Entomophagy Today 2014



Cricket, anyone? How about a grasshopper or a witchetty grub? According to this Wikipedia article, 80% of the world's people today still eat insects, including in North, South and Central America. “Today insect eating is rare in the developed world, but insects remain a popular food in many developing regions of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. There are some companies that are trying to introduce insects into Western diets.” I got to know a Chinese woman, not American Chinese, but from Beijing, and once she was describing the finery at her wedding to me. She said they had a dish that is considered a great delicacy as one of the foods at the banquet. She struggled for words to describe it, then gave up and drew me a picture on a piece of paper – unmistakably a scorpion with its poisonous tail held up over its body. Her parents are well-off, her father is a professional in the army, so this is not poor people's food. It helped me to open up my Western mind to new things.




Entomophagy
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Entomophagy (/ˌɛntəˈmɒfədʒi/, from Greek ἔντομον éntomon, "insect", andφᾰγεῖν phagein, "to eat") is the consumption of insects as food. The eggs, larvae, pupae and adults of certain insect species have been eaten by man since prehistoric times and continue to be an item of the human nutrition in modern times.[1] While insects are eaten by many animals, the term "entomophagy" is generally used to refer to human consumption of insects; non-human animals that eat insects are known as insectivores. There are also some species of carnivorous plants that derive nutrients from insects.
Human insect-eating is common to cultures in most parts of the world, includingNorth, Central and South America; and Africa, Asia, Australia and New Zealand. Over 1,000 species of insects are known to be eaten in 80% of the world's nations.[2] The total number of ethnic groups recorded to practice entomophagy is around 3,000.[3] However, in some societies insect-eating is uncommon or even taboo.[4][5][6][7] Today insect eating is rare in the developed world, but insects remain a popular food in many developing regions of Latin America, Africa, Asia and Oceania. There are some companies that are trying to introduce insects into Western diets.[8]

Entomophagy is sometimes defined broadly to include the practice of eating arthropods that are not insects, such as arachnids (tarantulas mainly) andmyriapods (centipedes mainly).[9] The term is not used for the consumption of other arthropods, specifically crustaceans like crabs, lobsters and shrimp. Insects are eaten by many animals, but the term is generally used to refer to human consumption of insects; animals that eat insects are known asinsectivores. There are also some species of carnivorous plants that derive nutrients from insects.

Some of the more popular insects and arachnids eaten around the world includecrickets, cicadas, grasshoppers, ants, various beetle grubs (such as mealworms), the larvae of the darkling beetle orrhinoceros beetle,[10] various species of caterpillar (such as bamboo worms, mopani worms, silkworms andwaxworms), scorpions and tarantulas. There are 1,417 known species of arthropods, including arachnids, that are edible to humans.[11]
Recent assessments of the potential of large-scale entomophagy have led some experts to suggest entomophagy as a potential alternative protein source to animal livestock, citing possible benefits including greater efficiency, lower resource use, increased food security, and environmental and economic sustainability.[12][13][14][15]

History[edit]

Before humans had tools to hunt or farm, insects may have represented an important part of their diet. Evidence has been found analyzing coprolites from caves in the US and Mexico. Coprolites in caves in the Ozark Mountains were found to contain ants, beetle larvae, lice, ticks, and mites.[19] Evidence suggests that evolutionary precurors of Homo sapiens were likely also entomophagous. Insectivory also features to various degrees amongst extant primates, such as marmosets and tamarins,[20] and some researchers suggest that the earliest primates were nocturnal, arborealinsectivores.[4] Similarly, most extant apes are insectivorous to some degree.[21][22][23]
Cave paintings in Altamira, north Spain, dated to about 30,000 to 9,000 BC, depict the collection of wild bee nests, suggesting a possibly entomophagous society.[citation needed] Cocoons of wild silkworm (Theophilia religiosae) were found in ruins in the Shanxi province of China, from 2,000 to 2,500 years BC. The cocoons were discovered with large holes, suggesting the pupae were eaten.[19] Many ancient entomophagy practices have changed little over time compared with other agricultural practices, leading to the development of modern traditional entomophagy.[19]

Current examples

Entomophagy can be divided into two categories: insects used as a source of nutrients and insects as condiments.[24] Some insects are eaten as larvae or pupae, others as adults.

Traditional cultures

There are a plethora of cultures that embrace the consumption of insects, and a variety of species are consumed. These include 235 types of butterflies and moths, 344 species of beetles, 313 species of ants, bees and wasps, 239 species of grasshoppers, crickets and cockroaches, 39 species of termites, as well as 20 species of dragonflies, among others. Other commonly eaten insects are termites, cicadas and dragonflies.[25] Insects are known to be eaten in 80% of the world's nations.[2] The consumption of Atta laevigata is traditional in some regions of Colombia and northeast Brazil. In southern Africa, a species of moth called Gonimbrasia belina is found throughout much of the region; its large caterpillar, the mopani ormopane worm, is a source of food protein. In Australia, Witchetty grub is considered a source of food amongst the Indigenous population.

Use of insects as an ingredient in traditional foodstuffs in some places has been on a large enough scale to have a sizable impact on insect populations. The commercial exploitation of food insects has led to their decline in some places.[26]

Western culture

Eating insects has not typically been adopted in the West. However, a few companies have introduced products made using insects. The primary vehicle for this so far has been powder made from insects utilized as an ingredient (often referred to as insect flour, cricket flour, cricket powder, or whole cricket powder). The first company to use cricket flour was Chapul,[27] which launched a project on Kickstarter on July 12, 2012, to make a protein bar with the cricket flour[28] and followed up with a successful appearance on ABC's Shark Tank, partnering with Mark Cuban. A US company, All Things Bugs, manufactures and sells whole cricket powder wholesale to other small startup companies that use it in protein bars, baked goods and other products.[29] One such startup is Exo, which successfully used Kickstarter in to 2013 to fund an initial batch of protein bars made with cricket flour.[30] The bars are now available for sale online.[31]

Restaurants

There are also restaurants that serve insects to the public on a regular basis. For example, two places in Vancouver, Canada, offer cricket-based items. Vij's Restaurant has parathas that are made from roasted crickets that are ground into a flour.[32][33][34][35] Its sister restaurant, Rangoli Restaurant, offers pizza that was made by sprinkling whole roasted crickets on naan dough.[34][35][36][37][38]

Reality TV

Entomophagy has been featured on some reality television shows, such as Fear Factor.[39] Barrington Hall, a formerstudent cooperative at U.C. Berkeley held an annual insect banquet for many years until the co-op was closed down in 1990. The New York Entomological Society held a Centennial Banquet on Wednesday, May 20, 1992 at the Explorers Club in New York. The theme for the evening banquet was the use of insects as food. Appetizers and desserts featured insects in their preparations.[40][41] The Explorers Club itself holds an annual dinner at New York's Waldorf-Astoria Hotel featuring a wide array of unusual dishes including many featuring insects.[42] Theme park operator Six Flags Inc, based in New York, staged a contest as part of a promotion leading up to Halloween in which it also offered customers free entry or line-jumping advantages if they ate a live Madagascar hissing cockroach; the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) opposed the overall promotion. "Insects do not deserve to be eaten alive especially for a gratuitous marketing gimmick," PETA spokeswoman Jackie Vergerio told Reuters.[43][44]

Advantages

Food security[edit]

Insects as food and feed emerge as an especially relevant issue in the twenty-first century due to the rising cost of animal protein, food and feed insecurity, environmental pressures, population growth and increasing demand for protein among the middle classes.[45] At the 2013 International Conference on Forests for Food Security and Nutrition, theFood and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations released a publication titled "Edible insects - Future prospects for food and feed security" describing the contribution of insects to food security.[45] It shows the many traditional and potential new uses of insects for direct human consumption and the opportunities for and constraints to farming them for food and feed. It examines the body of research on issues such as insect nutrition and food safety, the use of insects as animal feed, and the processing and preservation of insects and their products.

Minilivestock

The intentional cultivation of insects and edible arthropods for human food, referred to as minilivestock, is now emerging in animal husbandry as an ecologically sound concept. Several analyses have found entomophagy to be a more environmentally friendly alternative to traditional animal livestocking.[12][46]

Edible insects have long been used by ethnic groups in Asia,[47][48][49][50][51][52]Africa, Mexico and South America as cheap and sustainable sources of protein, and the major role of entomophagy in human food security is well-documented.[14] Up to 2,086 species are consumed by 3,071 ethnic groups in 130 countries.[53] While more attention is needed to fully assess the potential of edible insects, they provide a natural source of essential carbohydrates,proteins, fats, minerals and vitamins and offer an opportunity to bridge the gap in protein consumption between poor and wealthy nations but also to lessen the Ecological footprint.[14] Many insects contain abundant stores of lysine, an amino acid deficient in the diets of many people who depend heavily on grain.[54] Some argue that the combination of increasing land use pressure, climate change, and food grain shortages due to the use of corn as a biofuel feedstock will cause serious challenges for attempts to meet future protein demand.[13]

In Thailand, two types of edible insects (cricket and palm weevil larvae) are commonly farmed in the north and south respectively.[55] Cricket-farming approaches throughout the northeast are similar and breeding techniques have not changed much since the technology was introduced 15 years ago. Small-scale cricket farming, involving a small number of breeding tanks, is rarely found today and most of the farms are medium- or large-scale enterprises. Community cooperatives of cricket farmers have been established to disseminate information on technical farming, marketing and business issues, particularly in northeastern and northern Thailand. Cricket farming has developed into a significant animal husbandry sector and is the main source of income for a number of farmers. In 2013, there are approximately 20 000 farms operating 217 529 rearing pens.[55] Total production over the last six years (1996-2011) has averaged around 7 500 tonnes per year.

