I went to the Foodopoly book event last night in San Francisco, and the audience was what you would associate with the city of San Francisco. Definitely "counter-culture" and progressive, as is the author herself, though she inherited a family farm (purchased by her father) in Virginia (less than an hour away from D.C.).

Some "liberals" and "conservatives" may agree that forming tactical alliances spanning the "political spectrum" in order implement change that is in accordance with localism and agrarianism is the political option to pursue. (The author, Wenonah Hauter, would probably agree, though she would also advocate a grassroots populist movement to get change done at the national level as well.) But are there other strategies that traditionalists should consider? Do they have to stay in one place, when their ties to it are so few and they are surrounded by people who have a different culture? If they have a duty to stay or no other choice, then they have to make the best out of their situation. But what real community can they have with those who are opposed to them on other questions of morals and see them as being intolerant and bigoted?

Can we get beyond the power play, acting as if life were a big competition or struggle between different groups? Do traditionalists have an alternative? Their solution may differ from those who believe might is right or the devout adherents of liberalism, but we shouldn't be so naive as to think that we differ only because of honest mistakes.

For dinner I tried a Let's be Frank hot dog at Gott's. It tastes very different from your normal hot dog and even the packaged grass-fed beef ones at Whole Foods, and I thought it was quite good. Is a package of dogs worth the price?

Four ways the local food movement is transforming race relations in America