tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-49727111320144537342024-02-19T01:04:55.575-05:00Chickens of Mass DestructionWhere food and agriculture intersect with politics, ecology, and community.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-38540563530237579402012-03-07T12:01:00.000-05:002012-03-07T12:21:09.779-05:00Announcing My New Blog: Graceful DeclineWhen I started the blog <a href="http://chickensofmassdestruction.blogspot.com/">Chickens of Mass Destruction</a>,
the title was mostly whimsical, a play, in case you haven't figured it
out, on the phrase "weapons of mass destruction." (That phrase itself
turned out to be the biggest WMD, leading as it did to a great deal of
destruction over the last 8 years.)<br />
<br />
My whimsical twist
on the phrase encompassed the interests I wanted to write about: food
and agriculture, ecology, and politics. There was contained therein the
idea that a simple thing like backyard chickens, and the local food
movement in general, could also constitute a threat, albeit a gentle and
ethical one, to the industrial capitalist system.<br />
<br />
With this post I inaugurate a spin-off blog, <a href="http://gracefuldecline.blogspot.com/">Graceful Decline</a>.
Here I hope to explore the broader political, social, and ecological
questions around the decline and fall of the American empire. I'll
reserve CMD for food and agriculture issues. Of course these things are
all related, so there may be some more cross-posting between the two.<br />
<br />
At least some of the time, I will be using John Michael Greer's excellent blog, <a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/">the Archdruid Report</a>,
as a launching point. For the last 6 years he has been laying out a
feast for the cerebral cortex, making a strong case that peak oil will
spell the end of our civilization, and presenting a sober projection of
life after cheap energy.<br />
<br />
For Greer it is neither zombie
apocalypse nor utopian deliverance, but a middle road of hard choices,
hard work, and muddling through as the gargantuan system of complexity
we all depend on crumbles. His ideas are steeped in the physical
sciences, particularly the limits imposed by ecology and the laws of
thermodynamics. He also has a large following of commentators, with
interesting insights of their own. Anyone who wants to understand what I
am attempting to do here should definitely read the ADR archives, or
pick up one of Greer's <a href="http://tinyurl.com/6rdf7q4">books</a>. Those that deal with peak oil-related issues are like a distillation of his blog.<br />
<br />
In
looking at the nature of the empire that the US has built I am also
informed by the thinking of Howard Zinn, especially his alternative
history classic <i>A People's History of the United States. </i>It has
its limitations to be sure, but for understanding the dynamics of power
in a capitalist democracy it is compelling and useful. Demagogy,
distraction, and divide-and-conquer were favorite tools of the founders,
and they are still the mainstays of American politics on all fronts.<br />
<br />
I
look around and see a system that is committed to growth on a planet of
limited capacity. It's like watching a runaway locomotive headed for a
sheer drop, and all I can offer is my tiny voice. Please join the
discussion, link, share. Add to my voice or try to neutralize it as you
see fit...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-11683994617949720812012-02-15T13:34:00.000-05:002012-03-07T12:04:19.308-05:00Civil Authority<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: left;">
I saw this video <a href="http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2012/2/12/wisconsins-datcp-turns-up-pressure-on-vernon-hershberger-mn.html">here</a>. This is Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) agent Jackie Owens attempting to carry out an inspection at the farm of Vernon Herschberger. Like Dan Allgyer in Pennsylvania, Herschberger is in the middle of the national debate over raw milk. In some ways their cases are very similar.</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<br /></div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
</div>
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<iframe allowfullscreen='allowfullscreen' webkitallowfullscreen='webkitallowfullscreen' mozallowfullscreen='mozallowfullscreen' width='320' height='266' src='https://www.youtube.com/embed/Y4uoeR3XuCY?feature=player_embedded' frameborder='0'></iframe></div>
<br />
One thing that struck me in watching this video was the civility of the proceedings. While Ms. Owens was clearly frustrated and exasperated that the Hershbergers were not cooperative, she never lost her cool. She did a good job playing the good cop.<br />
<br />
This civility was noted in the blog and comments, with various political spins attached, but I want to look at it from a different perspective. (And let's also leave aside the fact that this interaction was recorded, and how that may have changed her demeanor.)<br />
<br />
<b>If this is how regulators act when investigating a relatively powerless independent farmer, how do they act toward the big players? Is civil authority sometimes too civil?</b><br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
What if Ms. Owens were investigating, say, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dean_Foods">Dean Foods</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ConAgra_Foods" target="_blank">ConAgra</a>, or <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monsanto" target="_blank">Monsanto</a>? Of course she would probably get lunch, maybe cocktails. She would meet with someone who was paid to know not only all the right lawyer-vetted things to say, but how to schmooze and flatter. She would get assurances of full cooperation ("Have your lawyer call my lawyer next Tuesday..."). Who could blame her for coming away with a better impression, emotionally if not intellectually?<br />
<br />
Even if she was meeting with a farmer-supplier to one of these giants, she would still get a nice glossy brochure and assurances of corporate back-up, which if things escalated might lead to lunch and schmoozing but probably not to confrontation and open defiance.<br />
<br />
You've probably heard the metaphor of the fox guarding the hen house. Well, this is more like<b> the sheepdog running with the wolf pack.</b> It is common enough in government-business relations to have a sober academic title: <b>agency capture </b>(aka <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture" target="_blank">regulatory capture</a>). It leads to the culture of <b>complacency, collusion, and neglect</b> that has been blamed for oil spills, mine collapses, and other industrial calamities over the years. It also leads to, and results from, the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolving_door_%28politics%29" target="_blank">revolving door</a> that turns hen house guards into foxes and vice-versa.<br />
<br />
Of course it doesn't start in the workplace. As surely as the pamphlets in a urologist's office are published by the makers of Viagra®, <a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2011/02/universities-corporate-influence-and.html" target="_blank">industry has its hands</a> in the <a href="http://www.organicconsumers.org/corp/industrial_agriculture.cfm" target="_blank">relevant departments</a> of colleges and universities, trying to win the hearts and minds of tomorrow's regulators. Some effort starts <a href="http://reclaimdemocracy.org/weekly_article/corporate_influence_education_kohn.html" target="_blank">before that</a> too, but the concentrated targeting fits well with the specialization of higher education.<br />
<br />
The regulators and the largest companies in the industries they are supposed to regulate, then, are on the same team. They may have their internal squabbles, but when it comes to competition for dollars or public opinion they pull together. Small independent producers are the competition. They don't have enough power or influence to buy their way into the club, so they must stay out of the way or face the consequences.<br />
<br />
The way to change that is the same way anything has ever really changed in this country, through grassroots activism, demonstrations, boycotts, and civil disobedience. For more info visit <a href="http://rawmilkfreedomriders.wordpress.com/">http://rawmilkfreedomriders.wordpress.com/</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-19883979373139591332012-02-13T15:15:00.000-05:002012-02-15T13:37:44.580-05:00A Year and a Day, Give or TakeWow, has it been that long? Funny how time flies and projects like this get pushed to the sidelines as the focus shifts. Funny too how things come full circle in the fullness of time.<br />
<br />
The past few days have brought a couple events that have spurred me to once again take up the proverbial pen and jot down some notes here for your consideration. Also, I plan to get some focus in this blog by narrowing it down to food and agricultural issues.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a><br /><br />
<h3>
Consulting the Archdruid</h3>
<br />
Last week saw something of an inflection point over at <a href="http://www.blogger.com/thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com">the Archdruid Report</a>, a blog that has given me much food for thought over the last couple of years. In at least three ways the ADR is the diametric opposite of CMD: It is regular (published weekly), has a large and engaged readership, and has an overarching theme (the various implications of peak oil). <br />
<br />
Within this theme, the ADR has touched on a wild variety of subjects, from the failure of mainstream economics, to effective personal/local preparations for changing times (under the rubric of green wizardry), to the metaphysical dimensions of our current predicament. In his <a href="http://www.blogger.com/thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2012/02/looking-backward-looking-ahead.html">latest post</a>, author and archdruid John Michael Greer charts the course for the next series of posts, straight into the topic of the American Empire, and what we can expect on the world arena as said empire continues its inevitable decline.<br />
<br />
With this new trajectory of the ADR on the one hand, and the election year rhetoric casting more heat than light on the other, I feel it is an auspicious time for discourse on how to maintain civility, dignity, and liberty in a contracting civilization. Look for more on that in the coming days.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Food Fight Casualties</h3>
<br />
Almost two years ago I <a href="http://chickensofmassdestruction.blogspot.com/2010/04/pasture-vs-pasteur.html">blogged</a> on the plight of Pennsylvania farmer Dan Allgyer. He was under investigation by the FDA for, to put it in legal-like terms, the alleged introduction of unpasteurized dairy products, packaged for human consumption, into interstate commerce. On February 2nd, 2012, a federal judge handed down a <a href="http://www.thecompletepatient.com/journal/2012/2/8/no-raw-milk-for-your-subterfuge-food-club-federal-judge-tell.html">permanent injunction</a> prohibiting Allgyer from sending his raw milk to a private group of customers in Maryland and the District of Columbia.<br />
<br />
To put it diplomatically, this is very disappointing to those of us who favor informed consumer choice, profitable small-scale agriculture, and sustainability. To put it bluntly, this is a crock of s#!+. As far as I know, this investigation and prosecution did not stem from any legitimate consumer complaints. It is part of a concerted, and expensive, campaign (dare I say witchhunt?) by the FDA to crack down on the rising popularity of raw milk. Is it for the benefit of public health or corporate bottom line? I leave it to you, dear reader, to investigate and make your own judgment. Here are a couple more links in case I haven't made my position clear:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/">http://www.farmtoconsumer.org/</a><br />
<br />
<a href="http://farmfoodfreedom.org/">http://farmfoodfreedom.org/</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-9548024903240243962011-02-10T10:23:00.001-05:002011-02-22T12:40:27.894-05:00Hunger Money<a href="http://www.morungexpress.com/leftwing/61757.html">Rising food prices</a> are one of the main driving forces behind unrest in Egypt. At the same time, drought conditions in China promise to <a href="http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2011/02/09/am-drought-in-china-threatens-global-wheat-supply/">wreak havoc</a> with global wheat supplies.<br />
<br />
It seems like bad news doesn't it? But then again, if you're a commodities trader or an executive or stockholder with a food conglomerate, you're probably <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23079">making a lot of money right now</a>.<br />
<br />
If there is any justice in the world, ADM, Goldman Sachs, and all the rest of the hunger profiteers (privateers?), must cease and desist this kind of harmful speculation.<br />
<br />
Furthermore they should surrender their hunger profits to help fund sustainable local food programs around the world.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-15305948607593812562011-02-04T12:20:00.000-05:002011-02-04T12:20:39.804-05:00Fun with Yahoo! Answers Part IIIOkay, this is the last installment of my Yahoo! Answers for the moment. I might make it a regular feature, and also post things I've typed elsewhere in food-related discussions.<br />
<br />
An interesting thing about Yahoo! Answers is that it discourages the kind of long threads and back-and-forth debate that happens in other web media. You can only answer a question once (though you can edit your answer). Overall, there are many more limitations on open debate. I don't think this is necessarily good or bad, just different and, for the moment at least, interesting.<br />