In the Western world, agricultural technology companies such as Tiny Farms[56] have been founded with the aim of modernizing insect rearing techniques, permitting the scale and efficiency gains required for insects to displace other animal proteins in the human food supply.

Therapeutic foods

In 2012, Dr. Aaron T. Dossey announced that his company, All Things Bugs, had been named a Grand Challenges Explorations winner by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.[57] Grand Challenges Explorations provides funding to individuals with ideas for new approaches to public health and development. The research project is titled "Good Bugs: Sustainable Food for Malnutrition in Children".[57] Director of pediatric nutrition at the University of Alabama at Birmingham Frank Franklin has argued that since low calories and low protein are the main causes of death for approximately 5 million children annually, insect protein formulated into a ready-to-use therapeutic food similar toNutriset's Plumpy'Nut could have potential as a relatively inexpensive solution to malnutrition.[58] In 2009, Dr. Vercruysse from Ghent University in Belgium has proposed that insect protein can be used to generate hydrolysates, exerting both ACE inhibitory and antioxidant activity, which might be incorporated as multifunctional ingredient into functional foods. Additionally, edible insects can provide a good source of unsaturated fats, thereby helping to reduce coronary disease.[3]

Indigenous cultivation[edit]

Edible insects can provide economic, nutritional, and ecological advantages to the indigenous populations that commonly raise them.[59] For instance, the mopane worm of South Africa provides a "flagship taxon" for the conservation of mopane woodlands. Some researchers have argued that edible insects provide a unique opportunity for insect conservation by combining issues of food security and forest conservation through a solution which includes appropriate habitat management and recognition of local traditional knowledge and enterprises.[59] However, senior FAO forestry officer Patrick Durst claims that "Among forest managers, there is very little knowledge or appreciation of the potential for managing and harvesting insects sustainably. On the other hand, traditional forest-dwellers and forest-dependent people often possess remarkable knowledge of the insects and their management."[60]
Similarly, Julieta Ramos-Elorduy has stated that rural populations, who primarily "search, gather, fix, commercialize and store this important natural resource", do not exterminate the species which are valuable to their lives and livelihoods.[53] According to the FAO, many experts see income opportunities for rural people involved in cultivation. However, adapting food technology and safety standards to insect-based foods would enhance these prospects by providing a clear legal foundation for insect-based foods.[60]

Pest harvesting[edit]

Some researchers have proposed entomophagy as a solution to policy incoherence created by traditional agriculture, by which conditions are created which favor a few insect species, which then multiply and are termed "pests".[13] In parts of Mexico, Sphenarium purpurascens is controlled by its capture and use as food. Such strategies allow decreased use of pesticide and create a source of income for farmers totaling nearly $3000 per family. Some argue that pesticide use is economically inefficient due to its destruction of insects which may contain up to 75 percent animal protein in order to save crops containing no more than 14 percent protein.[13]

Environmental benefits[edit]

The methods of matter assimilation and nutrient transport used by insects make insect cultivation a more efficient method of converting consumed matter into biomass than rearing traditional livestock; more than 10 times more plant nutrients are needed to produce one kilogram of meat than one kilogram of insect biomass.[13] The spatial usage and water requirements are only a fraction of that required to produce the same mass of food with cattle farming. Production of 150g of grasshopper meat requires only very little water, while cattle requires 3290 liters to produce the same amount of beef.[61] This indicates that lower natural resource use and ecosystem strain could be expected from insects at all levels of the supply chain.[13] Edible insects also display exponentially faster growth and breeding cycles than traditional livestock. An analysis of the carbon intensity of five edible insect species conducted at the University of Wageningen, Netherlands found that "the average daily gain (ADG) of the five insect species studied was 4.0-19.6 percent, the minimum value of this range being close to the 3.2% reported for pigs, whereas the maximum value was 6 times higher. Compared to cattle (0.3%), insect ADG values were much higher." Additionally, all insect species studied produced much lower amounts of ammonia than conventional livestock, though further research is needed to determine the long-term impact. The authors conclude that insects could serve as a more environmentally friendly source of dietary protein.

Insects generally have a higher food conversion efficiency than more traditional meats, measured as efficiency of conversion of ingested food, or ECI.[62] While many insects can have an energy input to protein output ratio of around 4:1, raised livestock has a ratio closer to 54:1.[63] This is partially due to the fact that feed first needs to be grown for most traditional livestock. Additionally endothermic (warm-blooded) vertebrates need to use a significantly greater amount of energy just to stay warm whereas ectothermic (cold blooded) plants or insects do not.[61] An index which can be used as a measure is the Efficiency of conversion of ingested food to body substance: for example, only 10% of ingested food is converted to body substance by beef cattle, versus 19–31% by silkworms and 44% by German cockroaches. Studies concerning the house cricket (Acheta domesticus) provide further evidence for the efficiency of insects as a food source. When reared at 30 °C or more and fed a diet of equal quality to the diet used to rear conventional livestock, crickets showed a food conversion twice as efficient as pigs and broiler chicks, four times that of sheep, and six times higher than steers (oxen) when losses in carcass trim and dressing percentage are counted.[19]

Insects reproduce at a faster rate than beef animals. A female cricket can lay from 1,200 to 1,500 eggs in three to four weeks, while for beef the ratio is four breeding animals for each market animal produced. This gives house crickets a true food conversion efficiency almost 20 times higher than beef.[19] For this reason and because of the essential amino acids content of insects, some people, on ecological grounds, propose the development of entomophagy to provide a major source of protein in human nutrition.

Impacts of animal agriculture[edit]

According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO),animal agriculture makes a "very substantial contribution" to climate change, air pollution, land, soil and water degradation, land use concerns, deforestation and the reduction of biodiversity.[64] The high growth and intensity of animal agriculture has caused ecological damage worldwide; with meat production predicted to double from now to 2050, maintaining the status quo's environmental impact would demand a 50 percent reduction of impacts per unit of output. As the FAO states, animal livestock "emerges as one of the top two or three most significant contributors to the most serious environmental problems, at every scale from local to global." [64] Some researchers argue that establishing sustainable production systems will depend upon a large-scale replacement of traditional livestock with edible insects; such a shift would require a major change in Western perceptions of edible insects, pressure to conserve remaining habitats, and an economic push for food systems that incorporate insects into the supply chain.[15]
Greenhouse gas emission[edit]

In total, the emissions of the livestock sector account for 18 percent of total anthropogenic greenhouse gasemissions,[12] a greater share than the transportation sector.[64] Using the ratio between body growth realized and carbon production as an indicator of environmental impact, conventional agriculture practices entail substantial negative impacts as compared to entomophagy.[12] The University of Wageningen analysis found that the CO2 production per kilogram of mass gain for the five insect species studied was 39-129% that of pigs and 12-54% that of cattle. This finding corroborates existing literature on the higher feed conversion efficiency of insects as compared to mammalian livestock. For four of the five species studied, GHG emission was "much lower than documented for pigs when expressed per kg of mass gain and only around 1% of the GHG emission for ruminants."[12]

Land use[edit]

Animal livestock is the largest anthropogenic user of land.[64] 26 percent of the Earth's ice-free terrestrial surface is occupied by grazing, while feedcrop production amounts to 33 percent of total arable land. Livestock production accounts for 70 percent of all agricultural land and 30 percent of the planet's surface. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, livestock activity such as overgrazing, erosion, and soil compaction, has been the primary cause of the degradation of 20 percent of the world's pastures and rangeland.[64] Animal livestock is responsible for 64 percent of man-made ammonia emissions, which contribute significantly to acid rain.[64] By extension, animal waste contributes to environmental pollution through nitrification and acidification of soil.[12]

Water pollution[edit]

According to the Food and Agriculture Organization, 64 percent of the world's population is expected to live in water-stressed basins by 2025. A reassessment of human usage and treatment of water resources will likely become necessary in order to meet growing population needs.[64] The FAO argues that the livestock sector is a major source of water pollution and loss of freshwater resources:
The livestock sector [...] is probably the largest sectoral source of water pollution, contributing to eutrophication, "dead" zones in coastal areas, degradation of coral reefs, human health problems, emergence of antibiotic resistance and many others. The major sources of pollution are from animal wastes, antibiotics and hormones, chemicals from tanneries, fertilizers and pesticides used for feedcrops, and sediments from eroded pastures. Global figures are not available but in the United States, with the world's fourth largest land area, livestock are responsible for an estimated 55 percent of erosion and sediment, 37 percent of pesticide use, 50 percent of antibiotic use, and a third of the loads of nitrogen and phosphorus into freshwater resources. Livestock also affect the replenishment of freshwater by compacting soil, reducing infiltration, degrading the banks of watercourses, drying up floodplains and lowering water tables.[64] (brackets added)

Disadvantages[edit]

Spoilage[edit]

Researchers from Wageningen University and the FAO published an evaluation of the potential of edible insects as a protein source in the August 2012 issue of Food Control.[65] The researchers found that "spore forming bacteria are a potential spoilage and safety risk" for both cooked and uncooked insect protein. While more study is needed before integration into the food supply, current data suggest that while edible insects must be processed with care, simple methods are available to prevent spoilage.[65]

