Archive

Posts Tagged ‘forget’

Forget Buy Nothing Day: Could you hack Buy Nothing Christmas?

November 23rd, 2012 admin No comments

Adbusters

If you’re worried about the health of American consumerism, don’t be. Not even a bum economy can blunt Black Friday: Americans spent a record $52.4 billion over the four-day Thanksgiving weekend last year. This year, 147 million of us are expected to hit stores over Friday, Saturday, and Sunday; some folks have been camping out in line since Monday so they can be first to get trampled snag the best deals. I think it’s safe to guess that Grist readers aren’t really into that scene — you have better ways to spend the day after Thanksgiving, as you let us know last year.

The creative ideas you shared then ranged from taking awkward family photos to making homemade cards to donating platelets — all personalized takes on Buy Nothing Day, the annual call to reject the consumer freak-out that is Black Friday and refrain from spending any money at all that day. This year, Adbusters, the folks behind BND, are upping the ante by promoting Buy Nothing Christmas, a challenge to not just skip a day of consumerism but opt out of the entire holiday shopping season.

A group of Canadian Mennonites, not Adbusters itself, dreamed up Buy Nothing Christmas, and they offer some good arguments for why Christians ought to reject the corporatization of their most important holiday. (Liberal, progressive Christians exist, guys — you’re reading the words of one. Stop associating us with Rick Santorum. Thanks.) Anyway, needless to say, every American could benefit from a break from the purchasing frenzy. This year, I’m going to go the extra mile and give Buy Nothing Christmas a shot — and you should join me.

OK, I plan on cheating slightly. Certain younger cousins may be disappointed if I draw their names in the annual extended-family Secret Santa exchange only to offer nothing but an anti-capitalist lecture on the big day. I know part of the idea of Buy Nothing Day/Season is rejecting the cultural pressure to prove your love and devotion through materialism, and if you want to commit to that interpretation of it, more power to you.

But giving gifts can still be fun and meaningful if you know your present is unique and not something the recipient is going to see on a half-off rack at the mall the next day. Nothing kills the Christmas spirit like frantically navigating the downtown shopping district on Dec. 23, pawing through piles of V-neck sweaters and stacks of celebrity memoirs in search of something — anything — that would halfway satisfy that last person on your list. That kind of gift-giving makes me feel overwhelmed and empty at the same time, like when you’re starving for a hearty home-cooked meal and end up snarfing Trader Joe’s Pretzel Slims (chocolate, please!) instead.

So instead of buying no Christmas gifts whatsoever, I’m going to abstain from patronizing corporations and chain stores this season. No fleece pajamas from Old Navy or DVDs from Best Buy. (I’m still deciding whether smaller, local, and/or sustainably minded chains will be fair game or not — must I really boycott REI?) I wish I were one of those people who could avoid spending any money at all by giving everyone hand-knitted iPod cozies or painstakingly assembled scrapbooks for the holidays, but I don’t have a crafty bone in my body — so I’ll have to settle for buying other people’s handiwork (what up, Etsy!), which isn’t really settling at all. Giving someone you love a truly unique present, and supporting a local and/or independent artist at the same time, kind of produces double levels of gift-giving warm fuzzies.

Do you plan on participating in Buy Nothing (or Buy Less) Christmas/Holiday Season? Tell us about it! We’ll follow up with some suggestions for alternatives to corporate gift-giving.

Filed under: Living

View full post on Grist

Forget about San Francisco: Second-tier towns are where the action is

January 10th, 2012 admin No comments

by Isa Hopkins.

I grew up in Cleveland. Yeah, Cleveland. I know, hailing from a
less-than-premiere address leaves me open to a
certain amount of disdain from urban elitists. Being from the city that is
widely regarded as the “Mistake on the Lake” is urbanism’s equivalent
to being the fat kid in gym class, and it can leave one just as scarred as too
many dodgeball hits to the face.

I
don’t live in Cleveland anymore, but I didn’t leave because I wanted to be one
of the cool kids. I was stricken with the burning need to explore, to go new
places, and stake a claim for myself. And the more I
travel, the more I find myself drawn back to my Rust Belt roots—not
Cleveland per se, but some semblance of it elsewhere in the world.

When
I graduated from Georgetown in 2005, social momentum seemed to offer two
choices: Stay in Washington, D.C., or be a rebel and move to San Francisco. I chose
San Francisco. It was—it is—architecturally beautiful and politically
liberal; the weather was good and the vibe was exciting. It was expensive as
hell, too—it would be a real challenge on my meager Americorps living
allowance—but I figured that I’d get one of those fancy high-paying careers
that all San Franciscans seemed to have, then settle
in, build a family, and grow old.