<br />
So here's a few more:<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
<b>Q: Do large men in their 50's eat whole new potatoes?</b><br />
<br />
<b>A: </b>I'm sure I've seen it happen myself. YMMV.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 0 Up; 0 Down<br />
<br />
[ There were some other fun responses to this:<br />
<blockquote>"No, only new people are allowed to eat new potatoes. Once you hit 50 you're no longer considered new." (2 Up; 0 down)</blockquote><blockquote>"Once we hit 50 we only eat old potatoes." (4 Up; 0 Down)]</blockquote><br />
<b>Q</b>: <b>Why do so many in this section insist that 'meat causes cancer' when....?</b><br />
<div class="content">...it's been shown over and over that only large scale consumption of red meat is carcinogenic? Why don't you guys mention poultry has zero effect, and fish has turned out to prevent or slow cancer in dietary studies? <br />
I ask after a fat vegetarian acquaintance of mine told me my steak would give me bowel cancer while she sat there drinking half a bottle of wine with her chocolate cake (alcohol is WAY more carcinogenic, as are high GI foods, and extra body fat.) Ignorance, hypocrisy or a little lie to stop animal murder?</div><br />
<b>A: </b>Because they all read the same veggie propaganda.<br />
<br />
Back when I self-identified as vegetarian (and aspired to be vegan), I thought it was nifty that there were at least three strong arguments for it: ethics, ecology, and health. Now I realize that ethics is the only valid reason, the others are based on faulty assumptions and very selective reading of the very imperfect research record in order to fit a particular position. Even with the ethics part, when I followed through and stayed consistent I concluded that it was possible to be an ethical omnivore. Life eats life, and why should my heart bleed more for a steer than for a carrot?<br />
<br />
I also formerly bought into the whole John Robbins idea of the Truth -vs- the Evil Meat/Dairy/Egg Lobby. The fact is that the soy-corn lobby is many times bigger and more powerful, and pretty much owns the whole industrial food system. I'm not saying that Robbins is an industry shill, just that the industry does benefit overall from the crusading spirit of people like him. They make a heck of a lot more money processing cheap oil-subsidized commodity crops into the lifeless crap that passes for food than they lose from a few people eating lower on the food chain.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 1 Up; 0 Down<br />
<br />
<b>Q: Why do i get sick every time i eat barbecue?</b><br />
<div class="content">Every time i eat barbecue i get sick.Whether it be a large headache or vomiting.I have had this experience more than five times each a different restaurant.Ive eaten pulled pork and beef brisket from places like bonos,sonys, and the last time was firehouse subs.Can anyone help me out on this matter.I really enjoyed the firehouse beef brisket sub and i want another one but not at the expense of the hospital.</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>A: </b>I guess you really like barbecue! Sounds like a reaction to something in the sauce, maybe MSG? If you get the same reaction from a bag of Cool Ranch Doritos that's probably it. Ask if they use it, though they may not know, and MSG can be labeled as "natural flavor." You could also learn to make your own barbecue with a nice cut of meat and sauce from scratch. It will be so much better!</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content">Thumbs: 0 Up; 3 Down</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>Q: To non vegetarians here: can you go one meal without eating meat?</b> <br />
<div class="content">I've read people who bitched about a vegan wedding reception, bitched about not eating meat at a vegetarian friend's house, bitched bitched bitched.<br />
So: can you go one meal without eating meat, or is it just soooo terrible?</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>A: </b>Sure, I do most of the time. But I was vegetarian for some years before I decided to put meat back into my diet deliberately. I usually have some dairy in my meals, but sometimes they're completely vegan.<br />
<br />
I think some omnivores are ill-informed about how much they *need* to eat meat, but I also think sometimes they feel threatened and judged by vegetarians and tend to lash back a bit. Also there is the basic "comfort food" thing that goes beyond rational thought, and if you're used to having meat with every meal it can be unsettling to have "something missing." It would be like a health-conscious vegetarian eating just a roll because everything else has meat in it. I know, it happens all the time, but it's not fun, is it?</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content">Thumbs: 2 Up; 2 Down </div></div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-28356046021754325462011-02-04T09:46:00.003-05:002011-02-04T10:39:43.202-05:00Fun with Yahoo! Answers Part IISee the background <a href="http://chickensofmassdestruction.blogspot.com/2011/02/fun-with-yahoo-answers-part-i.html">here</a>. Continuing off-the-cuff answers to all kinds of questions on the subject of vegetarianism and veganism on <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Answers</a>.<br />
<br />
<b>Q: My so likes tomato bacon soup. I want to be a vegetarian. Is there a substitute for the bacon that I can use?</b><br />
<div class="content">He isn't happy that I am choosing to be vegetarian. He said can't you just take out the bacon and eat the soup, but I said no, it permeates the tomato. I am more than happy to make this soup for him with the bacon because being a vegetarian is my choice and I won't tell anyone how to eat, but is there a substitute for the bacon that I can use in the future. I'll make a separate tomato soup without the bacon for myself. Btw-I am very happy deciding to be a vegetarian.<br />
</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>A: </b>Of course make sure you are making it for him freely and not out of obligation. If you feel any resentment whatsoever kindly ask him to make his own tomato bacon soup! My SO is vegetarian and doesn't usually cook meat for me, but doesn't mind if I do so for myself.<br />
<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>It sounds like he needs reassurance that you are not trying to "convert" him. That said there are plenty of fake bacon products out there (not as good as the real thing IMO! ;) <br />
<br />
I do think toasted sesame, sunflower, or pine nuts give a nice crunchy texture and flavor that I can say is enjoyed by this bacon-lover.<br />
</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content">Thumbs: 2 Up; 1 Down<br />
</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>Q: Can people with blood group A eat eggs?</b> <br />
<div class="content">i want to start the blood group diet and i just want to know what types of foods i can eat, and any ideas on a daily meal plan.<br />
</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>A: </b>Yes. (at least I can)<br />
<div class="content"><br />
The <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_type_diet">blood group diet</a> idea is at best controversial. But if it works for you, go for it!</div><div class="reference"><br />
</div></div></div>Thumbs: 1 Up; 1 Down<br />
<br />
<b>Q:</b> <b>What's the difference between being a vegetarian and a vegan?</b><br />
<br />
<b>A: </b>Veganism is a subset of vegetarianism. Both strive to minimize suffering of animals, mostly through dietary restrictions. Both also claim their practices to be healthier for the practitioners and the environment, but these claims are more arguable. The main difference is that vegetarians avoid parts of dead animals, while vegans add to this anything that is produced by an animal for its own purposes, such as eggs, milk, honey, and beeswax.<br />
<br />
The earliest use of the term "vegetarian" in English is from the 1800's. The term "vegan" is more recent (from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veganism">wikipedia article</a>:)<br />
<br />
<blockquote>The British Vegan Society was founded on November 1, 1944 by Donald Watson and Elsie Shrigley to organize vegetarians who did not consume dairy or other animal products. Watson created the term "vegan"—pronounced "veegun" (/ˈviːɡən/), with the stress on the first syllable—by combining the first three and last two letters of vegetarian, which he saw as "the beginning and end of vegetarian."</blockquote>In common usage, many people identify themselves as "vegetarian" even if they eat shellfish, fish, or even poultry. The broadest consensus seems to be that if you eat the flesh of ungulates (beef, veal, pork, lamb, etc., aka "red meat") you are definitely not a vegetarian!<br />
<br />
IMO neither identity gives one the excuse to be self-righteous, unpleasant, or disrespectful of others' choices.<br />
<br />
Jim (definitely not a vegetarian)<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 0 Up; 0 Down<br />
<br />
<b>Q: How much protein do I need a day as a vegetarian and what food groups would I obtain that from?</b><br />
<br />
<b>A: </b>Protein deficiency is extremely rare in developed societies. The USDA says 45-55 grams, which is more than enough, and is easily met in a vegetarian diet that includes a variety of whole grains, legumes, and vegetables and sufficient calories. Throw in modest amounts of eggs and/or dairy and you have nothing to worry about.<br />
<br />
This is also an average daily recommendation, so it's okay if some days are low and others higher. Your body closely regulates blood amino acid levels. Unless your muscle mass is already very low, you would notice muscle loss over the course of weeks if your average protein was too low. You also <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rabbit_starvation">need some fat and vitamins A & D to absorb protein</a> (and calcium), which is why whole foods of all kinds are better than skimmed, refined, separated, or defatted foods.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 0 Up; 1 Down<br />
<br />
<b>Q</b>: <b>How to gently persuade your man to eat healthier?</b><br />
<div class="content">All my research has shown me that a vegetarian who consumes moderate to small amounts of fresh caught fish is the healthiest diet possible. I've been this way for over 2 years. I used to be a heavy meat eater until I was sick of feeling like crap and starting reading about nutrition, how are eating habits effect the environment, and the meat industry's treatment of animals. The guy I am with is heavy into lifting and eats terrible. He looks healthy, but his insides must be awful. His energy could be so much more and I am tempted to tell him his eating habits will drive him to impotency. Suggestions please...</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>A: </b>You say "all your research," but don't take it for granted. People heading down a vegetarian path often only see what confirms their beliefs. There is actually some robust dissent over what is the healthiest balanced diet, and humans are actually pretty adaptable. If you look at what traditional people eat all over the world you see a lot of whole foods including meats and vegetables. Processed refined crap that is the by-product of industrial society may be more of a factor than the popular meat/fat/cholesterol boogie-man.<br />
<br />
In other words, if he's eating meat and also eating balanced whole foods, he may be just fine. OTOH, if he's eating a lot of refined and junk food, encourage him to change that without an emphasis on the meat, and maybe have him look into ethically and naturally raised meat.</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content">Thumbs: 4 Up; 0 Down</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content"><b>Q:</b> <b>If vegetarians love animals so much,why do they eat their food?</b><br />
<br />
<b>A: </b>It might seem like a frivolous question, but everything we do, especially the way we produce food, displaces wildlife. In many cases a well-managed pasture is better for the environment, wild animals, and biodiversity, than a crop field bathed in poisons and fertilizers.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 0 Up; 1 Down<br />
<br />
<br />
</div><abbr title="2011-02-02 17:52:33 +0000"></abbr>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-63832147585925015702011-02-04T09:13:00.001-05:002011-02-04T09:49:27.589-05:00Fun with Yahoo! Answers Part IThis week I've been wasting time trolling the vegetarians over at <a href="http://answers.yahoo.com/">Yahoo! Answers</a>. Well at least that's what some of them probably think. I think I'm just offering broader perspectives. You see, as a former vegetarian I've read lots of the books, thought through many of the ethical dilemmas, and felt all self-righteous about the Truth of the Vegetarian Way. But I've reevaluated the evidence and come to different conclusions in more recent years.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br />
It all started when I visited the home page for one of my groups, which is food-related. At the bottom were links to some of the vegetarian/vegan questions. Since the group concerns grassfed meat and dairy, I found it a bit amusing that these kind of questions would come up. A few hyperlinks later, and I was on a roll, answering questions from the earnest to the ridiculous, and encouraging people to read something other than "Diet for a New America."<br />
<br />
Just so you know, Yahoo! Answers has a points-based reward system that can be a bit addictive. You have been warned! Now without further ado, here are some of the questions I found and my off-the-cuff (for me) answers:<br />