Toxicity[edit]

In general, many insects are herbivorous and less problematic than omnivores. Cooking is advisable in ideal circumstances since parasites of concern may be present. But pesticide use can make insects unsuitable for human consumption. Herbicides can accumulate in insects through bioaccumulation. For example when locust outbreaks are treated by spraying, people can no longer eat them. This may pose a problem since edible plants have been consumed by the locusts themselves.[19]

In some cases, insects may be edible regardless of their toxicity. In the Carnia region of Italy, moths of the Zygaenidaefamily have been eaten by children despite their potential toxicity. The moths are known to produce hydrogen cyanideprecursors in both larvae and adults. However, the ingluvies (or crop) of the adult moths contain cyanogenic chemicals in extremely low quantities along with high concentrations of sugar, making Zygaena a convenient supplementary source of sugar during the early summer. The moths are very common and easy to catch by hand, and the low cyanogenic content of the ingluvies make Zygaena a minimally risky seasonal delicacy.[66]
Cases of lead poisoning after consumption of chapulines were reported by the California Department of Health Services in November 2003.[67] Adverse allergic reactions are also a possible hazard.[68]

Cultural taboo

Within Western culture, entomophagy (barring some food dyes, such ascarmine) is seen as taboo.[69] There are some exceptions. Casu marzu, for example, also called casu modde, casu cundhídu, or in Italian formaggio marcio, is a cheese made in Sardinia notable for being riddled with live insect larvae. Casu marzu means "rotten cheese" in Sardinian and is known colloquially as maggot cheese. A scene in the Italian film Mondo Cane (1962) features an insect banquet for shock effect, and a scene from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom features insects as part of a similar banquet for shock factor. Western avoidance of entomophagy coexists with the consumption of other invertebrates such as mollusks and the insects' close arthropod relativescrustaceans, and is not based on taste or food value.[69]
Some schools of Islamic jurisprudence consider scorpions haraam, but eating locusts as halal. Others prohibit all animals that creep, including insects.[70][71]
Within Judaism, most insects are not considered kosher, with the exception of a few species of locust which are accepted by certain communities (see Kosher locust). Honey is, however, considered kosher.

Public health nutritionist Alan Dangour has argued that large-scale entomophagy in Western culture faces "extremely large" barriers, which are "perhaps currently even likely to be insurmountable."[58] The anthropologist Marvin Harris has also suggested that the eating of insects is taboo in cultures that have other protein sources that require less work to obtain, such as poultry or cattle, though there are cultures which feature both animal husbandry and entomophagy. Examples can be found in Botswana, South Africa and Zimbabwe where strong cattle-raising traditions co-exist with entomophagy of insects like the mopane worm.

Policy instruments[edit]

International policy[edit]

The Food and Agriculture Organization has displayed an interest in developing entomophagy on multiple occasions. In 2008, the FAO organized a conference to "discuss the potential for developing insects in the Asia and Pacific region.".[60] According to Durst, FAO efforts in entomophagy will focus on regions in which entomophagy has been historically accepted but has recently experienced a decline in popularity.
In 2011, the European Commission issued a request for reports on the current use of insects as food, with the promise that reports from each European Union member state would serve to inform legislative proposals for the new process for novel foods.[72] According to NPR, the European Union is investing more than 4 million dollars to research entomophagy as a human protein source.[73]

Unintentional ingestion[edit]

In practice, it is not possible to eliminate pest insects from the human food chain. Insects are present in many foods, especially grains. Food laws in many countries do not prohibit insect parts in food, but rather, they limit the quantity. People in rice-eating regions, for example, typically ingest significant numbers of rice weevil (Sitophilus oryzae) larvae, and this has been suggested as an important source of vitamins.[74]

The Food and Agricultural Organisation specifies in the Codex Alimentarius standard for wheat (Codex Standard 152-1985 : Codex Standard for Wheat Flour) that :[75]
3.1.2 Wheat flour shall be free from abnormal flavours, odours, and living insects. 3.1.3 Wheat flour shall be free from filth (impurities of animal origin, including dead insects) in amounts which may represent a hazard to human health.

According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's The Food Defect Action Levels booklet.[76] Contamination on the average of less than 150 insect fragments per 100 grams of wheat flour poses no health hazard.

See also[edit]

Ethnoentomology
Feed conversion ratio
Taboo food and drink
The Food Defect Action Levels
Man Eating Bugs: The Art and Science of Eating Insects (book)
The Eat-A-Bug Cookbook (book)



********************************************************


http://travel.usnews.com/features/Countries_That_Eat_Bugs/

Countries That Eat Bugs
BY MIRIAM B. WEINER | APRIL 28, 2011

Slimy, scary, "the size of a Buick" — we use a lot of terms to describe bugs, but "yummy" isn't usually one of them. We associate insect ingestion with reality television shows like Fear Factor, which week-after-week portrays contestants wolfing down everything from live cockroaches to plump caterpillars. But before you add "eating bugs" to the list of things you'll never ever do, consider this: Insects are actually far more nutritious than other common forms of protein, even fish. For example, 100 grams of top sirloin beef contains about 29 grams of protein in addition to a whopping 21 grams of fat, while 100 grams of grasshopper contains 20 grams of protein and a measly six grams of fat. Big difference! Many scientists believe that entomophagy -- insect eating -- will not only benefit our health, but also the planet. In an interview with The Guardian, Belgian entomologist Arnold van Huis says that farming insects emits 10 times less greenhouse gas than farming livestock.

So why are we so disgusted by the thought of munching on bugs? Pennsylvania State University professor Manfred Kroger tells National Geographic that our eating habits are conditioned by our culture. We see insects as the destroyers of crops and ruin-ers of picnics rather than a food source, while many cultures — primarily in Africa, Asia and South America — rely on creepy-crawlies as their main source of protein. As naturalist, author and "Bug Chef Extraordinaire" David George Gordon tells the Telegraph, "Insects are the most valuable, underused and delicious animals in the world." Here are a few countries that have already hopped on the bug bandwagon:
Thailand
Citizens of Thailand are no strangers to entomophagy. In fact, fried bugs are commonly served with beer (like peanuts at a bar). Once more prevalent in the Northern provinces like Isan, snacking on these vermin is now a regular occurrence in major cities like Bangkok, where vendors sell crispy insects from carts at outdoor markets. One of the country's most popular snacks is Jing Leed, a deep-fried cricket seasoned with Golden Mountain sauce (similar to soy sauce) and pepper. Other favorites include grasshopper, woodworm, bamboo worm and Maeng Da, or 3.5 inch-long water beetles. While most insects sold by Thai street vendors are prepared the same way, each variety is said to have its own distinct flavor.

Ghana

While we normally consider termites to be a pesky (and costly) household plague, Ghanaians see them as a delicious and nutritious snack. However, in Ghana, eating bugs is much more than a lifestyle choice -- it's a means of survival. Other types of food are often in short supply during the country's spring months, when many Ghanaians are busy planting crops. Luckily, the season's heavy rains force winged termites to flee their underground homes. The termites are high in proteins, fats and oils, all of which are needed for a healthy, well-balanced diet. The insects can be fried, roasted and even ground into flour for baking purposes.

Mexico

You probably won't find any creepy-crawlies at your local cantina, but insects have been a staple in Mexican cuisine for centuries. And these days, you'll find that they suit just about every taste. French-fried caterpillars offer a satisfying crunch, while ant eggs are served with so much butter that even Julia Child would approve. Chocolate-covered locusts and candy-covered worms make getting your daily dose of protein oh-so sweet. If the thought of consuming insects still makes you queasy, take some time to drink it in down in Oaxaca (a state in southern Mexico), where a potent alcohol called mezcal is served with a "worm" — the larval form of the moth Hypopta agavis — submerged in the glass.

China

To us, bugs are nature's practical joke. But in China, they're considered delicacies. The Chinese snack on a wide variety of insects, from water bugs boiled and then soaked vinegar to live scorpions doused in baijiu, a robust liquor. While Chinese citizens eat all sorts of insects, the country's finer restaurants tend to serve its delicacies in the larval state. Chinese gourmands enjoy roasted bee larvae and fried silkworm moth larvae, which are both rich in nutrients like copper, iron, riboflavin, thiamin and zinc. And when temperatures begin to drop, the Chinese keep warm with a steaming bowl of ant soup. 

Brazil

The Chinese aren't the only people who like ants; in Brazil, içás, or queen ants, are a favorite snack. Although ants were once eaten only by poorer citizens, this tradition is now celebrated. Every October and November, these massive winged ants emerge from underground to the delight of the residents of Silveiras, a small town in southwest Brazil. Here, they collect the ants, remove their wings and fry 'em up (or dip them in chocolate). There's even an arts and crafts center devoted to the içá-eating tradition, where you'll find everything from dishes to aprons featuring images of the beloved bug. Are you wondering whyiçás are so popular? Silveiras' townspeople claim that they taste just like mint.

Australia

Although the trend hasn't really caught on in the more urban areas, many of Australia's indigenous cultures eat insects for protein. Back in the day, preparing creepy-crawly cuisine was a painstaking process: The Aborigines cooked moths in the sand, stirring in hot ashes to help remove the bugs' wings and the legs. Today, Oz's native societies still thrive on insects like honey-pot ants — which use their bodies as a portable pantry — and witchetty grubs, or large, wood-eating moth larvae. Roasted witchetty grub has a crispy skin with a yellowy filling that's said to taste a little like almonds.

