“President Joe Biden and other leaders of the world’s major industrialized democracies pledged action on Thursday  [March 24] to address food shortages caused by Russia’s war on Ukraine,” Politico reports.

Biden says food shortages “are going to be real,” although he seems to see them as an opportunity to increase US grain production and food exports rather than a real threat to Americans’ own well-being.

After a year of continuing his predecessor’s “trade war” policies, Biden seems to be getting some free trade religion, which is nice, but he may be under-estimating the scope of the problem.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine — and the US/EU/NATO sanctions response — doesn’t just up-end the global supply of grain crops  (Russia and Ukraine are both top exporters of wheat) and other foods.

As Reuters reports, it also affects the global supply of the fertilizers that power farming elsewhere. Russia is the world’s top fertilizer exporter, followed by China, a top “trade war” target of the last few years.

What does this mean for Americans? Probably not starvation in the streets, but food prices are going to keep soaring, probably even more so than they have the last couple of years. More of our incomes will go to putting food on the table, and less to other things. We’re getting, in a word, poorer.

If you had the foresight to go full “prepper” years ago — a basement full of freeze-dried meals, a large garden and annual canning operation, etc. — good on you.  Unless things escalate we’re probably not looking at the apocalypse, but you’ve  been vindicated nonetheless.

As for the rest of us, at least a little “prepping” is definitely in order. It’s not too late to start stocking up on canned food BEFORE the next big price increase. And, if you have a yard or access to a community gardening space, to put some food in the ground for harvest later this year.

Personally, I’ve had gardening ambitions for years — I spent part of my childhood on a subsistence farm and enjoyed it — but until last week I limited myself to a little raised bed affair with some salad and stir fry items.

This week I invested in a tiller and an assortment of “heirloom” seeds, with the expectation of getting to work on a much larger garden next week. I’m fortunate to live on a full acre in northern Florida, where I can reasonably expect to get two growing seasons in this year.

If worse comes to worst, doubling up on the cans in your pantry and growing a little romaine for Caesar salads won’t save your life. But if not, they’ll save you some much-needed money in the harder days to come.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

Facing questions during her confirmation hearing before the US Senate on March 22, Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson caught what may be the strangest sort of flak I’ve seen in one of these circuses.

“Do you support, then, the idea that indefinite detention of an enemy combatant is unlawful?” asked US Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC), referring to Jackson’s representation of detainees held at the US prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In the course of that representation, Jackson signed an amicus brief asserting — correctly — that the detainees were entitled to challenge their indefinite detention without trial.

Before storming out of the hearing like one of the kids in Animal House — “you can do whatever you want to us, but we’re not going to sit here and listen to you badmouth the United States of America” — Graham informed Jackson that according to the brief, the government “would have to release these people or try them and some of them, the evidence we can’t disclose because it’s classified.”

US Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) didn’t have to go as far as the amicus brief in question to come up with an objection. His problem was with Jackson representing those particular clients at all. After doing so as a public defender, he noted, “[s]he volunteered to continue that representation in private practice, which I think is interesting, and frankly, from my point of view, a little concerning.”

As attorneys themselves, it’s reasonable to expect that Graham and Hawley understand what attorneys do — represent clients. But apparently not.

As US Senators, one might also expect that they’d remember their oaths to “support the Constitution of the United States.” No dice there, either, when it comes to the Sixth Amendment: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury … to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.”

When the Gitmo detainees have received “trials” at all, those “trials” haven’t been speedy, or public, or before an impartial jury (the “trials” are secret affairs conducted by military tribunals).

Graham is firmly on record as opposing even that last bit, “Assistance of Counsel”: “When they say, ‘I want my lawyer,’ you tell them, ‘Shut up. You don’t get a lawyer.” Hawley seems to agree.

Their problem with Jackson is that she did her job — and that, above and beyond doing her job, she supports the Constitution while they oppose it.

That position should disqualify them from holding their Senate seats, not her from taking the SCOTUS bench.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY

When the New York Post broke its “Hunter Biden laptop” stories in October 2020, mainstream media tried to ignore them. On the social media side, Twitter  banned linking to them and Facebook used its algorithm to minimize discussion of them pending “fact checks” that apparently never happened.

The Streisand Effect — a tendency toward keen public interest in anything that looks like a cover-up — came to the rescue. If you were the least bit interested in presidential politics, you knew as much as you wanted to about the matter (and then some) in short order.

The fallback plan, as is so often the case these days, was to trot out “former intelligence officials” in an attempt to discredit the laptop’s provenance and contents as a “Russian disinformation” operation.

Seventeen months later, even the New York Times admits the laptop (and the incriminating emails) are very real. Without, of course, admitting any prior error or bias. What was the problem back then? Or, alternatively, what’s the problem now?

The “problem” back then wasn’t that the stories weren’t true. They clearly were. But they were also potentially damaging to Joe Biden, and helpful to Donald Trump, in the November 2020 presidential election. That’s why the Post ran the stories and Fox covered them; that’s why other outlets ignored or tried to discredit them. If you think American mainstream media are non-partisan, think again.

The “problem” now? In December, federal investigators served subpoenas to Hunter Biden and several associates pursuant to a tax probe. Grand jury testimony followed, with indictments possibly to come. Publications which wouldn’t touch the story then are racing to get ahead of it now.

I didn’t consider the matter any more a “scandal” than Trump’s hush money to Stormy Daniels. Everyone already knew Trump was a philanderer, and that Biden abused his influence to financially benefit and protect his son. Voters had already made up their minds on the importance of such things before the story broke.

But if Hunter Biden is indicted, Joe Biden probably won’t seek a second presidential term. And any likely successor will bring similar closets full of skeletons, which our media protectors will reveal, or try to conceal or discredit, based on their partisan leanings..

“Just the facts, ma’am” journalism has always been myth, not reality. But our media should willingly give us those facts, even with partisan spin, instead of trying to hide or discredit them.

Thomas L. Knapp (Twitter: @thomaslknapp) is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism (thegarrisoncenter.org). He lives and works in north central Florida.

PUBLICATION HISTORY