<br />
<b>Q: <span style="font-size: small;">What do you think of PETA saying that brain killing beer is healthier than tasty milk?</span></b><br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><br />
</span><br />
<div class="content"><b>A:</b> As a blanket statement it is ridiculous, but here is a bit of their rationale from <a href="http://www.peta.org/about/faq/What-was-the-rationale-behind-your-Got-Beer-Campaign.aspx">their website</a>:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>"By comparing milk and beer, our aim was not to promote beer-drinking. We made a point of stressing that PETA recommends juices, soy milk, and mineral water—even soda—over milk OR beer. We invoked beer simply to make the point that milk is so awful that even a glass of beer—certainly no health food—is a better choice than a glass of milk!"</blockquote><br />
There is good and bad milk, and good and bad beer. Most commercial beer is less nutritious than the traditional beer of Europe, and commercial milk is highly processed and adulterated. Of course if you are a diabetic with celiac milk is much healthier, but if you have serious milk allergies or intolerance then beer is better! Give me some unprocessed grass-fed milk for breakfast, and a nice rich homebrew for dinner! Most of my milk consumption is actually in the form of home-made yogurt and kefir, which are rich in probiotics and much better tolerated by most people.<br />
<br />
I also don't agree with many of the assumptions about fat and cholesterol that are used to argue against dairy products and animal products in general. There is tons of info on the web. There are healthy and sustainable ways to produce animal products, and of course there are unhealthy and unsustainable ways to produce plant products.<br />
<br />
Also, I would think PETA is aware that many beers, especially British beers, are clarified with animal products such as gelatin and isinglass, though that is not universal, and all German beer should be vegan by definition (most vegans don't consider consuming yeast, a fungus, to be a problem).</div><div class="content"></div><div class="content">Thumbs (as of this posting): 3 Up; 1 Down</div><br />
<br />
<b>Q: Anyone knows a milk free Indian diet?</b> (further info: wants to give up dairy for ethical reasons)<br />
<br />
<b>A:</b> I'm not Indian, but I know that the further south you go in India and SE Asia, the more coconuts take the place of dairy milk. There is, of course, coconut milk, which can also be fermented with yogurt culture, and coconut oil can be a substitute for butter or ghee. Coconut oil is closest to butter fat in having high levels of medium-chain fatty acids, especially lauric acid, which are anti-microbial and boost metabolism.<br />
<br />
Another option is to try to find a source of milk where you know the farmer and can approve of how they treat the animals, or even have your own cow.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 0 Up; 1 Down<br />
<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>Q: I'm interested in becoming a vegetarian </b>but my best friend says that I'll be lacking calcium, iron, protein and other nutrients that I would have make up for by taking nutritional supplements. How can I get started the right way and be worry-free?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;"><b>A:</b> </span>Hey, it probably won't hurt to try it out. Just stay well-informed, and IMO that means reading arguments on both sides. Yes, there are serious dissenters to the veg-is-better dogma, and they are not all paid shills of the meat and dairy industry. In fact most of them are against factory farming of animals and believe that smaller more traditional mixed farms produce better food, both animal and vegetable.<br />
<br />
There are no vitamins or minerals in flesh that can't be found in other foods. Regarding iron, if you are an adult male or post-menopausal female, you may actually have too much already. Otherwise, make sure you have plenty of whole eggs, leafy greens, and legumes. Whatever else you may say about dairy, it is a poor source of iron. (Most mammals have alternate means of transmitting iron from mother to fetus, and grazers like cows start eating grass immediately after birth.) <br />
<br />
Calcium absorption actually depends on fat-soluble vitamins, which naturally depend on fat, which shows that things aren't as simple as they appear in the nutritional news. <br />
<br />
Adults don't actually need very much protein, just a couple ounces per day, so that's really not as big a deal as is often thought. Protein absorption is also mediated by fat-soluble vitamins, and people eating a very low fat high protein diet can actually be protein-deficient for this reason.<br />
<br />
Vitamin B-12 is one to be aware of. If you eliminate dairy and eggs as well as meat you should supplement with B-12.<br />
<br />
Also, ask yourself why you are interested in going veg. If it is for health reasons, see above about being well-informed and entertaining various viewpoints. If it is for ethical reasons, that's fine, but you should follow through and be consistent. The commercial production of eggs and milk are on par with pork and chicken when it comes to cruelty. You might instead look into ethical sources for animal products.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-size: small;">Thumbs: 0 Up; 0 Down</span><br />
<br />
<b>Q: Vegans; what is wrong with eating honey?</b> Does it hurt the bees to take their honey? I know they work hard for it, but does it disrupt the hive that much?<br />
<br />
<b>A:</b> I'm actually interested in keeping bees and harvesting honey and beeswax. From what I've read, the conventional practices of beekeeping encourage the use of pesticides and medications, deterioration of the honeybee gene pool, and a lot of energy consumption. That is why I am interested in <a href="http://www.biobees.com/">top bar hives</a>, which give the bees more control, help them protect themselves from parasites and diseases, and allows harvest with less disruption to the hive.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 1 Up; 1 Down<br />
<br />
<b>Q: Should i become a vegetarian?</b> some of my closest friends r vegetarian and i went to the shops with my mum to get food and i said to her ' is there anything without meat?' and she said (in a really mean voice ' what!!?? r u becoming vegetarian' i want to become one but i dont know how to tell my mum or dad!!!<br />
they will think i am being stupid and just copying one of my friends ( because we have become reallyyy close lately :D )<br />
<br />
<b>A:</b> Your mom (sorry I'm American; "mum" is a flower ;) needs to get used to the idea and to know you are serious and well-informed. She probably also feels threatened and judged and wonders if you are trying to convert her too. Assure her that it is something important that you want to try for yourself, and that you are gathering as much information as you can on the subject.<br />
<br />
Don't just take your friends as authorities. Read materials both pro and con, and come to your own conclusion.<br />
<br />
Thumbs: 1 Up; 1 DownAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-16654982077732536292011-01-19T12:05:00.000-05:002011-01-19T12:05:39.330-05:00A New YearAfter a couple months off, I figure it's time to dust off the blog, even if I have nothing really important to say. The madness of the world goes on, but my attention has been on more personal matters. It's mid January, the days are getting longer, so my thoughts turn to gardening. What seeds do I need, and where will I get them? What preparation is needed in the garden, and what can I do now?<br />
<br />
Fortunately the winter has been moderate in terms of rain and snow, just a little on the cold side, so the soil is not a mudpit. Theoretically I could probably even plant peas right now, but I think I'll wait until March. Besides, the likely designated pea beds have not been dug.<br />
<br />
<a name='more'></a>I did get some prep done late in the fall. I rough-dug a thirteen foot diameter circular bed for a three sisters garden (based on the Native American practice of interplanting corn, beans, and squash). Those sisters will have a few cousins, as I included some dry seed heads of the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amaranthus_retroflexus">pigweed</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chenopodium_album">lamb's quarters</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dysphania_ambrosioides">epazote</a> that reseed themselves with great enthusiasm every year. As long as I don't let them take over, these deep-rooted tall annuals should help the less aggressive crop plants access deep water and nutrients, as well as providing tasty wild greens. The epazote should help repel squash bugs and bean beetles. Maybe some marigolds, basil, dill, etc., to attract pollintors and repel pests. There might be room to poke in a few pepper plants, which actually benefit from a little light shade in the Mid-Atlantic.<br />
<br />
I also constructed a quick-and-dirty cold frame out of three strawbales and a large (24"x36") pane of aquarium glass. Placed around some red Russian kale seedlings in late November, it has kept them perky and slowly growing through some unusual cold snaps (low teens in central MD in December is a bit unusual). Same kale out in the open is wilted and withered, though I think it might recover as the weather warms.<br />
<br />
Sometime before this past season, some bird or animal or postal worker planted a big old <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdock">burdock</a> plant in one of my fallow beds. As it is a biennial, it only grew a giant rosette of leaves this year. I decided to let it grow and flower this coming season, and I'll harvest some of the seeds to grow roots in 2012. Yes, I think we'll still be around through 2012, but we're in for some interesting times.<br />
<br />
And then there is my first and most consistent overwinter gardening enterprise: the garlic. Every year since we bought the house I've planted garlic in the fall for harvest in the early summer. Some years it's planted in mid October, one year as late as December 11. Some of the cloves I planted this November are direct descendents of that first garlic patch.<br />
<br />
So far this year, the time I would spend reading the news and blogs, getting p-o'd, and periodically blurting out a post of my own, time otherwise known as work--have I mentioned that my temp job pays little but affords me time to wait around for things genuinely work-like to happen? Anyway, for the last few weeks, instead of blogging or doing much of anything that would inspire me to blog, I've been shopping for seeds online. So far just window shopping, but it's been time well-spent in my opinion.<br />
<br />
I've pretty much decided that most of my seed purchases will be from the <a href="http://www.southernexposure.com/">Southern Exposure Seed Exchange</a>. I like their selection which emphasizes heirloom varieties adapted to the Mid-Atlantic region. They are based in the Charlottesville, VA area, and most of their offerings are grown and tested in their own fields. Another promising source is <a href="http://happycatorganics.com/">Happy Cat Organics</a>, with some interesting heirlooms from the Amish and Mennonite farmers and gardeners of Pennsylvania. I figure a little from the South, a little from the North, and I might have my bases covered whatever crazy weather comes our way!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-63737293285048355512010-11-25T06:27:00.000-05:002010-11-25T06:27:39.882-05:00What I'm Thankful For......with full orchestration and five-part harmony, and 27 8x10 color glossy photos with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.<br />
<br />
<br />
As iconic as turkey, cranberry sauce, and pumpkin pie is the epic 1967 "song" by Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant Massacree," better known simply as "Alice's Restaurant." It's a satirical retelling of how Guthrie avoided the draft and the Vietnam War by having a record for littering. The holiday rooted in Christian humility, enshrined as a national day of unity during the Civil War, became the perfect foil for a statement of protest and dissent.<br />
<br />
I'm thankful for this paradox, and many more.<br />
<br />
I am thankful that <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn">Howard Zinn</a> had the eloquence, courage, and liberty to relentlessly speak truth to power and question the way history is written and taught in the USA. He continued in this pursuit from the 1940's right up until his death this past January 27th at age 87, while on a speaking tour. Thank you, Professor Zinn, for reminding us that the power really does rest with the people, but it's not necessarily through the ballot box that we can best exercise it.<br />
<br />
<br />
Thank you all for reading, and enjoy this holiday!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-13170425606326059682010-11-22T14:32:00.000-05:002010-11-22T14:32:37.600-05:00Just a Few Comments on "A Vegan No More"Another worthy link via Facebook: <a href="http://voraciouseats.com/2010/11/19/a-vegan-no-more/">A Vegan No More</a>. It's an honest and eloquent testimony to the truth that there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the questions of health, nutrition, and morality. It's long, but worth reading through, whatever your current feelings on the issue.<br />
<br />