Japan

Bugs have been a staple of Japan's cuisine for centuries due to their abundance. In fact, during rough agricultural and economic times, insects were the main means of survival for many rural populations. Today, bugs are becoming a more common sight on Japanese menus: Restaurants all over the country serve up hearty portions of hachi-no-ko (boiled wasp larvae), sangi (fried silk moth pupae) and zaza-mushi(aquatic insect larvae). The Japanese also enjoy munching on fully grown insects such as semi (fried cicada) and inago (fried grasshopper). And though noshing on insects is still a little taboo here — particularly in the cities — many Japanese people are beginning to broaden their culinary horizons.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands is one of the few European nations beginning to embrace entomophagy. While Dutch insect breeders face a barrier of Western criticism, gourmands like Johan Van Dongen — head of the meat department for the food distributor Sligro, believes that once people learn to sink their teeth in, they'll never go back. The New York Times wrote an article about Van Dongen's efforts to convert his fellow countrymen: He set up tasting stands offering passers-by samples of whole insects as well as chocolate infused with ground mealworms. "When they see the bugs, they’ve already eaten them in the chocolate," Van Dongen tells the Times. "Some people scream, ‘Oh, my God!’ But if you do it once, then you do it twice."

USA

Eating bugs is now part of the challenge of participating in reality TV shows like Survivor and Fear Factor. But believe it or not, bugs are being consumed on our own home turf when the cameras are off. If you own red lipstick or have ever snacked on red candy, chances are that you've ingested cochineal, an insect native to South America that is used to produce red dye. Bugs are also becoming prevalent in sweets. Many candy shops like Hotlix in Pismo Beach, California, are famous for selling chocolate-covered ants and cricket lollipops. It comes as no surprise that children welcome the concept of entomophagy with open arms, and with such sweet treats at hand, it might be time for us adults to follow suit.


COMMENTS


Sharath Chandra Vemuganti · St. Peter's Institute of Pharmaceutical Sciences
delicious to some in reality but in comprehensible to vegetarians like me. world is thus diverse.
Reply · Like · Follow Post · May 15 at 3:23pm

Kelly Chen · Follow ·  Top Commenter · Junior Small Fry Position at Wheelchair pusher · 711 followers
Good list! Was researching this when I came across your article. Many people are surprised that Netherlands are into insects as well.

By the way, Bali ppl also eat dragonflies cooked in coconut milk, ginger etc. Cambodia and Vietnam are also into insects for food.

Swamminah Grace
eeeeeeeeeeeeeee ihave liked

Ibrahim Aljahdali
eww

Magda Swisher · Follow · Houston, Texas
I'd be selective and eat insects, if that is all I could get a hold of, to survive. Too bad the French convict, Henri Charrière ("Papillon"), portrayed by Steve McQueen, didn't have many choices. In one scene, he consumes a centipede--certainly NOT an insect; and those disgusting F*g cockroaches, or whatever landed or found its way into his cell. But he survived.

Arturo Rizzo ·  Top Commenter · Margate, Florida
ill make a quiche tomorrow (NOT).

Philip Duarte ·  Top Commenter
Brazil has plenty of real food, and we certainly don't dine in insects. Now, it's not that we despise insects because of our culture. That is only natural, since they are so different from mammals, reptile, birds and fish. Culture / sheer necessity is the sole reason for anyone to eat these grotesque things in the first place.


********************************************************

Mikhail Gorbachev Life And Quotations 2014

Gorbachev has always seemed to me to be the most statesmanlike and honorable leader of Russia of the years during which I have been watching the news, in other words from 1952 and following. In 1957 a student newspaper that was circulated in my school came into my hands. The article that caught my attention was about Sputnik. I remember going out that night with my sister and father as we looked for that blinking light in the sky, and we found it! I was joyful at the seemingly miraculous nature of the achievement, as I had never considered space travel to be a realistic goal for the US. Others were not of that persuasion, though, and the Space Race was on. It wasn't long before President Kennedy had promised that the US would land a man on the moon within ten years. Those were exciting times to live through. It's an often told joke that "May you live in interesting times," is an old Chinese curse, but I have been overjoyed to live in interesting times. I have always since I can remember been looking for fascinating things to learn, and to this day I have found no end to the supply. This article on Gorbachev is very "interesting." I hope you enjoy it.



http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mikhail_gorbachev.html

Mikhail Gorbachev Quotes:


We could only solve our problems by cooperating with other countries. It would have been paradoxical not to cooperate. And therefore we needed to put an end to the Iron Curtain, to change the nature of international relations, to rid them of ideological confrontation, and particularly to end the arms race.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

Change, Nature, End
More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Life, Means, Democracy
Without perestroika, the cold war simply would not have ended. But the world could not continue developing as it had, with the stark menace of nuclear war ever present.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

War, Simply, Present
A society should never become like a pond with stagnant water, without movement. That's the most important thing.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

Society, Water, Movement
If not me, who? And if not now, when?
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

The world will not accept dictatorship or domination.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Accept, Domination
America must be the teacher of democracy, not the advertiser of the consumer society. It is unrealistic for the rest of the world to reach the American living standard.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Society, Teacher, Living
I am a Communist, a convinced Communist! For some that may be a fantasy. But to me it is my main goal.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Goal, Fantasy, Communist
Imagine a country that flies into space, launches Sputniks, creates such a defense system, and it can't resolve the problem of women's pantyhose. There's no toothpaste, no soap powder, not the basic necessities of life. It was incredible and humiliating to work in such a government.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Life, Work, Women
What we need is Star Peace and not Star Wars.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Peace, Star, Wars
It is better to discuss things, to argue and engage in polemics than make perfidious plans of mutual destruction.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Plans, Argue, Mutual
The market came with the dawn of civilization and it is not an invention of capitalism. If it leads to improving the well-being of the people there is no contradiction with socialism.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Socialism, Came, Capitalism
Sometimes it's difficult to accept, to recognise one's own mistakes, but one must do it. I was guilty of overconfidence and arrogance, and I was punished for that.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Mistakes, Difficult, Accept
Jesus was the first socialist, the first to seek a better life for mankind.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Life, Jesus, Mankind
It would be naive to think that the problems plaguing mankind today can be solved with means and methods which were applied or seemed to work in the past.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Work, Today, Past
If what you have done yesterday still looks big to you, you haven't done much today.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

Today, Looks, Yesterday
Sometimes when you stand face to face with someone, you cannot see his face.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Cannot, Face, Stand
The soviet people want full-blooded and unconditional democracy.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

Democracy, Soviet
I say again that I am an atheist. I do not believe in God.
Mikhail Gorbachev


God, Again, Atheist
If people don't like Marxism, they should blame the British Museum.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Blame, British, Museum
Sometimes people ask me why I began perestroika. Were the causes basically domestic or foreign? The domestic reasons were undoubtedly the main ones, but the danger of nuclear war was so serious that it was a no less significant factor.
Mikhail Gorbachev


War, Less, Serious
Democracy is the wholesome and pure air without which a socialist public organization cannot live a full-blooded life.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Life, Cannot, Public
I paid too heavy a price for perestroika.
Mikhail Gorbachev


Paid, Price, Heavy
Surely, God on high has not refused to give us enough wisdom to find ways to bring us an improvement in relations between the two great nations on earth.
Mikhail Gorbachev
 

Wisdom, Great, God
Ex-Presidents of the United States get state subsidies. Not so in Russia. You get no government support.
Mikhail Gorbachev

Read more at http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/mikhail_gorbachev.html#JfIE8XbOk0UwWQkV.99







Mikhail Gorbachev
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachev (Russian: Михаи́л Серге́евич Горбачёв, tr. Mikhail Sergeyevich Gorbachyov; IPA: [mʲɪxɐˈil sʲɪrˈɡʲejɪvʲɪt͡ɕ ɡərbɐˈt͡ɕɵf] ( listen); born 2 March 1931) is a formerSoviet statesman. He was the seventh and last leader of the Soviet Union, having served as General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union from 1985 until 1991, and as the country's head of state from 1988 until its dissolution in 1991 (titled as Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet from 1988 to 1989, as Chairman of the Supreme Soviet from 1989 to 1990, and as President of the Soviet Union from 1990 to 1991). He was the only general secretary in the history of the Soviet Union to have been born after the October Revolution.

Gorbachev was born in Stavropol Krai into a peasantUkrainian–Russian family, and in his teens operated combine harvesters on collective farms. He graduated from Moscow State University in 1955 with a degree in law. While he was at the university, he joined the Communist Party, and soon became very active within it. In 1970, he was appointed the First Party Secretary of the Stavropol Kraikom, First Secretary to the Supreme Soviet in 1974, and appointed a member of the Politburo in 1979. Within three years of the death of Soviet leader Leonid Brezhnev, following the brief "interregna" of Andropov and Chernenko, Gorbachev was elected General Secretary by the Politburo in 1985. Before he reached the post, he had occasionally been mentioned in Western newspapers as a likely next leader and a man of the younger generation at the top level.

Gorbachev's policies of glasnost ("openness") and perestroika("restructuring") as well as summit conferences with United States President Ronald Reagan and his reorientation of Soviet strategic aims contributed to the end of the Cold War, removed the constitutional role of the Communist Party in governing the state, and inadvertently led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. He was awarded the Otto Hahn Peace Medal in 1989, the Nobel Peace Prize in 1990 and the Harvey Prize in 1992 as well as Honorary Doctorates from various universities as discussed below.