It
wasn’t long after I arrived, however, that I began to feel unnecessary. San
Francisco is exciting, sure, but it’s because the city—like New York, or L.A.,
or other urban brands—churns along on its own rhythms, driven by the labors
and commitment of the hundreds of thousands of people who have already established
themselves. It seemed like every niche was filled,
and usually by someone both richer and cooler than me. I moved around for a few
years, bouncing between different addresses in the Bay Area, heading down to Southern California for a spell, and even revisiting Cleveland, a fancy
high-paying career slipping further and further from reach as the worldwide
economy imploded.

And
then, in early 2009, I discovered a little patch of
Cleveland in California, just across the Bay Bridge from San Francisco:
Oakland. Like my hometown, Oakland is ridiculed
by those from posher zip codes and written off by most outsiders (and even some
insiders). I came to Oakland for a non-fancy, low-paying job that I loved and
found my own version of paradise, replete with affordable rents and restaurants
without four-hour waits for a seat. It was just the kind of place where an
urban-minded, broke-ass, fashion victim like myself could feel at home: Wearing
sweatpants to the grocery store was socially acceptable, and I didn’t need an
impressive job title or great condo to fit in.

Like
Cleveland or any other down-and-out city across the country, Oakland is a
fixer-upper kind of town, thirsty for young people, where elbow grease and
commitment to place matter more than the state of one’s bank account. Since
moving here, I’ve found the purpose I was lacking when I lived across the bay,
and I’m gratified that my work has a real impact in the community.

Earlier
this year, a friend and I co-founded Femikaze, a feminist sketch comedy troupe.
(And if you don’t believe that “feminist” and “comedy” are
natural allies, you should come to one of our shows!) We had our first
independent production in October, a full-length show here in the East Bay that
sold out three of our four nights. We’ve already scheduled three more shows for
next year.

It’s
the kind of thing that would have been exponentially more difficult in San
Francisco, where any given Friday night offers thousands of entertainment
options, including dozens of comedy shows. We’re only a few miles away from the
frenzy here in Oakland, but it’s quiet enough that we don’t have to shout to get
anybody’s attention. There’s room for two determined women, with no patron and
no budget, to start something.

Many San
Franciscans find my decision to quit the hip side of the bay befuddling. “There’s
nothing there,” they say of Oakland. They’re not entirely wrong, either. There
really IS less (although far from nothing) in places like Oakland and Cleveland—or Pittsburgh, or St. Louis, or Knoxville, or dozens of other underrated,
underpriced, overlooked cities—than can be found in thriving urban centers
like San Francisco, New York, or Boston. But that’s just their charm.

“Less”
might be boring to some, but to those of us who strive to create and produce
and make a difference, “less” also means fewer resources are required
to start something new, and less competition comes from established entities. As
someone perpetually short on cash but long on idealistic ambition, I’ve found more opportunity in a second-tier city like Oakland than I ever knew in San
Francisco. And although some people out there like to use my address as the
butt of a joke, I’ve found it to be a rich, fertile place to build a life on my
own terms.

To
recent or upcoming college graduates, I offer my own bit of meager
counter-wisdom: Forget about Washington, D.C., San Francisco, New York, Chicago, and L.A. Look for a city that will value your presence
and appreciate your efforts, a city that doesn’t think you’re disposable just
because you’re young. It’ll be easier on both your wallet and your soul.

Sure,
you might catch some flack for moving to a place where “there’s nothing
there,” but take it from me—I came from the Mistake on the Lake, and to
my mind, “there’s nothing there” is just another way of saying
“there’s nothing in my way.”

Related Links:

Guerilla Grafters make ornamental plants bear fruit

Dr. Dirt: Street artist scrubs images into the urban landscape

Perception vs. reality in ‘bike-friendly’ San Francisco






View full post on Grist.org – the latest from Grist

Forget potatoes: Idaho now grows CAFOs

August 25th, 2011 admin No comments

by Twilight Greenaway.

When the Prevention
of Farm Animal Cruelty Act
(Proposition 2) passed in California in 2008, it
granted laying hens nominally more space in their cages.

Proponents of humane animal husbandry cheered the fact that these birds
would now have a little more room to stretch their wings. But industrial egg
producers—claiming their costs would go up—threatened to leave the state
before 2015, when key portions of the law go into effect.