I don't wish to give offense to any of my vegan readers and friends, but I do challenge the unspoken assumption in certain circles that, even if you aren't a vegan or vegetarian, you should aspire to be; that avoiding animal products is a superior choice for health, morality, and sustainability. I used to feel this way, even after giving up on strict vegetarianism, but for the last five years or so I've been a dedicated and proud omnivore. Whatever honestly works best for you...<br />
<br />
Though I never had a health crisis in my nearly-vegan days that precipitated a doctor's visit (but if I had had insurance at the time, who knows?), I can definitely relate to Tasha's experiences: hunger despite an overfull stomach, bloating, fatigue, and depression. I don't know how I could manage my current routine of work and family on such a diet. Speaking just for myself, a few ounces of meat or fish, or a couple of eggs fried in butter, lard, or palm kernel oil makes up for a whole heap of starch, fiber, beans, and greens. I still love my rice and veggies, but don't feel a need to stuff myself to satisfy my hunger. Your mileage may vary.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-57617280497048548062010-11-03T17:19:00.005-04:002010-11-04T10:45:31.574-04:00It's the Economy That's StupidIn my <a href="http://chickensofmassdestruction.blogspot.com/2010/11/memento-mori-death-elections-and.html">previous post</a>, I mentioned that I thought that seriously curtailing fossil fuel consumption and contracting the economy were the best choices we could make for the long-term future. Today I want to elaborate a bit on that idea. <br />
<br />
Many people are in agreement that we should reduce fossil fuel consumption, maybe because of fears of global warming or other types of pollution (the BP disaster is far from over), or a concern that we are headed for a major accessibility crisis, summed up by the term "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil">peak oil</a>."<br />
<br />
Most people who are aware of these threats envision living much as we do today, maybe with more attention paid to conservation, simply substituting renewal energy sources for fossil fuels. In this scenario we can continue to grow economically. As the less-developed countries catch up their birth rates will drop, and the total human population will stabilize at a sustainable level.<br />
<br />
There are a few problems with this.<br />
<a name='more'></a> First of all, renewable sources simply cannot replace fossil fuels at current energy demand. Fossil fuels, especially oil, are convenient, concentrated, and thus far abundant. They are the accumulation of many millions of years of photosynthesis. Renewable sources are diffuse (solar, wind) or localized (geothermal, hydro). For more on why renewable energy is not a replacement, but still worthwhile, the archives of the Archdruid Report, especially <a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2006/08/why-renewable-energy-matters.html">this post</a>, are a good resource. A lot of it boils down to the concept of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI">energy returned on energy invested</a>.<br />
<br />
<br />
Second, a good portion of the wealth and energy in the developed world are there due to exploitation of the developing world. So they never can catch up without the developed world giving up its advantage. This is the dynamic that has reigned since the dawn of European exploration and conquest over 500 years ago. Each incremental advantage in technology has led to more advantages in access to resources and allowed Europeans and their descendants to control much of the planet by the turn of the 20th century. Though direct political control has been handed over, much of the economic and military control still lies with the richest nations.<br />
<br />
Third, there are other physical (i.e. not political/social) threats to our way of life. Even without burning fossil fuels, 6 billion humans put a serious strain on the planet. In fact, without fossil fuels it will take a lot more work, and probably more land, just to feed everyone. Fresh water must be protected and conserved, and the biodiversity must be maintained to prevent ecological collapse, and maybe because other species have a right to exist too.<br />
<br />
There are some who say that in its current state the planet can't even support a billion humans sustainably, and the over-burden on the system is continually lowering this sustainable level, or carrying capacity of human population.<br />
<br />
Compounding the population problem is what <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Catton">William Catton </a>called, in his 1980 book <i>Overshoot</i>, the "prosthetic man." Armed with technology, cheap energy, and global resources, one human living a modern life in the developed world has a much larger impact than one living a subsistence existence in the developing world, making him a larger extended organism in terms of his ecological footprint. The carrying capacity for prosthetic humans is naturally less than it is for non-prosthetic humans. Prosthetic humans are now growing in size and number in the most populous nations of China and India, though the Americans are still the biggest.<br />
<br />
All of this is background for what appears to be the central issue in the last two election cycles: the economy. Where is the recovery? Why so much unemployment? Who can we blame? Who will save us? In 2008 the resurgent Democrats were pretty good at convincing the voters that the Republicans, or at least the Bush administration, were to blame, and that Obama, with the help of a Democrat-led bipartisan Congress plus all of us, could deliver. This year the energized Republicans were even better at convincing the voters that Obama's plans were doomed to fail, and would lead to the end of all that is good and profitable.<br />
<br />
With unemployment in double digits and homes being foreclosed faster than the banks can process the papers, it is easy for people to forget that this is the same old campaign game, played every two years and much of the time in between, for the last 220 years. Take all the credit, pass all the blame, and try to make Joe Sixpack and Jane C. Public believe you will work hard for them, meanwhile raising enough cash to be seen and heard.<br />
<br />
But if the unemployment and housing crises are just symptoms of a deeper systemic crisis, one that has ecological roots and won't respond to the old economic fixes, then the campaign rhetoric is all noise and the economy is just a distraction.<br />
<br />
We need to have a dialog on the root causes in the hope that a paradigm shift can occur and we can do all that is possible to turn a crash into a soft landing. The first step might be to stop trying so hard to recover the economy, and instead learn to adapt to the reality of limits.<br />
<br />
If economic recovery means hastening ecological collapse then lets have a depression instead. Learn to live simply, live locally, and live in community. Give up the cars and the televisions. Grow food instead of grass. Accept less food, less money, less opportunity, perhaps less time in this life.<br />
<br />
I don't say this lightly. I know economic depression means real hardship. Real hunger, real suffering, real death. We will have much to grieve. Some have said, "there is no bright future ahead." Probably true from a purely material perspective. On the other hand, I expect there will be many opportunities for meaningful and fulfilling experiences, perhaps of a more spiritual nature than we are used to these days. But I have no delusions that life will be easier.<br />
<br />
Yes, I'm a hypocrite. I make a million choices each day that help preserve business as usual. I still have a foot on my meager corner of the hamster wheel. Part of me still hopes for better material opportunity for myself and my children. I am still enamored of technology. The simple life is hard, and I don't know if I'm ready for hardship. But I'm trying to keep my eyes open and prepare for a time when I may have no choice.<br />
<br />
I still appreciate the dimension of human liberty that is only possible in a world of relative abundance. This expectation is deep in our psyche, dating back to the 18th Century enlightenment thinking of privileged Europeans. I don't relish the ugliness that can manifest when humans feel confined and deprived.<br />
<br />
But I still believe it is ultimately more important to leave a livable planet for the 7th and 700th generations than it is to earn a few extra toys, enjoy a few extra liberties, or live a few extra years in this one.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-15589609573446149312010-11-02T15:04:00.001-04:002010-11-04T10:07:39.795-04:00Memento Mori: Death, Elections, and the Turning of the WheelIt's the season of Halloween, Samhain, <span id="search" style="visibility: visible;"><i><i>El </i>Día</i></span><i> de los Muertos. </i>In many cultures around the world it is time to meditate on death: the death of the crops at the end of the harvest season, as well as the deaths of our fellow humans. It's time to remember and honor those who have passed from this life, as well as to be mindful of our own mortality.<br />
<br />
Not coincidentally, here in the USA it is also election time. Our tradition of holding elections on the second Tuesday in November goes back to our agrarian past when roads were poor, travel slow, and polling places up to a day or two travel from home. In most parts of the country as it existed then, in early November the harvest would be done but the worst of winter weather a safe way off.<br />
<br />
It all leads me to ponder the meaning of elections for an empire quite probably in the Autumn of its existence. For America is an empire built on optimism and enthusiasm of a most material sort, and the material is getting scarce. A new global paradigm will emerge one way or the other.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
Thinking about the most serious crises and perils that our civilization potentially faces in the coming decades--peak oil, famine, disease, environmental toxins, nukes, war and terror, loss of biodiversity, climate change/global weirding, etc., etc.--I am reminded of the pivotal scene from <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostbusters"><i>Ghostbusters</i></a>, wherein the god Gozer commands the titular heroes to "choose the form of the destructor!"<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSD2jUQZvObrWtXuNWsPpBJf6hGQG-Ahwm552FrPkJ3LySUkNhZUT7L59pLuiZ9MKTWkcv6BNxampV3dfVQjk7D3p7frQ16e7l-sgoznVIgrp1e4Hodg_IUQw1-GHQ1sGV17VTi4vOhipJ/s1600/Stay-puft-marshmallow-man.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="266" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjSD2jUQZvObrWtXuNWsPpBJf6hGQG-Ahwm552FrPkJ3LySUkNhZUT7L59pLuiZ9MKTWkcv6BNxampV3dfVQjk7D3p7frQ16e7l-sgoznVIgrp1e4Hodg_IUQw1-GHQ1sGV17VTi4vOhipJ/s320/Stay-puft-marshmallow-man.jpg" width="320" /></a></div><br />
I won't blank my mind or try to think of "something that could never, ever possibly destroy us." I will instead make a choice based on the best possible future for my descendants (should they survive and carry on), all of humanity, and all living beings. I will choose peak oil--or preemptive curtailment of fossil fuel consumption--sooner than later, orderly economic contraction, and a transition to appropriate technology and sustainable living.<br />
<br />
I concede that the chances of preemptive curtailment or orderly economic contraction compare to those of simians taking to the air by way of my heinie. But at least I've thought about it in case Gozer is reading this!<br />
<br />
Such things are way off the table in the current political discourse, and I have little hope they will gain any traction before things get much worse. And that is a big part of the problem. For the entire history of our country we've been expanding. Now we are up against certain hard limits, and very few are willing to face the facts, change their paradigm, choose the destructor.<br />
<br />
In the meantime, there are other reasons to vote, aren't there? If I was in a real battleground state I would be a bit more enthusiastic. As it is, I vote because I still can, and to make small incremental statements about the direction of government.<br />
<br />
In this election cycle, in the current climate, I choose to be a Democratic partisan. I don't agree with all the positions of the party or its candidates, and I hold no delusions that casting a ballot alone will move things in my preferred direction. But I find it preferable to ceding any power to the GOP, which is fanning the flames of fear and ignorance to promote the agenda of the rich and greedy.<br />
<br />
That is a form of destructor I can do without.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-89694756037230588502010-09-10T14:14:00.001-04:002010-11-04T10:08:46.159-04:00Playing With FireIn San Bruno, California, a natural gas transmission line <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/10/california.fire/index.html?iref=NS1">exploded last night</a>, creating a 15-foot crater and sending a sea of flame through the neighborhood. 4 are confirmed dead, scores injured--some critically, over 53 homes severely damaged. The city is adjacent to San Francisco International Airport, and early reports assumed it was a plane crash.<br />
<br />
Tomorrow marks the 9th anniversary of the tragic, actual, intentional, plane crashes that have left an indelible mark on our national psyche and the world political climate. In response the U.S. invaded and occupied two countries and is still seeking graceful exits. This year, a pastor of a small church in Gainesville, Florida has been planning to commemorate the anniversary by burning copies of the sacred book of Islam, the Qur'an (note: Quran, Kuran, Koran, are all interchangeable Latin spellings for an Arabic word meaning "recitation"). Ironically, but understandably, the current custodians of the above mentioned occupations are among the loudest critics of Pastor Jone's antics.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