In September 2008, Gorbachev and business oligarch Alexander Lebedev announced they would form the Independent Democratic Party of Russia,[1] and in May 2009 Gorbachev announced that the launch was imminent.[2] This was Gorbachev's third attempt to establish a political party, having started the Social Democratic Party of Russia in 2001 and the Union of Social Democrats in 2007.[3]

Early and personal life

Gorbachev was born on 2 March 1931 in Stavropol, Russian SFSR,Soviet Union, into a mixed Russian-Ukrainian family[4] of migrants from Voronezh and Chernigov Governorates. As a child, Gorbachev experienced the Soviet famine of 1932–1933. He recalled in a memoir that "In that terrible year [in 1933] nearly half the population of my native village, Privolnoye, starved to death, including two sisters and one brother of my father."[5] Both of his grandfathers were arrested on false charges in the 1930s; his paternal grandfather Andrey Moiseyevich Gorbachev (Андрей Моисеевич Горбачев) was sent to exile in Siberia.[6][7]

His father was a combine harvester operator and World War II veteran, named Sergey Andreyevich Gorbachev. His mother, Maria Panteleyevna Gorbacheva (née Gopkalo), was a kolkhoz worker.[7] In his teens, he operated combine harvesters on collective farms. He graduated from Moscow State University in 1955 with a degree in law. In 1967 he qualified as an agricultural economist via a correspondence masters degree at the Stavropol Institute of Agriculture. While at the university, he joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and soon became very active within the party.

Gorbachev met his future wife, Raisa Titarenko, at Moscow State University. They married in September 1953 and moved to Stavropol upon graduation. She gave birth to their only child, daughter Irina Mikhailovna Virganskaya (Ири́на Миха́йловна Вирга́нская), in 1957. Raisa Gorbacheva died of leukemia in 1999.[8] Gorbachev has two granddaughters (Ksenia and Anastasia) and one great granddaughter (Aleksandra).



For a lengthy history of how the USSR became the Russia of today, see this article on the Internet and continue reading.

Militarization of Police Forces In America 2014


The following series of articles all involve the present day awareness of a trend that has been in the making since 1990, and both Republicans and Democrats have been involved in the matter. Unfortunately only a few in Congress have tried to do anything about it. An effort was made recently, and the bill was almost unanimously voted down. Hopefully Congress will take action now to stop the transfer of military equipment to municipal police forces when the Pentagon no longer considers it necessary for the army's use. This does not appear to me to be a "conspiracy," and the far right have not been involved as movers and shakers in the trend. It's more like a huge miscalculation which was initiated to avoid wasting the rocket launchers to tanks. Unfortunately, Congress has not been overseeing the results. In fact, none of these articles mentioned who is supposed to maintain some control in the matter. Hopefully now that failure will be curtailed.




http://www.salon.com/2013/07/13/radley_balko_once_a_town_gets_a_swat_team_you_want_to_use_it/

“Radley Balko: 'Once a town gets a SWAT team you want to use it.'”
by Alex Halperin
July 13, 2013

“Radley Balko’s new book, “Rise of the Warrior Cop,” details how America’s police forces have grown to look and behave more like soldiers than neighborly Officer Krupkes walking the beat. This new breed of police, frequently equipped with military weapons and decked out in enough armor to satisfy a storm trooper, are redefining law enforcement.
How did this happen? For decades, the war on drugs has empowered police to act aggressively. More recently, 9/11 and school shootings enforced the notion that there’s no such thing as too much security. Since 9/11, the newly formed Department of Homeland Security has distributed billions in grants, enabling even some small town police departments to buy armored personnel carriers and field their own SWAT teams.

Once you have a SWAT team the only thing to do is kick some ass. There are more than 100 SWAT team raids every day in this country. They’re not chasing murderers or terrorists. For the most part they go after nonviolent offenders like drug dealers and even small time gamblers. As you’d expect when there is too much adrenaline and too much weaponry, there have been some tragedies. Suddenly goofball comedies where an elite squad invades a house to find a pot-smoking kid don’t seem so funny. (Balko’s book describes such incidents at length in excerpts Salon published here and here.)
Beyond that, you have a military or soldier mind-set, and that, I think, goes beyond the SWAT team. They’ve been telling police officers for a generation now that they’re fighting various wars, but it’s also because the patrol car has isolated police officers from the communities that they serve. Police officers who live in the communities they serve is also less and less common.

So when you arm a cop like a soldier, when you dress ‘em like a soldier, when you tell ‘em to fight in a war and then send ‘em out into a neighborhood that he has no stake in and doesn’t consider himself a part of, you get a very antagonistic, us-versus-them relationship between the officer and that community. I think that is really pervasive, and the rise of the stop-snitchin’ movement, whatever you think of it, shows there are entire communities in this country that are more afraid of police than they are of the people that the police are supposed to be protecting them from. That is a pretty terrible development.

So, it starts with the equipment. You just need unsupported justifications for why it’s necessary, and then there are all these incentives for police departments who are using it for pretty low-level crimes.
Training is another problem. At least in the big cities, when they have these SWAT teams, they’re usually well-trained. It’s usually a full-time position. In some of these small towns and little counties, there are cases where there’s a 15-man police department and they also have an eight-member SWAT team. These guys are part-time, and they’re not getting the training that they need to do this. I think even the well-trained SWAT teams are used too frequently, but it’s better to have a well-trained SWAT team than a bunch of guys who are kind of in it for the thrill.
You talked just then and in the book about a lack of accountability being ingrained in police culture. Do you see any signs of any programs trying a different approach?

Yes and no. The fact that everybody’s armed with a camera in their pocket now is forcing a lot of police departments to become more accountable and to hold officers more accountable. Certainly more cops are going to be more aware of this and aware of the fact that they could be recorded at any time. That’s going to be an incentive to act better.
At the same time, though, police unions are some of the few unions in this country that are still powerful. That in part goes back to the fact that no politician really wants to look anti-police officer, and so the unions have negotiated in a lot of states the Police Officer Bill of Rights, which give rights to cops above and beyond what regular citizens get when they’re accused of a crime.

In theory, the Police Officer Bill of Rights only applies to internal investigations; it doesn’t affect criminal investigations. Problem is, criminal investigations usually don’t start until after the internal investigation is over and at that point the police officers have been given time to put a story together. A lot of times they’re allowed to collaborate with other police officers who are involved and the other thing it does is it gives cops within the department a handy way to get the charges against other cops dismissed.

The Houston Chronicle just launched a new series this week about how difficult it is [to fire a cop]. Cops who are accused of assault and sexual assault and domestic abuse just think they can get their jobs back. Even when they do get fired, another police department ends up hiring them because part of the contract that they negotiated may bar the police department from giving them a bad reference for future law enforcement jobs.

You say in the book that it’s not an anti-cop book. Is there a way for good cops to fight this culture in an effective way?

It’s difficult. I tell a couple stories in the book of cops who try to turn in other cops for this conduct, and usually they end up being the ones disciplined. So, yeah, it’s tough. And there’s a reason why groups like LEAP [Law Enforcement Against Prohibition] is almost exclusively retired cops, because you just can’t make these kinds of points while you’re on the job. There have been a few police chiefs who I mention in the book who have successfully reformed individual police performance.

I guess my point in saying that it isn’t an anti-cop book is that you can rail against cops and call them names, and attack the police culture all you want, but that’s not going to change anything, and as long as you have these bad policies you’re going to attract the wrong personalities because cops are either going to quit in frustration, turn bad or just, you know, hate their jobs. So, until we can get politicians and public officials to start making actual policy changes and insist on holding police accountable, I just don’t think it does any good to rail against police officers.

Obama has stepped up raids, for example, on medical marijuana dispensaries. What sort of indications, if any, do you see of the federal government reining in the incentives for police militarization?

I don’t think so. I look at police militarization under Obama, and surprisingly, the Bush administration was phasing out two of the programs that were really driving a lot of this. The Byrne Grant program, and the COPS program. These are both federal spending programs, so it’s easy to understand why the Bush administration would put it in the back, and then why Obama would then re-fund them. But, you’ve got to look at the consequences.

Just saying we need to spend more money on police officers and then throwing money at them, and then not really caring or following up or having any concern about how that money is being spent, is a problem. Obama restored the Byrne Grant program at record funding shortly after taking office. I think there’s just this notion on the left that, with leftist politicians all federal spending is good, and so you see this re-funding of this program.
I’d like to see these programs phased out entirely, but again, you get the same problem where the right wants to look tough on crime. The left, sort of defensively also, wants to look tough on crime.

I’ve been pleasantly surprised from the reaction to the book among people who aren’t politicians. Across left, right, libertarian, I think most people who are familiar with the issue recognize that it’s a problem and something needs to be done about it. But you know Congress always lags behind public opinion. And on this issue, it’s just difficult to get them to care. I’m optimistic about how the public is coming around on this issue, but I’m skeptical that we’ll ever get any reaction from politicians.

What sort of solutions do you see? What can be done?

At the local level, I think people could pressure local officials to rein in SWAT teams, and have them only used in the emergency situations and stop sending them on drug raids.