Hope those disgruntled egg producers like potatoes. Perhaps sensing an
opportunity, Idaho lawmakers passed a series of laws more or less inviting the
poultry industry to their state. In this High Country News article (subs. req’d),
Grist contributor Stephanie Ogburn tracks the state’s Confined Animal
Feeding Operation (CAFO) laws and their repercussions throughout the state, and
asks: Is Idaho a new haven for CAFOs?

Idaho’s dairy industry (which surpassed potato production in 1997) has
already ballooned out of control: In 1991, 2,000 dairies produced 3 billion
pounds of milk; now a mere 650 dairies produce 11 billion pounds of milk.

How exactly did they usher in so many changes so fast? According to
Ogburn, Idaho lawmakers started out by restricting public comment on CAFOS in
2000. They followed that by altering water rights laws, passing legislation
ominously nicknamed the “CAFO Secrecy Bill” (which blocked oversight
of CAFO manure-management plans by making them “proprietary”
),
and amending the state’s Right to Farm law to prohibit local governments from
regulating agricultural facilities as nuisances. The latter also barred
neighbors from filing complaints using the nuisance law.

The result, according to this Boise Weekly article from 2010, is a long stretch of CAFOs along the Bob Barton
Highway in Idaho’s Magic Valley. It’s since earned the nicknamed
“Excrement Alley” from the advocacy group Idaho Concerned
Area Residents for the Environment
(ICARE).  Here’s why:

As we drive by a dairy CAFO, a 4-foot curving berm of cow
shit follows along the fence line. Inside are pools of water with a glassy
green-brown surface. Liquid shit. Jersey cows stand and lay under the sun.
There’s nothing green among the cows surrounded by dirt and dust, making it
difficult to tell where the earth ends and the shit begins.

Disgusting, sure, but it’s not an unfamiliar scene to anyone who has
read about or seen the inner workings of a CAFO. The environmental impacts
Ogburn catalogues for the High Country News are similarly unsurprising, if dire.

Large animal-agriculture facilities can contaminate ground- and surface
water with nitrate—which in drinking water can lead to oxygen deficiency in
babies and is linked to cancer—and phosphorous, which can cause algal blooms
and kill fish. Idaho’s Magic Valley, home to many dairies, has some of the most
impaired groundwater in the state (pollution sources include fertilizer, animal
operations, and humans); the nearby middle section of the Snake River is under
Clean Water Act-mandated management plans to reduce phosphorous.

It’s not clear just how many industrial-scale egg producers will migrate to
Idaho, but Obgurn points to “three chicken farms in the works and a $2.75
million poultry-processing plant on the way.” But there’s little doubt
that Idaho is courting poultry: State Senator Tim Corder, who sponsored 2010
legislation explicitly aimed at rolling out the red carpet for chicken farms,
is open about this goal. “[Poultry] is a really great industry to have
around,” Ogburn reports he told her. “‘It creates lots of jobs,’ he says, and is ‘fairly benign, environmentally.’”

ICARE founder Alma Hasse disagrees. “We
have more cows in this state than people,” she told me in a recent phone
conversation. “Lord only knows how our groundwater and air pollution
problems will be compounded when the chickens arrive.”

Related Links:

PETA is starting a porn site

Baby steps: USDA tiptoes toward fighting animal cruelty

Safe, organic food too expensive? Eat less meat






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Forget farmers markets—I want to sell my pastured meat at Price Chopper

March 19th, 2011 admin No comments

by Bob Comis.

It is time to make local passe. It is time to make regional the new local. Enough of farmers
markets, CSAs, and direct on-farm sales. Yes, they are exciting—they feel like they are getting us somewhere. And, to be honest and give them their due, they have gotten us somewhere. The reality, however, is that they will never get us there, whither goest we must if we want to make a change—real change. I will say it as straight as I can: I want to see my pork in Price
Chopper (a supermarket).

Can this be done with integrity? Yes, yes it
can. But, you’ll need to have faith and let me, the friendly face you like to see at the farmer’s market, recede into the
background again, let me fall out of the limelight into the limeless
light of the sun shining brightly on me and the critters living lovely
on the fields.

Wither goest? To work: to build infrastructure enabling us to regionalize our farm and food systems.

What infrastructure? Here’s a list:

• Regional distribution:

Trucking and rail, and yes, where appropriate, even barge
Distribution hubs (logistics and storage) to gather produce into regionalizable quantities
Regional distribution outlets

A plethora of mom and pop butchers
A plethora of mom and pop groceries
Supermarkets

• Regional wholesale markets and wholesale distributors without which regional distribution infrastructure is fruitless

• Regional processing:

Slaughterhouses with smallish to mid-sized kill floors
Mid-sized packing plants to break carcasses into primals and/or all the way down to retail cuts

• Regional-scale production infrastructures:

Scaled-up farms producing enough that when gathered by the regional
distribution infrastructures can consistently and reliably supply
regional distribution outlets

Creating a regionally directed, ecologically sound food system that’s accessible to a broad swath can be done with integrity and with no loss of animal, farmer, or consumer welfare; and it must be done.