It seems lately he's <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/09/10/florida.quran.burning.imam/index.html?hpt=T2">reconsidering</a>. It also appears he's trying to leverage a deal with New York Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf to relocate the Islamic community center planned for lower Manhattan (the "Ground Zero Mosque"). Basically, "if you don't go back to the drawing board on your $100,000,000 building project, I'm going to burn a pile of books, and by the way I still think your religion is EVIL." So far Rauf has confirmed neither a meeting nor a deal with Jones.<br />
<br />
Pastor Jones is either incredibly naive and delusional, or he's an incredibly shrewd publicity hound. Probably a bit of both. It's a testament to the ramped-up level of fear and divisiveness that he might actually pull off this audacious gamble. He's got little to lose personally, but Terry Jones has got to know he's playing with fire. Then again so are we all, as long as 24-inch gas transmission lines run through our neighborhoods...<br />
<br />
There have been some interesting responses on Facebook. One that I spotted and shared, not without some heated debate among some of my friends, was "Buy a Qur'an Day." Now I don't really intend to buy a Qur'an, though I intend to read it.<br />
<br />
This morning I learned of an even <a href="http://snoozepossum.blogspot.com/2010/09/propping-pakistan-plan-parries-petulant.html">better idea</a>: <a href="http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/news/article.cfm?id=4684&cat=field-news">Donate to Pakistani flood relief</a> <a href="http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=132748266771261&index=1">in honor</a> of Pastor Terry Jones.<br />
<br />
As I shared that idea and that link, I had very mixed feelings. Doing so as a defiant or political act just seems to cheapen the act of charity and the lives and well-being of the recipients, like they are merely pawns in a cynical game of symbols. Just visiting the <a href="http://www.doctorswithoutborders.org/donate/"><i>Medecins Sans Frontieres</i></a> donation page I am struck with the awesome, utterly unfair privilege of my life. I am spared flood and fire and hunger, and have the incredible luxury to debate the fine points of symbolism. In honor of Rosh Hashanna, the New Year in the Jewish tradition, to which both Christians and Muslims owe their faith, all I have left to say is:<br />
<br />
שנה טובה; Shana Tova; Good Year to You!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-48344722005894240242010-08-31T19:34:00.001-04:002010-08-31T19:34:01.459-04:00Obligatory August PostStill reading, still working, still raising boys, trying to figure out how to get some gardening in before the weeds take over completely and the window closes on fall crops. Meanwhile the economy continues to piddle along, and the frayed social and political fabric of our country is just a surface ripple of the underlying ecological crisis under our feet. Cheers y'all, and enjoy this different perspective on the <a href="http://www.sciencefriday.com/program/archives/201008273">bedbug hysteria</a>.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-40599790068525896202010-07-09T12:38:00.002-04:002010-11-04T10:11:02.563-04:00The Elephant in the RoomNo, I haven't abandoned this blog, but digging through the archives of John Michael Greer's <a href="http://www.thearchruidreport.blogspot.com">Archdruid Report</a>, and following up on links and recommendations, has put me in serious sponge mode.<br />
<br />
I just finished reading <i>Overshoot</i> by William R. Catton. It's still a timely book 30 years after publication, a stark and devastating analysis of the human predicament from an ecological perspective. In a nutshell: we're riding a wave of exuberance that started with the Age of Discovery, got a boost from the Industrial Revolution, and is accelerating straight toward a crash: a major decline in both human population and material standard of living. The timing and exact nature of the crash will depend on many factors, but at this point in time, if you accept certain premises, some sort of crash is unavoidable.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
If everyone on Wall Street read and understood Catton's book, or if any major world leader understood and articulated it (even Jimmy Carter missed the mark), the crash would start today, and maybe in a preferable form to many of the alternatives.<br />
<br />
Depending on your knowledge of the science of ecology (as opposed to the movement or the marketing strategy), you may be missing a lot of the background concepts and terminology. Or you may have some misconceptions of the concepts and their implications. That's one of the biggest impediments to understanding where we are. It's also an impediment to any kind of leadership on the issue. We have for too long failed to recognize or accept that we are living beyond sustainable limits, in terms of numbers and in terms of energy consumption.<br />
<br />
The first premise we must discuss is that there is a finite <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrying_capacity">carrying capacity</a> for a given species of organism in a given <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem">ecosystem</a>. In other words, there is a maximum average population that can be supported indefinitely by the resources that an organism uses.<br />
<br />
"Maximum average" might seem like an oxymoron until you realize that organisms can and do temporarily exceed carrying capacity. The outcome of this overshoot (hence the title of Dr. Catton's book) can be oscillation if resources can recover quickly enough, or longer-term crash if resources are too depleted or damaged to recover quickly.<br />
<br />
The majority of the Earth's <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomass">biomass</a> is the result of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis">photosynthesis</a>, which is the conversion of sunlight into chemical bond energy in plants and certain bacteria. These organisms, called producers, are the basis of most <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_chain">food chains</a> and webs that support life on Earth, including humans.<br />
<br />
For a very long time, human populations were supported by the living food webs of the land and sea. With the domestication of plants and animals, we managed to increase carrying capacity by slowly and incompletely displacing other ecosystems, including other human societies, with our own agricultural systems. But we were still living within limits, as long as soil fertility could be maintained or regenerated, because we were supported by current solar income.<br />
<br />
Something fundamental changed at the end of the 1700's. Starting in England, and spreading through Europe and the lands settled by Europeans, people began to rely more on solar savings, the vast deposits of fossilized <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Detritus">detritus</a> we know as coal, petroleum, and natural gas. This was solar energy stored over hundreds of millions of years. Once extracted from the Earth's crust it yielded a tremendous amount of energy and greatly increased industrial production and efficiency.<br />
<br />
Fossil fuel-driven mechanization was applied to manufacturing, transportation, and eventually to agriculture. The extra energy has allowed us to displace other ecosystems and other "less productive" societies at an ever faster pace and to perpetuate the illusion that we are somehow separate from Nature and not subject to her limits.<br />
<br />
Almost everyone is aware of some of the problems with this situation. Pollution and habitat destruction are the most obvious effects. We are poisoning the air and water we rely on while our growth threatens the few relatively undisturbed natural places. There is, of course, a great global debate about global warming.<br />
<br />
But that is just the tip of the iceberg. Few realize how much our whole economy and way of life are dependent on cheap energy from fossil fuels. Cheap fossil fuel lets us dominate and exploit other parts of the world for our own gain. The expectation of continued growth into the future allows continued deficit spending on programs that allow continued population and economic growth.<br />
<br />
Catton uses the term "ghost acreage" to describe the production that comes from outside a given area's or country's current solar income. It could be acreage or resources in an exploited country, or the resources from international waters, or the fossil fuel deposits in the Earth's crust. Ghost acreage allows for phantom carrying capacity, but only as long as the ghost acreage lasts and is accessible. Political strife, overfishing, and shrinking fuel supplies with diminishing <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EROEI">energy returned on energy invested</a> are all threats to access.<br />
<br />
Eventually, the fossil fuels left in the Earth will be too costly to support the current paradigm. This might happen in the next 10 years, or the next 50. The Great Depression of the 1930's and the energy crises of the 1970's were good previews of what to expect, but there won't be the same prospects for recovery back to unsustainability. For reasons discussed elsewhere, renewable energy just won't take up the slack without a) requiring huge fossil energy investments up-front and b) becoming unsustainable themselves.<br />
<br />
We'll see major contractions of industry, transportation, and communications. Population will decline as the health care system degrades. The US Federal government will have to divest from its empire and delegate more authority to states and localities if it hopes to survive. We will transition into a poor country. Local communities and local food will once again be the focal points of our lives. Let's hope this is the outcome. It beats some of the apocalyptic scenarios many have imagined.<br />
<br />
But don't take my word for it. Besides, I've omitted a lot of details that have been covered elsewhere. A good place to start would be John Michael Greer's book <i>The Long Descent</i>, then the archives of his blog, including the comments. Follow the reading recommendations there. Start gardening. Connect to your local community. Learn to live a simpler humbler life.<br />
<br />
My current mantra is from the cover of the <i>Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:</i><br />
<br />
DON'T PANICAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-16538844427488346852010-06-14T12:08:00.003-04:002010-11-04T10:12:51.185-04:00War on What?I've heard the question put forth, "is the BP oil spill Obama's Katrina?" Any such comparison between different historical and political events is bound to bear limited fruit. One can always find interesting parallels, but the lessons will break down over important differences. Whatever role was played by humanity in the Hurricane Katrina disaster of 2005, the dice were rolled by Nature. The Deepwater Horizon explosion and subsequent gushing of oil and toxic dispersants are entirely man-made disasters. While Katrina had grave regional implications, the current disaster has global implications that cut to the heart of energy, ecology, and economics. <br />
<br />
With that in mind, I am more inclined to ask, "is the oil spill Obama's 9/11?" Of course there are important differences. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, barring some conspiracy theory, were deliberate acts by self-proclaimed enemies of the West. The despoiling of the Gulf was a stupid accident by a network of "friendly" contractors and regulators. 9/11 involved thousands of human deaths. All but 11 of the Gulf deaths, as far as I know so far, have been non-human life forms.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
But I am still struck by the potential parallels, especially as government reaction to the disaster continues to unfold. In both cases we can point to monumental arrogance and hubris as both proximate and ultimate causes. We can point to the ways in which US energy demand, and how that plays out in all facets of foreign and domestic policy, have made conditions ripe for both types of disaster. <br />
<br />
But perhaps most important: both events represent opportunities for the president and the party in power to make sweeping policy changes that would have been much more difficult under the status quo. And these policies can have their own implications and consequences, not the least of which is the acceleration of the ongoing presidential power grab.<br />
<br />
In the wake of 9/11, George W. Bush declared a War on Terror, and then laid out a policy of foreign intervention and domestic interference straight from the neoconservative playbook. The "War on X" rhetoric was nothing new. Since they've stopped declaring official war on foreign countries, US Presidents have been fond of declaring war on everything from Poverty to Obesity, Cancer to Drugs. <br />
<br />
What was new about this "War on X" was how much it resembled a traditional war, with invasions and occupations and bloodshed. But since "Terror" is not a foreign country, doesn't surrender or sign treaties, and is likely to reappear wherever and whenever sufficient desparation meets a sufficient perception of injustice, this looks like a license for perpetual armed conflict. But I digress...<br />
<br />
So I am left wondering how this latest government reaction will unfold. What will be Obama's declared enemy? Pollution? Greed? Corruption? Any of them are reasonable targets, but any of them will cut to the quick of the power structure, and our accustomed life styles, in a way no "War on X" has done before. <br />