You can do an open record collection of the police department to find out how many times the SWAT teams had been out, for what reasons, and what the result was. Most times you’re going to find it was sent out, let’s say 200 times in the last year, and you’re going to find that maybe 40 of those cases are over criminal charges. Those are good numbers to put out, and just to spark a debate on whether this is an appropriate use of this sort of force.
I think all these raids should be videotaped and should all be subject to open record requests. When an officer makes a negligent error that results in a SWAT team terrorizing an innocent family, you know there should be consequences, and a family should have recourse in court, to collect damages, and right now it’s very, very difficult to sue a police officer in court.

A lot of other recommendations in the book, like ending the drug war, aren’t going to happen any time soon, but there are incremental reforms that can be made to at least kind of get a handle on the problem even if you can’t rein it in completely.





http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-missouri-what-can-washington-do-about-militarized-police-forces/

What can Washington do about militarized police forces?
By STEPHANIE CONDON CBS NEWS August 15, 2014, 5:59 AM

Washington lawmakers let out a collective gasp on Thursday after seeing startling images of police officers decked out with combat gear and tanks to respond to largely peaceful protesters in Ferguson, Missouri.

While there may have been some looters and violent individuals among the demonstrators who gathered to protest the killing of unarmed 18-year-old Michael Brown, the police looked more equipped to enter a war zone than a protest, liberalSen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., and conservative Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., agreed. Attorney General Eric Holder said in a statement, "At a time when we must seek to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the local community, I am deeply concerned that the deployment of military equipment and vehicles sends a conflicting message."

Although the images seemingly shocked members of Congress, the issue of police militarization was born in Washington and has been percolating for years. The images out of Ferguson may finally serve as a tipping point needed to prompt lawmakers to reform the policies that allow local police forces to acquire Defense Department equipment without having to say much about how it's used or where it ultimately ends up.

With billions in equipment already disbursed across the country, it may seem too late to put the genie back in the bottle. But public advocates pressing for change say there's plenty Washington can do to curb the disbursement of such equipment -- and even potentially take some of it off the streets.

A.G. Holder "deeply concerned" about use of military gear in Ferguson

Obama on racial tension in Missouri: "Now's the time for healing"

"So much of the militarization of policing is fueled by federal programs, I think it's important for the federal government to take the lead here," ACLU criminal justice expert Kara Dansky told CBS News.

Already, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., has produced legislation that would put some constraints on the federal program that allows the Pentagon to give police forces equipment for free. Johnson's bill represents just one step Washington could take to address an issue that he's been warning about for months.

"Something potentially sinister is happening across America, and we should stop and take notice before it changes the character of our country forever," Johnson co-wrote in a USA Today op-ed in March. "County, city and small-town police departments across the country are now acquiring free military-grade weapons that could possibly be used against the very citizens and taxpayers that not only fund their departments but who the police are charged with protecting."

The congressman made note of the several towns, and even at least one college (Ohio State University), that have acquired Mine-Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicles (or MRAPs) in just the last few months thanks to the Pentagon's 1033 program. The program was approved by Congress in the 1990s and has since given police forces more than $4.3 billion worth of property such as MRAPs, pistols, automatic rifles, and flashbang grenades.

"Why is there surplus, especially when the Defense Department is threatening to cut jobs anytime Congress talks about defense cuts as part of sequestration or the Budget Control Act?" Johnson asked in his op-ed. "The primary reason is that we're drawing down from two major equipment-laden wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and while some of this equipment is being destroyed in the war zone, at a loss of billions in American taxpayer dollars, much of it is now being returned to the U.S."

On top of receiving equipment directly from the 1033 program, police forces can buy equipment like drones and MRAPs with terrorism grants from the Department of Homeland Security. The department has doled out $34 billion in grants since the program started after 9/11.

In addition to limiting transfers in the 1033 program, Johnson's bill would call for some accountability in the program.

"One of the big issues that inspired this legislation is some of the smaller equipment, the assault weapons, were unaccounted for, they were given away to friends," Michael Shank of the Friends Committee on National Legislation told CBS News. "Just the accountability of these free weapons going to police chiefs and police forces was really problematic."

At one point, the office that oversees the 1033 program suspended the transfer of firearms to police forces because there were so many problems, the Associated Press reported last year, such as former military firearms being sold on eBay. In New York last year, lawmakers thought the job of tracking equipment from the 1033 program could be handled by an unpaid intern.

Johnson's bill would prohibit the Defense Department from giving any more equipment to an agency that couldn't certify the whereabouts of prior equipment it received.

While Congress considers actions to reform the program, the administration could act on its own, Danksy said.

"The law that Congress passed in the 1990s... doesn't mandate DOD simply give the police whatever they want," she said. "The DOD could easily put some constraints on that, and we think they should do so."

Additionally, the Justice Department could use the power of the bully pulpit to urge police departments to retire or give back their equipment.

"Local police departments get a lot of money from DOJ, and that gives them an opportunity to encourage them to exercise restraint," she said.

Shank said that the Pentagon could go so far as to issue a recall of its equipment. "A recall on MRAPs, for example," he said. "Just like a car company would recall their cars."
So far, it doesn't seem like the Pentagon has any interest in curbing the program.

Navy Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon press secretary, said the 1033 program "serves a purpose."

"This is a useful program that allows for the reuse of military equipment that otherwise would be disposed of that can be used, again, by law enforcement agencies to serve their citizens," he told reporters Thursday. "That said, it is up to law enforcement agencies to speak to how and what they gain through this system."

While the Pentagon may not have any interest in changing the program, Shank said he's optimistic Congress will act.

"We're absolutely at a tipping point," he said. "Any (congressional) office we talk to about this is on board. They find it egregious, whether Republican or Democrat."

Shank said it's unclear to him why the issue may be gaining momentum now, unlike in previous years when egregious police force was on display -- for instance, during the World Trade Organization protests in Seattle in 1999 or the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. However, he suspects that politicians could be paying attention now because Michael Brown's killing underscores the way militarized policing disproportionately targets minority communities.

A report that Dansky helped produce for the ACLU last year, analyzing the use of Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) Teams in 2011 and 2012, found that the "use of paramilitary weapons and tactics primarily impacted people of color."

In a Time op-ed he wrote in response to the Ferguson events, Sen. Rand Paul addressed that very point.

"Anyone who thinks that race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention," he wrote.




Ferguson Pastor: This Is Not A Race Issue; This Is A Human Issue
by NPR STAFF
August 14, 2014 5:02 PM ET

It's been a tense week in Ferguson, Mo. Protests erupted after the fatal shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a police officer Saturday. For many, the fear and frustration is familiar.

Amid the demonstrations Wednesday, the Rev. Willis Johnson tried to talk down 18-year-old Joshua Wilson. A photo in theWashington Post showed the two in a powerful moment.

Johnson says police were ordering protesters to move aside as police advanced, and that he was trying to keep Wilson out of harm's way.

He says he was not attempting to discourage protest.

"If anything it was to affirm him — and to affirm both of us — because in that moment, we were being disaffirmed," Johnson tells NPR's Melissa Block. "We were being told ... that what we were doing was wrong, and it was not wrong."

Johnson, the father of a teenager and pastor of Wellspring Church in Ferguson, had never met Joshua Wilson personally. But, he says, "I've met 'Joshuas.' " In fact, he says, he's been Joshua.

Interview Highlights

On why he was trying to get Wilson out of the way

I just embraced him. Because he was so angry, and you could feel it in his body, you could feel it in his speech. ... Something just said, "Grab him. Hold him." Maybe initially to keep him back, but ultimately to become what really is symbolic of the situation ... at hand.

People who are hurting need to be affirmed in their hurt; people who are angry need to be affirmed in their anger. Let me say it like this: I needed that as much as he needed that. We kept each other from harm's way and from doing something that we would need not to do. …

If you're going to fuss and cuss and be mad, I want you to do it with me. Do it in my ear. And at the same time, I just begin to pray with him and to say, "Give him the strength — give us the strength — to be courageous enough not to do what they expect us to do."

On knowing many "Joshuas"

I had not met [Joshua Willis] personally, but I've met Joshuas. I was 18 once, and a young black male. I have a young man that I'm trying to grow. ... People may not understand, but many of us look to the eyes of young people — doesn't matter about color, doesn't matter about the things people assume. This is not a race issue, in and of itself. This is a human issue. …

And if you're honest and you're true, you can't help but look at other people and look at situations and say, "But by the grace of God go you — and me." That's what I saw. ... I've met too many men in the last four days, five days, of every age. And no matter how old we are, we all remember and know that that is us, in some shape, form or fashion.

Because when I get pulled over, even with my credentialed and degreed ... self, I revert back to that 18-year-old and the things that my father told me about what to do when the police stop you.

On events in Ferguson touching a nerve

I am not alone. It's that way for all of us, because that is the human nature that we live. That is us. If it's not touching you, if it's not personal, that's where there's a problem.

On Johnson's father's concern for his safety

It's an intergenerational thing: to know that my father fears for me at 39 the same way he feared for me at 18 today. He texts me every morning and says, "I'm praying for you. Do what you've got to do, but be careful." He shouldn't have to say that, and I shouldn't have to say that and feel that way for my son or my daughter — or anyone's son or daughter. We want the cycle to stop.




http://www.nationaljournal.com/congress/how-congress-helped-create-ferguson-s-militarized-police-20140814

How Congress Helped Create Ferguson’s Militarized Police
It all goes back to 1990
By Emma Roller
August 14, 2014

Since 2006, the Pentagon has distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It has also doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 assault rifles.

As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.

This is despite the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has steadily plummeted since 1993. Between 1993 and 2012, the violent-crime rate dropped by nearly 50 percent.

