In the sphere of deviance we find “political actors and views which journalists and the political mainstream of society reject as unworthy of being heard.” As in the sphere of consensus, neutrality isn’t the watchword here; journalists maintain order by either keeping the deviant out of the news entirely or identifying it within the news frame as unacceptable, radical, or just plain impossible. The press “plays the role of exposing, condemning, or excluding from the public agenda” the deviant view, says Hallin. It “marks out and defends the limits of acceptable political conduct.”

The point must be to frame the Bush regime as a lone nut regime. *phew* They’re gone now. Sleep well. Nighty night. Pleasant dreams of Change, etc."(to give the BBC World MSM propaganda)

Here's how bad it is:

"What we have to do is turn a portion of all the waste of agriculture into charcoal and bury it. Consider grain like wheat or rice; most of the plant mass is in the stems, stalks and roots and we only eat the seeds. So instead of just ploughing in the stalks or turning them into cardboard, make it into charcoal and bury it or sink it in the ocean. We don't need plantations or crops planted for biochar, what we need is a charcoal maker on every farm so the farmer can turn his waste into carbon. Charcoal making might even work instead of landfill for waste paper and plastic.
(24 March 2009)"

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/48440

There is no such thing as waste on a farm. Lovelock is wrong.
Major blind spot.

Before oil, farmers used draft animals to do their heavy work. They powered their draft animals by growing hay and oats on about 30% of their land.
Today a farmer can grow enough oilseed crops on 15-20% of their land to power their tractors, trucks, home and barn heating, crop drying etc...
Farmers can go back to raising enough livestock by pasturing them in the summer and collecting their manure in the barns in the winter for field fertilizer.
Add in crop rotation with crops that fix nitrogen for fertilizer and what you come up with is sustainable farms.
But these sustainable farms will only be producing "for sale" grain crops on about 1/2 of their total tillable acres. So world grain production may get cut in half when this happens. Farmers will continue to get along just fine for food and financially. But there will be mass starvation in the third world and perhaps in some cities in the first world.

Michael Shuman was talking today in Portland. In passing, he mentioned livestock grazing in Detroit and this survey from a few years back.

Just in the city of Detroit, shifting twenty percent of food spending would increase annual output by nearly half a billion dollars. More than 4,700 jobs would be created, paying $125 million more in earnings. The city would receive nearly $20 million more in business taxes each year.

The livestock are already grazing. That was present tense. Under the radar he said.

To replace 20% of the food puts nearly 5000 people to work in agriculture. In Detroit. And it seems parts of it are already happening. I have to work through the numbers; is that more or less than one would expect for 20% of the food?

cfm in Gray, ME