<br />
Will he follow in Bush's footsteps, pile hubris and arrogance on hubris and arrogance, ride a wave of popular outrage against the cries of opposition, meanwhile pumping up the bureaucratic heft of the public sector? I could see a "War on Pollution" following this track, with vast resources poured into expensive, untested, and ethically questionable geoengineering projects. Like, say, releasing vast numbers of genetically modified bacteria to eat oil. The prospects are pretty scary.<br />
<br />
Or will he impose heavy-handed measures to curb both the demand for and the profitability of consumption? Replace all the cozy pro-business appointees with true progressives and order the overhaul of departmental focus. Admit to the public that the cheap oil joy ride is over and we need to get used to a lower standard of living. In other words make Carter look like Reagan! <br />
<br />
Some measures like the proposed escrow account for claims against BP, will probably have a chilling effect on oil production. Not a bad thing in my book, but there will be a limit on how far this can be pushed politically until the reality of our energy situation is more widely accepted.<br />
<br />
What is likely is the scapegoating of BP as an object lesson. Scapegoats are easier to sacrifice than sacred cows, after all. There will probably be some regulatory shaking-down that may help prevent future spills. It will give political momentum to measures from Obama's environmental playbook. This is not a grassroots playbook, but the New Democrat playbook, which favors large centralized projects and large corporate partners. More hubris and arrogance, anyone? <br />
<br />
So I am very interested to hear what the President has to say. Maybe some good will come out of it, but not enough for the damage done.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-33269823055316242952010-06-04T12:54:00.004-04:002010-11-04T10:13:10.076-04:00Sorry, Mr. Lorax<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbz5_PU6uodbxWbGcrTPsjKDiu6o8Cd-ODhT7VvgfEiiVjM5Unh8CfaN6JY4d7Yfb-kR6et8hrvInUg964i2LB-h-j9rodRd_FAmPaRAFnisXF2ZWDPrQFbqzdtBgm_0dtlRh-qWoDv10r/s1600/lorax%5B1%5D.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjbz5_PU6uodbxWbGcrTPsjKDiu6o8Cd-ODhT7VvgfEiiVjM5Unh8CfaN6JY4d7Yfb-kR6et8hrvInUg964i2LB-h-j9rodRd_FAmPaRAFnisXF2ZWDPrQFbqzdtBgm_0dtlRh-qWoDv10r/s320/lorax%5B1%5D.gif" /></a>At the <a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/" id="lnfp" title="Archdruid Report">Archdruid Report</a>, where it's the end of the world as we know it, and we feel fine, there are a lot of references made to the 1970's. For it is in that decade, with its energy crises, back-to-the-land movements, and increasing environmental awareness, where we find one of the richest archives of thought, from the practical to the philosophical, macro to micro, on possible paths to a sustainable future.<br />
<br />
Eventually the business-as-usual capitalists and neoconservatives won their precursor to "drill, baby, drill," hippies sold out to Wall Street, and pollution became more pervasive if less visible. In the meantime such visionary texts as <i><a href="http://www.smallisbeautiful.org/" id="kh0y" title="Small is Beautiful">Small is Beautiful</a></i>, <i><a href="http://ukiahcommunityblog.wordpress.com/contact/muddling-toward-frugality-2/" id="grc:" title="Muddling Toward Frugality">Muddling Toward Frugality</a></i>, and <i><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=QRyQiINGW6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+Limits+to+Growth&source=bl&ots=GnbPeJa6kW&sig=-verRDBT3pndplWQspYbYLFYeOY&hl=en&ei=aCQJTNDFLsP-8AaD2N22AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEcQ6AEwBw" id="xc8-" title="The Limits to Growth">The Limits to Growth</a></i> have gathered dust on the shelf, awaiting the curious and hopefully-not-too-desperate, inviting us to rethink nearly 4 decades of intervening policy. All three are on my short list, either checked out or on hold through my public library.<br />
<br />
But until I get to crack open these tomes, I think <i><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lorax">The Lorax</a></i> encapsulates pretty well the conflict between growth-dependent industrial capitalism and sustainability. For all it's kid-friendly simplicity it is still a fairly accurate and potent parable for what we have done with our natural resources.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In case you're not familiar with <i>The Lorax</i>, it is a children's book by Dr. Seuss published in 1971, arguably at the height of that era's environmental movement. In an interesting coincidence of chronology, at the time I was just a little too old for picture books. In fact I never saw the book until I started reading my partner's old copy to our son a couple years ago. So I first read it through the eyes of a slightly jaded old environmentalist. <br />
<br />
Back to the story: Poking around the sketchy outskirts of town, a boy finds "the place where the Lorax once stood, just as long as it could, until somebody lifted the Lorax away." If this sounds a little dangerous to you, remember that this was the seventies. I spent a good deal of time alone in the grickle grass and decayed industrial sites as a young child, and no one thought it was a big deal. But that's another topic.<br />
<br />
The main part of the story is told by the Once-ler, a hermit-like character who lives a meager life amongst the industrial ruin. He describes how he arrived at this place when it was a forest paradise covered with truffula trees. Though many of the details are sketchy--probably no ecological studies were done--the forest appears to have supported a healthy ecosystem including frugivorous mammals and other wildlife that depended on pristine air and water quality.<br />
<br />
The Once-ler seems to have appreciated the idyllic setting, but his main motivation was profit. For the truffula trees provided the raw material for what would turn out to be a major growth industry: thneeds! In his headlong pursuit of maximized production ("biggering") he repeatedly ignores the warnings, relayed by the Lorax, a sort of wild forest man, that his activities are destroying wildlife habitat. He doesn't stop until the last truffula tree falls. His business collapses because his raw material is gone.<br />
<br />
By that point, for whatever reasons, the land no longer supports truffula trees without intervention, and a different vegetation type dominates, even years after the cutting stopped. Perhaps truffula seeds need specific conditions to germinate. Or maybe they just take much longer to germinate and grow to maturity than the lifetime of the average Once-ler. Or perhaps the soil, water, and air were just too degraded. I have heard different objections to the Lorax, and different questions have popped up in this old over-educated mind. The forest industry replants trees, don't they? Why couldn't the Once-ler sustainably harvest the truffula tufts without destroying the trees?<br />
<br />
Dr. Seuss wasn't an ecologist, and he was writing for kids. Whether he was trying to draw close parallels to any particular industry is beside the point. Yes, the forestry industry has made efforts to keep their operations sustainable, but that has not always been the case, and they have learned the hard way. Most of the eastern US was clear-cut at least once during the last 3 centuries. Many animal species were extirpated and human cultures forgotten or displaced. The river systems and estuaries are still reeling from the resulting erosion and siltation. <br />
<br />
But it isn't just about forestry. Applied to non-renewable resources, especially oil, the parable may be most apt. The question of sustainability is moot. And the idea that someone who "cares a whole awful lot" could make things better (rather than just mitigate the harm), which may still have been true in 1971, becomes all the more poignant. The current disaster in the Gulf just highlights our insatiable need for the thneeds of modern life. Drilling in the sea floor a mile underwater is the act of a desperate people. <br />
<br />
Shame on us. Sorry, Mr. Lorax.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-85169309409876253342010-05-25T14:51:00.003-04:002010-11-04T10:13:54.125-04:00Monsanto Goons, Zombie Money, and Backyard ChickensLately I've been following lots of interesting stuff on <a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/">Food Freedom</a>, from heirlooms vs hybrids for Haiti, to the latest developments in synthetic biology, to the promising movements among consumers and gardeners to reclaim their food sovereignty. But somehow I keep getting drawn back to <a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/05/15/mark-of-the-beast-obama%e2%80%99s-latest-monsanto-pick-elena-kagan/">this article</a> by Rady Ananda, as the author and others take issue with my call for civility. It's perhaps gotten a little out of proportion, given that I don't disagree with the outrage behind the article. Just saying that there needs to be a little more nuance for this to be taken more seriously outside the choir.<br />
<br />
Let's face it, anyone who is an insider with the New Democrats is going to take a pro-Monsanto position until it is politically unfavorable to do so. That includes a big chunk of Mr. Obama's staff, cabinet, and departmental bureaucracy. In Monsanto v Geertson Seed, Solicitor General Kagan was doing her job, advocating for the position of APHIS and the whole corrupt federal bureaucracy. She is much less involved than the others cited in the article, such as Michael "revolving-door" Taylor, Monsanto attorney when he's not with the FDA, and cousin-in-law to former VP Al Gore. This will be a non-issue in Kagan's confirmation hearings, and not a battle I choose.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
In the big picture, in this world of oil spills, rising temperatures, and <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/health/sns-health-environment-cancer,0,309804.story">pervasive chemical contamination</a>, GMOs might really be small potatoes after all. They will probably be another stupid thing out there we have to learn to live with. Already, resistant strains of common weeds, like pigweed and lamb's quarters, are threatening the viability of the Roundup-ready system. I've got both those plants in my garden, and I know how many seeds they produce! They're also edible, attract beneficial insects, and draw minerals from deep soil layers. So why not work on systems that allow them to coexist with crops, instead of new ways to stamp them out?<br />
<br />
That does give me an idea, though. Anyone who has access to, say, resistant pigweed, could save seed and distribute it around the country. A few seeds could be dropped discreetly by the roadside next to a field of alfalfa or soybeans. One seed can become millions in a season, and an effective network of seed savers could really accelerate the process of Roundup-ready obsolescence. Just one bit of warning: Technically, though I don't the particulars here, some of the resistance could have started with gene transfer from GM crops via a virus or bacteria. In that case Monsanto could sue you for patent infringement. It wouldn't be the first time...<br />
<br />
As erstwhile producers of DDT and Agent Orange, Monsanto has a history of risking environmental health and safety for the lure of quick easy money. Their cut-and-run tactics have kept them going for over a century, and now that they are buying up major seed suppliers, they are consolidating that market and possibly securing their next exit strategy. All the more reason to buy, grow, save, and exchange open-pollinated varieties.<br />
<br />
Monsanto is to biotechnology what Wal-mart is to retail chains, what Microsoft is to IT, what McDonald's is to fast food, what Exxon (and lately BP) is to oil, and what Disney is to entertainment: they are the big kahuna, the lightning rod, the one we love to hate. Meanwhile, Bayer, of aspirin fame, has their own biotech division, along with a pretty <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayer#Controversies">shady past</a>. I can only imagine how much they love Monsanto for taking most of the publicity hits! <br />
<br />
Soon, we might not give a rat's ass about glyphosate or resistance thereto. If you believe John Michael Greer over at <a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/">The Archdruid Report</a>, the whole foundation of Monsanto's business, cheap oil and plentiful cash, are quickly becoming things of the past. In what amounts to a rough draft of his next book in serial blog form, Greer makes a compelling case that the modern economic and industrial system is on the verge of collapse. The global oil supply is about to peak, if it has not already done so, and the vacuous tertiary economy based on "undead money" will implode once governments can no longer afford to keep it inflated.<br />
<br />
But instead of despairing, his posts and the comments from his readers are full of interesting thoughts on how to be prepared and how to carry on, and it's not your usual survivalist fare.<br />
<br />
In his <a href="http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2010/05/garlic-chainsaws-and-victory-gardens.html">latest post</a>, he presents his case for backyard gardening as one way of muddling through in the new reality.<br />
<br />
Not so long ago, everybody grew food in their yards, and not just vegetables. Chickens, cows, sheep, and pigs shared small lots with people and plants, and there were always eggs and milk in easy reach. The animals provided food, fertilizer, and weed and pest control. Today so many people live under restrictive ordinances or covenants that only allow conventional "pets," but there is a movement to change that, and now many urban and suburban areas allow a small number of hens.<br />