How much food consumed in the United States is produced under
ethical, ecologically sound conditions —1 percent? Two percent or
even three? Is that enough for you? It’s not for me. I want 30 percent.
But, to get there,
we need to get my pork in front of the consumer, not the consumer in
front of my pork. It’s as simple as that.

When I started farming, just a few years ago, I had one goal, to know
every single person that I sold every single piece of meat or whole or
half animal to, to see them in person, to look into their eyes as meat
and money changed hands. I believed, very strongly, that this
face-to-face farming was the proper response to the ills of a century
and a half
of agricultural industrialization, the last quarter century of which
had accelerated to an absolutely dizzying pace.

At first, I loved it. Every person I met was so excited about local
agriculture. Most of them could barely contain themselves; they were
bubbling over with genuine enthusiasm and sheer delight in the visceral
emotionality of making food choices and cultural choices that really
mattered. Some would gush about all things local farmish. Some would be
thoughtful, pensive even. Some would excitedly jabber about farms, food,
flavors, tastes, textures, smells, sounds. Some were shy. Some were
absolutely matter of fact, acting as if they had been buying meat
directly from a farmer for their entire lives. All seemed sure that we
were doing the right thing: We were doing it like grandma did, and that
was good.

And I believed it too. I believed that we were returning to a
pre-World War II model of farm and food systems. I believed that before
WWII all beef was grassfed (not true). I believed that before
WWII, food distribution was local (not true). I believed that
before WWII farmers farmed sustainably (not true). I believed,
therefore, that in order to create a viable local farm and food system
all we had to do was return to how grandma did it before WWII
(not true).

So how could I have strayed so far from the
path of localism?

Because I started to read books, old books, primarily on raising pigs
on pasture. I was reading old books not because I thought the old books
had more wisdom to share necessarily, but simply because after about
the mid-1950s to early-1960s the subject of the farm manuals shifted from
pasture-based pig farming to confinement pig farming. I learned—
continue to learn—a lot from these old books, some of them going back
as far as 1805. Other than using contemporary technology like electric
fences, I have modeled my farm on what I see as the heyday of
pasture-based pig farming, the half century from 1900 to the 1950s.

There was more, however, in these books than information on the day-to-day practice of farming. There was just as much information on
marketing, and it was through the information on marketing that my
fervent belief that we were doing things as grandma did was shaken, not
merely shaken, but toppled, upheaved, pounded to dust.

I discovered that the history we were telling ourselves in the local
farm and food systems movement was a myth. It was, in fact, a complete
fabrication with no historical basis at all. We had simply wiped G. W.
Swift clean from history. We had written away Sinclair’s Jungle (and his
socialism!). In our tale, Chicago, New York, Philadelphia were fed by
local, or maybe even regional, farms. In our tale, grandma, bought local meat from her neighborhood butcher.

My old books say different. My old books say that we’ve forgotten the
perfection of Swift’s refrigerated rail car—which by 1880, made it possible
to slaughter hundreds of thousands of cows, millions of pigs, and
millions of lambs in Chicago and ship them to the major population
centers of the East. In other words, we wrote out of existence the
great stockyards of Chicago where millions upon millions upon millions
of animals from the Western range lands were slaughtered after being
fattened on mountains and mountains of corn, which has also been wiped
clean from our history.

My old books talk about selling not directly to local butchers, local
grocers, or to grandma. They talk about selling at central livestock
markets, almost universally, there being here and there an occasional
reference to what we would consider local sales. The prices farmers
received ebbed and flowed with the supply dropped off for sale at these
central markets, because before WWII, before 1900 even, farmers
were already selling commodities. We can go back even further than that.
One of the major exports of the early American colonies to Britain was
barrel upon barrel of brined pork.

So, I can say that I want to see my pork in Price Chopper, because behind the veil of the many myths of the local farm
and food systems movement is a reality that we need to deal with. The
energy and counter-cultural impulse to buy local, to buy directly from
the farmer, is more than the vast majority of our population can or ever
will be able to muster—heck, it is more than I can muster half the
time! Historically, it has never been done this way. We tell ourselves
we are going back to the future, but there is no there back there. We are
attempting something brand new wrapped in a false veil of familiarity.
If we insist on such a marketing model, local food will never account
for more than a pittance of total sales, 1 percent, maybe 2 percent, possibly 3 percent
(which is about where organic is right now).