Yet today, local police—in cities and small towns across the country—are increasingly loaded for bear. How did this militarization of the police force come about? It all seems to have started with an obscure section in a defense bill passed more than 20 years ago.

In 1990, Congress passed a National Defense Authorization Act with a clause allowing the "transfer of excess personal property" from the Defense Department to local law enforcement—otherwise known asSection 1208. The clause was included in response to the surge of violent crime and the War on Drugs in the late 1980s. (It's worth noting that at the time, both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats.)

Here's the full language of the Section 1208:

SEC 1208. TRANSFER OF EXCESS PERSONAL PROPERTY
(a) TRANSFER AUTHORIZED.—

(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law and subject to subsection (b), the Secretary of Defense may transfer to Federal and State agencies personal property of the Department of Defense, including small arms and ammunition, that the Secretary determines is—

(A) suitable for use by such agencies in counter-drug activities; and

(B) excess to the needs of the Department of Defense.

(2) Personal property transferred under this section may be transferred without cost to the recipient agency.

(3) The Secretary shall carry out this section in consultation with the Attorney General and the Director of National Drug Control Policy.

(b) CONDITIONS FOR TRANSFER.—The Secretary may transfer personal property under this section only if—

(1) the property is drawn from existing stocks of the Department of Defense; and

(2) the transfer is made without the expenditure of any funds available to the Department of Defense for the procurement of defense equipment.

(c) APPLICATION.—The authority of the Secretary to transfer personal property under this section shall expire on September 30, 1992.

The transfer program does not foist armored vehicles upon local precincts—as The Times explains, "the pace of transfers depends on how much unneeded equipment the military has, and how much the police request." And for local police departments with tight budgets, the free gear can be a welcome windfall. But it can also mean a disproportionately armored police force in a town of, say, 21,000.

The Pentagon's transfer program may have been a direct outgrowth of the War on Drugs, but as Alec MacGillis wrote in The New Republic on Thursday, it's not the only cause of heightened police militarization. The terrorist attacks of 9/11 led to a heightened state of security in the U.S., and that has trickled down to local law enforcement.

On a national level, the current Congress may be expected to reverse the actions of 1990. On Thursday, Sen. Rand Paul wrote a column in Time chastising the use of excessive force in Ferguson. "There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response," he wrote. "The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action."

Paul's colleagues across the aisle share that concern. "This is America, not a war zone," Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted on Thursday. "The people of #Ferguson just want answers. We all want answers."

"Together, we should all mourn the loss of life in Ferguson, Missouri and work to keep our communities safe and free," Sen. Ted Cruz wrote in a Facebook post. "Police officers risk their lives every day to keep us safe, and any time a young man loses his life in a confrontation with law enforcement, it is tragic."

We still don't know all the details of what happened Sunday night between a Ferguson police officer and 18-year-old Michael Brown. What we do know is that the police response has made the safety of its own forces a No. 1 priority.

Back in June, a Missouri police captain told The Times that civilians should be fine with police militarization, so long as it means their public servants are being kept safe. "When you explain that you're preparing for something that may never happen, they get it," the captain, Tiger Parsons, said at the time.

But as tear-gas canisters and rubber bullets rain down on Ferguson's residents, they may be less than understanding about the excess of caution the police are using to protect their own.






http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2014/08/militarization-police-force-ferguson-congress

Two Months Ago, Congress Had a Chance to Help Prevent the Escalating Militarization of Police
by Zaid Jilani
August 15, 2014

As protesters around the country march in solidarity with the people of Ferguson, Missouri, politicians and the media are suddenly railing against the long-developing militarization of the American police force. But a revealing vote this past June shows just how uphill the battle is to stop the trend of turning police into soldiers. On June 19, progressive House Democrat Alan Grayson (FL) offered an amendment to the defense appropriations bill that would block the “transfer” of “aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles” from the Department of Defense to state and local police forces.

The amendment attracted the support of only 62 members, while 355 voted against it (14 didn’t vote). Included among those voting against it was Rep. William Lacy Clay (D), who represents Ferguson. Clay was joined by every senior member of the Democratic Party leadership team, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi (CA), Steny Hoyer (MD), and Assistant Democratic Leader James Clyburn (SC). Democrats did form the bulk of support for the amendment (with 43 votes in favor), with 19 Republicans supporting as well—led by libertarian-conservative Rep. Justin Amash (MI), who lamented that “military-grade equipment . . . shouldn’t be used on the street by state and local police” on his Facebook page.

Why was there such tremendous opposition to the Grayson-Amash effort? Two very powerful constituencies in Congress may be to blame: the defense industry, and the police lobby.

Take Rep. Clay. He has been all over the news media calling for justice in his district, and demanding an investigation of Brown’s death. Yet like every House member, he is up for re-election every two years, and his fourth-largest donor is the political action committee of the weapons maker Boeing.

The initial protests within Ferguson itself—prompted by the police killing of an unarmed black teenager named Michael Brown—were met with heavy-handed tactics by cops, including large deployments of tear gas, rubber bullets, and the arresting of journalists. This is hardly a new development. Although the aggressive tactics have taken much of the country by surprise, the groundwork for this moment was a long time coming. Congress has been a willing participant in the arming of the police for years now, and the man most responsible for this trend graduated from Congress to the executive branch: Vice President Joe Biden.

Biden was the author of the 1994 crime bill, which vastly increased the numbers of police on the streets, eliminated Pell grant access for prisoners, expanded the death penalty, and strongly increased Border Patrol presence. This criminalization and militarization of Americans’ public-safety concerns has continued under President Obama. As Radley Balko writes, the Obama administration has increased the budget for Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) and Byrne grants, both of which finance local police departments in their efforts to wage heavy-handed drug and crime war operations.

All of this provides a windfall for both security and arms companies and police departments, who are often enormous spenders against reforms that would curtail the militarization of public safety. Hoyer is one of the two members who have received thousands of dollars from the National Fraternal Order of Police (F.O.P.) in this campaign cycle. As tensions continued to mount in Ferguson, F.O.P.’s executive director Jim Pasco defended the militarization of police officers. “All police are doing is taking advantage of the advances of technology in terms of surveillance, in terms of communication and in terms of protective equipment that are available to criminals on the street,” Pasco told The Hill on Thursday.

And the newest frontier in this fight will be in the skies. This past summer, I was part of a group advising the New York State Senate on regulations for unmanned aerial vehicles (U.A.V.s). I was told time and time again that lawmakers don’t want to add any additional regulations for their use by police. One of the explanations offered was that the U.A.V.s themselves were being manufactured in central New York, and they were hoping that only lightly regulating their use would allow them to be an economic engine. Just as American communities have built economies on prisons, they may soon be building them on drones, many of which will likely land in the hands of police departments.

In the face of all this, some lawmakers are still trying to rein in the police. Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) has introduced a new bill to limit military transfers to the police. Whether it succeeds this time will likely be dependent on the voices of those in Ferguson and elsewhere. We’ll see if they’re loud enough to drown out the lobbyists.

The Conflict Raging Within The Republican Party Today


I have been concerned about certain trends in the ultraconservative wing of the Republican Party for a couple of decades. I have noticed that there are Republicans who are pulling back from those people, especially after the government shutdown last year. Senator John McCain is too honest and too intelligent to be afraid of them. He can verbally defend himself, and many Americans like him. I don't think he is likely to get voted out by the Tea Party. The following article about the stresses in the party is long, but very good. I have not quoted all of it, just the most immediately applicable parts to today's situation. I suggest you read it in its complete form. My favorite quotations from the article are: "Sex that doesn't produce people is deviate." by Montana state Rep. Dave Hagstrom and "It is not our job to see that anyone gets an education." by Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Reynolds. See this website for the whole article.



http://www.nationaljournal.com/washington-inside-out/what-happens-when-extremism-becomes-mainstream-20140723

The Existential Battle For The Soul Of The GOP
By Norm Ornstein
What happens when extremism becomes mainstream?
July 23, 2014

The most interesting, and important, dynamic in American politics today is the existential struggle going on in the Republican Party between the establishment and the insurgents—or to be more accurate, between the hard-line bedrock conservatives (there are only trace elements of the old-line center-right bloc, much less moderates) and the radicals.

Of course, tugs-of-war between establishment forces and ideological wings are nothing new with our political parties. They have been a continuing factor for many decades. The Republican Party had deep-seated struggles between its Progressive wing, led by Teddy Roosevelt and Robert La Follette, and its conservative establishment, led by William Howard Taft and House Speaker "Uncle Joe" Cannon, going back to the turn of the 20th century.... The Progressives succeeded in stripping Speaker Cannon of his dictatorial powers in 1910, and TR's willingness to bolt the GOP and run in 1912 as a Progressive on the Bull Moose Party line killed Taft's chances of winning and elected Democrat Woodrow Wilson.

And, of course, the insurgents' struggles continued through Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Reagan first moved into national politics in 1968, with an abortive challenge to centrist Richard Nixon, who won and governed in the middle on domestic policy, promoting liberal social policies on welfare and health reform. Reagan reemerged in 1976, and his foray against centrist President Ford cost Ford the election—but Reagan's own election as president in 1980 led to an era of relatively pragmatic center-right policy-making. At the same time, however, the ongoing regional changes in the country were eliminating the bases of moderate and liberal Republicans and moving the GOP center of gravity to a lily-white and hard-line base in the South and rural West.