<br />
Among the more interesting sources for this topic is <a href="http://www.thecitychicken.com%22/">the City Chicken</a>. Here you can learn about chicken laws around the country, see a bunch of cool chicken coops and "tractors" (portable henhouses), and get generally inspired. At <a href="http://www.chickenvideo.com/">chickenvideo.com</a> there is a lot of good information and links. If I decide to add chickens to my garden, I will have to get the county code changed first. Maybe I'll start working on that petition...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-8130483166501208442010-05-19T10:41:00.002-04:002010-11-04T10:14:18.416-04:00Möbius PoliticsIs Local Food a left-wing or right-wing movement?<br />
<br />
As I scratch a little below the surface of things, the picture of politics as Möbius strip (that's Moebius if your system is limited to ASCII) becomes ever clearer. In other words, if you wander far enough from the political center, either to the right or to the left, the ends of the spectrum meet in interesting and unexpected ways. It's not a new idea to me, and I wouldn't expect it to be original, but manifestations of this dark side of the political moon have been popping up recently like mushrooms in a cow pasture after a 2-day rainstorm.<br />
<br />
Case in point: the Local Food movement. What ties together this motley assortment of foodies and farmers, vegans and beef-eaters, libertarians and progressives, devoutly religious and steadfastly secular? A desire for good food. A sustainable food system. And good old American distrust.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
There is a common belief that the dominant food system has failed us. That centralized commodified food processing and distribution is bad for consumers, bad for farmers, bad for the earth, bad for crop diversity, bad for the animals. That the agencies that are supposed to protect our health and support the future of agriculture instead set up roadblocks to anything that doesn't feed into that system.<br />
<br />
Some methods toward a solution can be agreed upon. If you buy local farm products, you support local agriculture. If you grow organic heirloom vegetables instead of grass in your yard, you feed yourself and enhance the soil. If you save and exchange seeds you preserve crop diversity. But none of these things are likely to be enough to keep the FDA from cracking down on raw milk, or keep conventional farms from depleting topsoil and releasing toxins, nutrients, and patented genes into the environment.<br />
<br />
On the right, it is common to speak in terms of overarching global conspiracies. On the left, we're more likely to ascribe the problems to simple greed, corruption, and layers of historical development. There may well be conspiracies afoot, but I suspect they exist within the boardrooms of Monsanto, ADM, and other corporate players rather than the halls of the UN. But hey, I could be wrong.<br />
<br />
In either case, I think it is vital to be informed. And it is vital to speak up and give representative democracy a whirl. Knowing what I know about the diverse politics in the movement, I make no assumptions about my elected officials, what they know about the issue or where they stand. If they don't hear from me, who will they hear from? They'll certainly hear from Monsanto and friends. And if all they hear from the local food movement is inflammatory rhetoric like <a href="http://tinyurl.com/23uyka6">this</a>, how can they take us seriously?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-10463368709637194162010-05-07T10:34:00.002-04:002010-05-07T16:08:31.749-04:00E. coli strikes againThis time it's a different strain, <i>E. coli</i> O145, and the contaminated food appears to be romaine lettuce from a processing plant in Ohio, potentially affecting consumers in 24 states. The processor, <a href="http://www.freshwayfoods.com/about/press/20100506.php">Freshway Foods</a> of Sidney, has voluntarily recalled romaine products with a "use by" date of May 12 or earlier.<br />
<br />
I may be having a change of heart. I think maybe the ban on interstate sale of raw milk is working. How else do you explain the facts? Out of all the <a href="http://cdc.gov/ecoli/outbreaks.html"><i>E. coli</i> outbreaks</a> reported by the CDC in the last 3.5 years, none are associated with raw milk. Instead all the outbreaks are associated with beef, produce, frozen pizza, or frozen cookie dough. All involve regionally or nationally distributed packaged foods. None involve foods sold directly by farmers to consumers.<br />
<br />
So let's not stop with raw milk. Now it's time for Congress to step up and ban interstate sales of all packaged food unless it has been fully cooked, irradiated, and bathed in bleach. Give the FDA sweeping authority to seize the tractor-trailer loads of lettuce and ground beef that traverse our nation's highways every second. Because they have the potential of being contaminated. And because it should be the FDA, not the consumer, who decides what is an acceptable risk.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-61125847586246382832010-05-04T11:44:00.002-04:002010-11-04T10:15:18.215-04:00A Letter to the FDAMay 4th 2010<br />
<br />
John F. Sheehan, Director<br />
Div. of Plant and Dairy Food<br />
Office of Food Safety<br />
CFSAN-FDA<br />
Bldg. CPK-1, Rm. 3D-055<br />
5100 Paint Branch<br />
College Park, MD 20740<br />
<br />
<br />
Dear Mr. Sheehan<br />
<br />
I am writing in regards to the investigation of Mr. Daniel Allgyer of Kinzers, PA on allegations of interstate commerce of raw milk. I wish to express my disappointment that the FDA is pursuing this case when there are so many greater threats to public health.<br />
<br />
Many of the greatest threats are due to large-scale industrial agriculture, centralized food production and distribution, inadequate testing of new food and pharmaceuticals, and inadequate inspection and enforcement. A few examples: contamination of the food supply with novel substances and organisms, air and water pollution, and loss of ecological and agricultural diversity.<br />
<br />
Small, traditional operations like Mr. Allgyer's are part of a robust, diverse, and sustainable agricultural community. The main threats they pose are to those who seek to control and monopolize the food supply.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
I do appreciate the need to enforce regulations, but enforcement needs to be fair and even-handed. There also needs to be a willingness to review, and if needed revise or repeal, regulations so that they truly serve the cause of public health, and not the interests of a few large corporations.<br />
<br />
The ban on interstate sales of raw milk is restrictive and unfair to consumers and farmers and is a barrier to free enterprise. I am asking my representatives in Congress to support HR 778, which will effectively repeal the ban and free FDA resources for more important activities. In the meantime and under current circumstances, I fully support Mr. Allgyer's decision to not cooperate with this investigation.<br />
<br />
Regards<br />
<br />
<br />
James BrewsterAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-84219766220355010822010-04-29T14:13:00.002-04:002010-11-04T10:18:24.148-04:00Tea, anyone?I ran across this little rant that sums up nicely the frustrations felt by many on the left toward the recent climate of public discourse.<br />
<br />
From <a href="http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508702661">Christian Struzan</a> via Facebook:<br />
<blockquote>YOU WANT TO GET MAD? We had eight years of Bush and Cheney, but now you get mad! You didn’t get mad when the Supreme Court stopped a legal recount and appointed a President. You didn’t get mad when Cheney allowed Energy company officials to dictate energy policy. You didn’t get mad when a covert CIA operative got ousted. You didn’t get mad when the Patriot Act got passed.. You didn’t get mad when we illegally invaded a country that posed no threat to us. You didn’t get mad when we spent over 600 billion(and counting) on said illegal war. You didn’t get mad when over 10 billion dollars just disappeared in Iraq. You didn’t get mad when you found out we were torturing people. You didn’t get mad when the government was illegally wiretapping Americans. You didn’t get mad when we didn’t catch Bin Laden. You didn’t get mad when you saw the horrible conditions at Walter Reed. You didn’t get mad when we let a major US city drown. You didn’t get mad when we gave a 900 billion tax break to the rich. You didn’t get mad when, using reconciliation; a trillion dollars of our tax dollars were redirected to insurance companies for Medicare Advantage which cost over 20 percent more for basically the same services that Medicare provides. You didn’t get mad when the deficit hit the trillion dollar mark, and our debt hit the thirteen trillion dollar mark. You finally got mad when the government decided that people in America deserved the right to see a doctor if they are sick. Yes, illegal wars, lies, corruption, torture, stealing your tax dollars to make the rich richer, are all okay with you, but helping other Americans… oh hell no. AND NOW YOU’RE MAD !</blockquote><br />
<br />
So let me come at it from a different angle. Many of us on the left can sympathize with conservatives' anger. We too want a system that is more fair, efficient, and accountable to the citizenry. We too feel marginalized by the power structure in Washington and get frustrated by what we see as institutional corruption and injustice.<br />
<br />
It would be great if we could have civil dialog on these things. Let me then share some thoughts.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
The problems in our country didn't start with the inauguration of President Barack Obama, or with the 2008 election. They in fact helped the Democrats take control, because the majority of voters saw that as the best avenue for change. Like it or not, that's how the cookies crumbled.<br />
<br />
The Republican Party is not the party of the little people. Both Republicans and Democrats are funded by large organizations and corporations that have a stake in government policy. They are both interested in attaining and holding on to political power.<br />
<br />
Many on the left are wary of being played by the Democratic Party. Maybe more of those on the right should ask if the Republicans are playing them. Why do you think Republican politicians are demonizing Wall Street?<br />
<br />
I think I understand why conservatives didn't speak up during the GWB years. When the only likely alternative to the party in power looks even worse to you, you tend to fall in line. The same thing happened with liberals and progressives during the Clinton years, and is happening now.<br />
<br />
Barack Obama's record as president hasn't exactly been a progressive's dream, despite accusations like "socialist" and "government takeover." He may have been a progressive on the campaign trail, but he's been a pragmatist in the White House, in both foreign and domestic policy.<br />
<br />
The bank loans were started by Bush. The health and financial reform bills were the results of months of bipartisan debate and horse trading. By blocking debate and making it look like bills were being rushed through by Democrats, Republicans were playing a parliamentary game. Fair enough, but politically risky for them.<br />
<br />
I like to assume that most politicians have at least some desire to serve the public good. But they are all subject to pressures and influences that they must navigate in order to play the game and stay in power. This doesn't necessarily mean that politicians are completely bought and paid-for by special interests, but it raises doubts about their integrity and independence. <br />
<br />
Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are entertainers. They tell their audience what it wants to hear. They incorporate fact, fiction, and opinion in an apparently seamless way to promote a particular agenda and make the opposition look ridiculous. That is what they are paid to do, and they do it well. Fox is an entertainment company. (The same can be said of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews, and MSNBC. Jon Stewart is the first to admit that he is a comedian.)<br />
<br />
If it is fair to claim a liberal bias in the media, it is also fair to claim a conservative bias in sponsorship. This dynamic, the old tension between the news and sales departments, exists in mass media of all types, sizes, and political stripes.<br />
<br />
Everyone has agendas, delusions, and preconceptions. Everything you read, hear, or watch that is produced by humans has a point of view. But if you think the New York Times is a radical left-wing newspaper, your perspective may be a little skewed.<br />
<br />
