sure how many pages it would be if printed--it is lengthy and comprehensive.

Posted by: connie | February 15, 2007 10:46 PM

Hi, BKH2007: One group that's been working with native Hawaiians is at the Waianae Coast Comprehensive Health Center. There's a well-cited medical article on it but I can't find the full text; just an abstract. One advantage I *can* see of an "eat locally" focus is that genetically, different people are adapted to different diets. Some people (native Hawaiians, Native Americans) seem to be particularly sickened by the "standard" American diet, which probably reflects some genetic predisposition. Similarly, I wonder if the reason Americans themselves aren't sickened by it, is because those of us with Northern European ancestry might just be better off with a high-exercise, high-protein and fat lifestyle (one with very few carbs - just like our hunter-gatherer-wanderer ancestors.) I didn't mean to come off as a purist or crank in my comments (and certainly didn't intend to contribute to this thread devolving into a contest of who was less of a hypocrite.) One advantage of local eating is that one gives less $$ to Big Food - which really doesn't have an interest in people of *any* background being optimally healthy.

Posted by: Stefanie | February 16, 2007 5:11 PM