Democrats have had their own battles. The radical populist William Jennings Bryan won control (and lost the White House three times) around the turn of the century. But the victory of the establishment with Woodrow Wilson ushered in an era of relative calm. However, a Democratic Party built on two disparate wings—Southern rural conservatives determined to maintain segregation, Northern urban liberals determined to deploy and maintain the New Deal—had an uneasy alliance that enabled the party to keep a hammerlock on Congress for decades but began to unravel in the 1960s with the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.

A more turbulent schism developed in the 1970s, when the antiwar and antiestablishment liberal wing led by Eugene McCarthy and George McGovern fought the establishment of Lyndon Johnson, Hubert Humphrey, and Richard Daley, with a bloody confrontation in Chicago in 1968, McGovern's short-lived triumph in 1972, and a resurgent liberal movement in the Watergate elections of 1974. The liberal wing resisted many of the policies of Jimmy Carter; the liberal challenge of Edward M. Kennedy to Carter in 1980 helped to doom his reelection chances. But more consecutive presidential losses in 1980, 1984, and 1988 by liberals Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis moved the party in a more pragmatic direction with the Clinton era—Bill Clinton having been a moderate governor of Arkansas and the leader of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council.

Clinton's election in 1992 moved the Democrats firmly to the center on previously divisive issues like welfare and crime. But it also provided the impetus for the forces that have led to the current Republican problem. These forces were built in part around insurgent Newt Gingrich's plans to overturn the Democratic 38-year hegemony in Congress, and in part around a ruthlessly pragmatic decision by GOP leaders and political strategists to hamper the popular Clinton by delegitimizing him and using the post-Watergate flowering of independent counsels to push for multiple crippling investigations of wrongdoing (to be sure, he gave them a little help along the way). No one was more adroit at using ethics investigations to demonize opponents than Newt. In 1994, Gingrich recruited a passel of more radical candidates for Congress, who ran on a path to overturn most of the welfare state and who themselves demonized Congress and Washington. At a time of rising populist anger—and some disillusionment on the left with Clinton—the approach worked like a charm, giving the GOP its first majority in the House in 40 years, and changing the face of Congress for decades to come.

Newt's strategy and tactics were abetted and amplified by the new force of political talk radio, which had been activated by the disastrous federal pay raise in 1989-90, and of tribal cable television news. As Sean Theriault details in his book The Gingrich Senators, many of Newt's progeny moved on to the Senate and began to change it from an old club into a new forum for tribal warfare. Move on through right-wing frustration with George W. Bush's combination of compassionate conservatism and unfunded social policy (and wars) and then the election of Barack Obama, and the ingredients for a rise of radicalism and a more explosive intra-party struggle were set. They were expanded again with the eager efforts in 2010 of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Young Guns (Eric Cantor, Kevin McCarthy, and Paul Ryan) to exploit the deep populist right-wing anger at the financial collapse and the bailouts of 2008 and 2009 by inciting the tea-party movement. But their expectation that they could then co-opt these insurgents backfired badly.

A lot of history to get to the point. What began as a ruthlessly pragmatic, take-no-prisoners parliamentary style opposition to Obama was linked to constant efforts to delegitimize his presidency, first by saying he was not born in the U.S., then by calling him a tyrant trying to turn the country into a Socialist or Communist paradise. These efforts were not condemned vigorously by party leaders in and out of office, but were instead deflected or encouraged, helping to create a monster: a large, vigorous radical movement that now has large numbers of adherents and true believers in office and in state party leadership. This movement has contempt for establishment Republican leaders and the money to go along with its beliefs. Local and national talk radio, blogs, and other social media take their messages and reinforce them for more and more Americans who get their information from these sources. One result is that even today, a Rasmussen survey shows that 23 percent of Americans still believe Obama is not an American, while an additional 17 percent are not sure. Forty percent of Americans! This is no longer a fringe view.

As for the radicals in elected office or in control of party organs, consider a small sampling of comments:

"Sex that doesn't produce people is deviate." —Montana state Rep. Dave Hagstrom.

"It is not our job to see that anyone gets an education." —Oklahoma state Rep. Mike Reynolds.

"I hear you loud and clear, Barack Obama. You don't represent the country that I grew up with. And your values is not going to save us. We're going to take this country back for the Lord. We're going to try to take this country back for conservatism. And we're not going to allow minorities to run roughshod over what you people believe in!" —Arkansas state Sen. Jason Rapert, at a tea-party rally.

President Obama has "become a dictator" and needs to face the consequences of his executive actions, "whether that's removal from office, whether that's impeachment." —Iowa state Sen. (and U.S. Senate candidate) Jodi Ernst, one of a slew of elected officials calling for impeachment or at least putting it front and center.

"I don't want to get into the debate about climate change. But I'll simply point out that I think in academia we all agree that the temperature on Mars is exactly as it is here. Nobody will dispute that. Yet there are no coal mines on Mars. There's no factories on Mars that I'm aware of." —Kentucky state Sen. Brandon Smith (fact-check: the average temperature on Mars is -81 degrees).

"Although Islam had a religious component, it is much more than a simple religious ideology. It is a complete geo-political structure and, as such, does not deserve First Amendment protections." —Georgia congressional candidate Jody Hice.

"Slavery and abortion are the two most horrendous things this country has done, but when you think about the immorality of wild, lavish spending on our generation and forcing future generations to do without essentials just so we can live lavishly now, it's pretty immoral." —U.S. Rep. Louie Gohmert of Texas.

"God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the big-bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior." —U.S. Rep. (and M.D.) Paul Broun of Georgia.

"Now I don't assert where he [Obama] was born, I will just tell you that we are all certain that he was not raised with an American experience. So these things that beat in our hearts when we hear the National Anthem and when we say the Pledge of Allegiance doesn't beat the same for him." —U.S. Rep. Steve King of Iowa.

As for the party leaders, consider some of the things that are now part of the official Texas Republican Party platform, as highlighted by The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg:

That the Texas Legislature should "ignore, oppose, refuse, and nullify" federal laws it doesn't like.

That when it comes to "unelected bureaucrats" (meaning, Hertzberg notes, almost the entire federal workforce), Congress should "defund and abolish these positions."

That all federal "enforcement activities" in Texas "must be conducted under the auspices of the county sheriff with jurisdiction in that county." (That would leave the FBI, air marshals, immigration officials, DEA personnel, and so on subordinate to the Texas versions of Sheriff Joe Arpaio.)

That "the Voting Rights Act of 1965, codified and updated in 1973, be repealed and not reauthorized."

That the U.S. withdraw from the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organization, and the World Bank.

That governments at all levels should "ignore any plea for money to fund global climate change or 'climate justice' initiatives."

That "all adult citizens should have the legal right to conscientiously choose which vaccines are administered to themselves, or their minor children, without penalty for refusing a vaccine.

That "no level of government shall regulate either the ownership or possession of firearms." (Period, no exceptions.)

Texas, of course, may be an outlier. But the Maine Republican Party adopted a platform that called for the abolition of the Federal Reserve, called global warming a myth, and demanded an investigation of "collusion between government and industry" in perpetrating that myth. It also called for resistance to "efforts to create a one world government." And the Benton County, Ark., Republican Party said in its newsletter, "The 2nd Amendment means nothing unless those in power believe you would have no problem simply walking up and shooting them if they got too far out of line and stopped responding as representatives."

One might argue that these quotes are highly selective—but they are only a tiny sampling (not a single one from Michele Bachmann, only one from Gohmert!). Importantly, almost none were countered by party officials or legislative leaders, nor were the individuals quoted reprimanded in any way. What used to be widely seen as loony is now broadly accepted or tolerated.

I am not suggesting that the lunatics or extremists have won. Most Republicans in the Senate are not, to use John McCain's term, "wacko birds," and most Republicans in office would at least privately cringe at some of the wild ideas and extreme views. At the same time, the "establishment" is fighting back, pouring resources into primaries to protect their preferred candidates, and we are seeing the rise of a new and encouraging movement among conservative intellectuals—dubbed "Reformicons" by E.J. Dionne—to come up with a new set of ideas and policy prescriptions to redefine the ideology and the party in a positive way.

But there is a darker reality. Many of the "preferred" candidates—including Ernst as well as James Lankford in Oklahoma and Jack Kingston in Georgia—are anything but pragmatic. 

A few years ago, they would have been labeled hard-liners. (Kingston, a favorite of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, was beaten in the Senate primary Tuesday by businessman David Perdue, who has said he would not vote for Mitch McConnell as party leader in the Senate.) It is a measure of the nature of this intra-party struggle that the mainstream is now on the hard right, and that it is close to apostasy to say that Obama is legitimate, that climate change is real, that background checks on guns are desirable, or even that the Common Core is a good idea. When we see presumably sane figures like Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal shamelessly pander to the extremists, it tells us where the center of gravity in the GOP primary base, at least, is set. Of course, there are still courageous mainstream figures like Jeb Bush who are willing to deviate from the new orthodoxy, and it is possible that he can run and get the Republican presidential nomination, win the White House, and begin the process of recalibration.

But when one looks at the state of Republican public opinion (especially among the likely caucus and primary voters), at the consistent and persistent messages coming from the information sources they follow, and at the supine nature of congressional leaders and business leaders in countering extremism, it is not at all likely that what passes for mainstream, problem-solving conservatism will dominate the Republican Party anytime soon.

This article appears in the July 24, 2014 edition of NJ Daily as Mainstream Extremism.