Everyone needs to use their brains to interpret the information they receive, regardless of left right red blue whatever labels may be attached to it. It's important to seek opinions and ideas that challenge your point of view, and share your views in a civil way with those who might disagree with you. At least it's important if you are really interested in improving things. Otherwise we'll just carry on with the shouts and slogans, and the rich will keeping laughing all the way to the bank. At least until the oil runs out...Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-35036683175517218262010-04-28T13:36:00.001-04:002010-04-28T13:36:14.917-04:00WebnonsenseYeah! I figured out how to bypass the oxymoronic <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Websense">Websense</a> filters at work, so I can post to my blog from here! I still can't edit or comment, and I'm working out some of the formatting bugs, so bear with me.<br /><br />Thank you, <a href="http://www.google.com/ig">iGoogle</a>!Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-66551741581173913632010-04-28T12:39:00.003-04:002010-11-04T10:21:24.720-04:00I got your "Drill Baby, Drill" right here!I've been following the news a bit on the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deepwater_Horizon" title="Deepwater Horizon">Deepwater Horizon</a> explosion and oil spill, and the news ain't good. 11 workers are missing and presumed dead. They thought the well was sealed on Friday, but by Monday we learned it wasn't so. An estimated 42,000 US gallons are leaking into the Gulf of Mexico each day. Now the Coast Guard is talking about <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8648290.stm" title="burning it off">burning it off</a>. Great! If we don't kill the birds on the shore, we'll get them as they fly over!<a name='more'></a> <br />
<span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;"><b></b></span><b><span style="font-family: 'Courier New',Courier,monospace;"></span></b><br />
From the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8643782.stm" title="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8643782.stm">BBC</a> we learn:<br />
<blockquote>BP - which is responsible under federal law for the clean-up - said it was using four submersible vehicles, equipped with cameras and remote-controlled arms, to try to activate a blow-out preventer - a series of pipes and valves that could stop the leak.<br />
<br />
However, this was a "highly complex task" and "it may not be successful", said chief operating officer of BP's exploration and production unit, Doug Suttles.<br />
<br />
If the blow-out preventer does not seal off the well, the company intends to place a large dome directly over the leaks to catch the oil and send it up to the surface, where it could be collected by ships.<br />
<br />
This has been done before, but only in shallow waters, Mr Suttles said.<br />
<br />
Another alternative is to drill a "relief well" intersecting the original well, but he warned that this might take two to three months to stop the flow.</blockquote><br />
And from the <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27rig.html?hp" title="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/27/us/27rig.html?hp">NY Times</a>:<br />
<blockquote>“I must stress that this is state of the art,” Mr. Suttles said, adding that the method had never been done at such depths. It would take at least two weeks to put into place, he said.</blockquote><br />
Also from the NYT:<br />
<br />
<blockquote>While the causes of the accident on BP’s rig, called Deepwater Horizon, may take months to determine, drilling down 10,000 feet or more is inherently risky because of the extreme heat and pressure at those depths.</blockquote><br />
So in essence he is saying that BP was unprepared for this event even though operations were "inherently risky," If early attempts are unsuccessful, the spill could go on <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montara_oil_spill" title="for months">for months</a> and into the millions of gallons.<br />
<br />
Timing couldn't be much worse for <a href="http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/DN-oilspillside_27tex.ART.State.Edition1.42684f.html" title="nesting and spawning wildlife">nesting and spawning wildlife</a>, so it's little consolation that the energy companies and politicians also get a big black eye. Closer to Washington, we had the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upper_Big_Branch_Mine_disaster" title="Upper Big Branch Mine disaster">Upper Big Branch Mine disaster</a>, and <a href="http://www.examiner.com/x-28020-Natural-Gas-Policy-Examiner%7Ey2010m4d16-Pennsylvania-Citizens-to-demand-statewide-jngas-moratorium-on-Earth-Day" title="continuing controversy">continuing controversy</a> over the environmental safety of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing" title="hydraulic fracturing">hydraulic fracturing</a> for natural gas in Pennsylvania. When are we going to wake up? When CEO's say "just trust me," you say "no!"Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4972711132014453734.post-29586319489098433402010-04-27T06:08:00.001-04:002010-11-04T10:23:30.889-04:00Pasture vs PasteurAs reported <a href="http://gaia-health.com/articles201/000241-fda-persecutes-raw-milk-dairies-raids-amish-farm.shtml" id="v3.a" title="here">here</a> and elsewhere, at 5:00 AM on Tuesday, April 20th, two agents from the US <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration" id="hxx7" title="Food and Drug Administration">Food and Drug Administration</a>, two deputy <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Marshals_Service" id="d11i" title="US Marshals">US Marshals</a>, and one Pennsylvania State Trooper conducted what they described as a "routine inspection" at a small family farm in Lancaster County, PA. The farmer is under investigation for alleged violations of federal public health laws. Specifically he is accused of selling raw milk across state lines.<br />
<br />
My purpose in this entry is not to discuss whether this farmer broke the law, but the general question of food safety, food choice, and the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_milk#The_Raw_vs._Pasteurized_Debate" id="lhsa" title="controversy over raw milk">controversy over raw milk</a>. Are government officials protecting public health, or are they protecting corporate interests who feel threatened by small independent farms?<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
On the surface it may look like a brave effort to protect the health of people from an extremely risky product. But there are no outbreaks of illness associated with this case or most of the <a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/2010/04/21/shift-in-tactics-by-government-in-war-on-raw-milk/" id="h9rm" title="cases">cases</a> in recent years where officials have raided small dairy farms.<br />
<br />
If you investigate a little on the web, it will become immediately clear that there are different points of view. It may also look like a confusing morass of claims and counter-claims, so let's try to separate some of the issues and also look at some of the facts. Hopefully the truth can rise, like the cream on the milk, to the top.<br />
<br />
The FDA, CDC, and conventional wisdom claim that pasteurized homogenized milk is equal in nutritional value to raw, and that the risks of foodborne illness are too great to warrant its sale or consumption.<br />
<br />
Raw milk advocates claim that cleanly handled milk from healthy grass-fed cows carries no more disease risk than pasteurized milk. They also claim that raw milk is healthier because it contains all the naturally-occuring enzymes and beneficial bacteria, and the proteins are in a more digestible form.<br />
<br />
Tangential, but related<a href="http:///#" id="weis" title="*For retail purposes, homogenization is not practical without pasteurization. The smaller globules are vulnerable to enzymes in the watery part of the milk, and off-flavors will quickly result if the enzymes are not denatured (deactivated) by heating. On the other hand, pasteurized milk that is not homogenized tends to form a firmer cream layer that is harder to mix back into the milk.">*</a>, is the issue of homogenization, which is the process by which the butterfat globules are reduced in size so that the cream does not separate. There are theories that this also damages milk's nutritional value.<br />
<br />
Now a few facts as I see them. Please correct me if you see any factual errors:<br />
<div></div><ul><li>In the late 19th century, milk sold for human consumption in many large US cities was a very risky source of pathogenic bacteria, and probably<a href="http:///#" id="e2hz" title="**Then, as now, it was very difficult to pinpoint the actual source of diseases. Other foods, water, and direct contact were also important vectors, but milk is often the first target of investigation.">**</a> sickened many people. This was mostly produced by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swill_milk" id="ke._" title="distillery dairies">distillery dairies</a>, in which cows were confined under filthy conditions and fed distillery waste. The milk was adulterated with extenders and fillers to increase profitability. Investigation and exposure of these practices caused public outrage. Rather than shut down the distillery dairies, public health officials created a stopgap system of pasteurization of risky sources, and certification of clean sources.</li>
<li>By the mid 20th century, under pressure from large dairy producers, many states had imposed mandatory pasteurization. This happened even while more and more sophistocated testing and monitoring became available to assure that certified milk was safe. For bulk dairy processors, it helped eliminate competition from small independent producers.</li>
<li>Since the 1940's there have been no significant studies on the relative risks and benefits of raw vs pasteurized milk.</li>
<li>Most milk today is sold through dairy cooperatives. Large processors set the prices paid to farmers, and their milk is pooled together. There is little incentive to produce high-quality milk, only to meet minimum standards. Such milk, before processing, is likely to harbor pathogens and be a disease risk. After processing it may still contain some pathogens, antibiotics, synthetic hormones, and pesticides. Because pasteurization reduces all bacteria, good and bad, as well as protective enzymes, the milk may be more vulnernable to colonization by pathogens should it become contaminated after processing.</li>
<li>Most milk sold to be consumed raw is sold directly to informed consumers. There is a great incentive for farmers to be transparent in their operations, to test and monitor their herds and milk, to maintain small herds and feed them on pasture. Prices paid to farmers are negotiated directly with consumers, and are usually much higher than what coops pay to farmers for bulk milk. Farmers are not dependent on industry for feed, equipment, supplies, or loans.</li>
<li>Conventional grain feeding and confinement promotes erosion and pollution, while properly-managed pasture feeding promotes soil health and biodiversity.<br />
</li>
<li>There are many foods, from beef to vegetables, that are sold in raw form and carry a greater risk of illness than grass-fed raw milk.</li>
<li>28 US States allow the sale of raw milk under various regulations. Interstate sale of raw milk is prohibited by the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Health_Service_Act" id="nhxo" title="Public Health Services Act">Public Health Services Act</a>.<br />
</li>
<li>High-ranking FDA officials are often picked from the ranks of food and pharmaceutical industry executives, and they often return to industry after their tenures in government service. The same situation exists in the USDA and other federal agencies. Whether or not this constitutes a conflict of interest is worthy of consideration.</li>
<li>Lower-ranking officials and agents in the field are trained at agricultural colleges where they may receive an education biased toward industry interests. They may be unaware of the reasonable arguments against agency positions.</li>
<li>In cooperation with law enforcement agencies, the FDA can selectively enforce laws which are enacted by Congress. In fact, given budget constraints, enforcement is selective out of necessity. There simply aren't enough agents or resources to adequately monitor all the farms and facilities associated with food production and distribution</li>
<li>Members of Congress who enact federal laws receive large campaign contributions from the corporations that control most of the food production in the USA. Whether or not this constitutes a conflict of interest is worthy of consideration.</li>
</ul><br />
I am a die-hard liberal. I believe the government can have an important role in the promotion of public health. I don't believe that harassing independent farmers is a legitimate part of that role. Why not investigate some real threats, like the novel and poorly-tested foods and drugs that have flooded the market in recent decades? Maybe it's because the independent farmer a) really does threaten the agro-industrial system, and b) looks like an easy target.<br />
<br />
To counter this, the public needs to be active. Active in seeking information, active as consumers, and active in the public arena. Support your <a href="http://www.localharvest.org/" id="dff3" title="local farmers">local farmers</a>. Encourage your grocery to carry local organic products. Support legislation to legalize raw milk and promote consumer freedom. Contact your elected officials, and let them know you support independent farmers.<br />
<br />
Further reading:<br />
<a href="http://www.nicfa.org/" id="mdgv" title="National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association">National Independent Consumers and Farmers Association</a><br />
<a href="http://www.realmilk.com/" id="nx48" title="A Campaign for Real Milk">A Campaign for Real Milk</a><br />
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Untold-Story-Milk-Revised-Updated/dp/0979209528/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272355959&sr=8-1" id="zxf1" title="Schmid, Ron: The Untold Story of Milk, Revised and Updated">Schmid, Ron, 2009, The Untold Story of Milk, Revised and Updated</a><br />
<a href="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/" id="oa7t" title="http://foodfreedom.wordpress.com/">Food Freedom</a><br />
<div><br />
</div>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02892840844271230643noreply@blogger.com1