To get beyond niche level, we need to radically change our marketing model. We do not need
to sacrifice the integrity of our cultural model.
We can and will
continue to farm ethically. We can and will continue to be remunerated
well enough to make a decent living. We can and will be able to afford
to pay our employees living wages. What we cannot do is insist that we
farmers look into the eyes of every consumer of local produce.

Newsflash: Grandma bought faceless commodity meat from a
nameless farmer. That is not a past I want to return to. I want us to
build a new, different, and I do think better, future.

I think we should take the considerable momentum of our farmers
market, CSA, on-farm sales culture and direct it toward the broader
population. Let’s convince supermarkets to buy local-regional meat, and
sell it under our farm names and tell our farm stories. Let’s at the
same time find a way to re-proliferate mom and pop butchers and mom and
pop grocers who could do the same. These outlets can be a farmer’s
proxy. They will know the farmer. They will tell her story. She can even
occasionally visit the store and mingle with customers.

I do not think we should get rid of farmers markets, CSAs, and
on-farm sales—I think they are lovely. But I do believe now that this
more distant, but not quite faceless, way is the way to the future.

It can’t be stressed enough: this way requires a lot of
work. We can’t just snap our fingers and go back to doing it how grandma
did, because we now know that we don’t want to do it how grandma did
it. Instead, we are setting out to do something absolutely new, and in
order to get there, we have tremendous infrastructures to build.

Let’s get to work!

Related Links:

To make local food more accessible, time to revive mid-sized farms

I’m a rural resident. Where’s my subsidy check?

Our favorite hipster farmer band names [SLIDESHOW]






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist

Incoming search terms for the article:

The GOP has forgiven Joe Barton, but here are six reasons not to forget him

June 24th, 2010 admin No comments

by Randy Rieland.

Rep. Joe Barton’s latest apology paid off big-time.  Wednesday, the Texas Republican groveled
before House GOP leaders behind closed doors, telling them that his impassioned
act of contrition
to BP CEO Tony Hayward last week was a mistake.  All
was forgiven
and Sorry Joe was allowed to keep his post as lead Republican
on the House Energy and Commerce Committee.

Tweet revenge: But
you had to wonder just how contrite Barton really was when later in the morning
he tweeted a link to an American
Spectator
article by Peter Hannaford titled
“Joe Barton Was Right.”
The
tweet didn’t stay up long, and as The
Washington Post
‘s David Weigel explained
,
Barton spokesman Sean Brown claimed responsibility.  So far Barton hasn’t apologized either for
the tweet going up or coming down.

Liberal thugs run
amok: 
One reason House Republicans
were able to find it in their hearts to forgive Barton is that privately many
of them agree with him.  Thomas
Frank, writing in The Wall Street Journal
,
lays out the GOP philosophy of government regulation as “shakedown”:  

According to this way of looking
at things, regulation is really a form of extortion, a political maneuver to
which liberals are partial not because regulation works—heavens no!—but
because the threat of regulation allows liberals to demand payoffs from the
affected businesses in exchange for walking back their grand, public-minded
ideas. Campaign contributions are the tribute exacted by Washington in exchange
for allowing business to do its innocent thing.

But even if some people are willing to forgive Barton, there
are plenty of reasons not to forget him. 
Here are six:

1.  Take the money and run: No one in the
House has benefitted more from the largesse of oil and gas companies—Barton
has received almost
$1.5 million since 1989
.  In the
current election cycle, electric
utilities and oil and gas firms have already tossed more than $250,000 his way
.

2.  Who’s
crazy? 
At a 2007 House hearing,
Barton explained to Al Gore that global warming increased greenhouse gases, not
the other way around.  He added:  “You’re not just a little off.  You’re totally wrong.”  At a hearing in 2009, Barton
dismissed Gore’s warnings
about climate change as “alarmist
predictions.” See Barton in action:

3.  So
there are stupid questions:
At a
hearing last year, Barton, with six seconds remaining in his questioning time, asked
Energy Secretary Steven Chu
:  “How
did all the oil and gas get to Alaska and under the Arctic Ocean?”  While Chu rushed into an explanation on plate
tectonics, Barton suggested that it must have been a lot warmer in Alaska in
times past.  He later tweeted that he had
“baffled the Energy Sec.”  Watch the exchange:

4.  Finger to the winds:  At a hearing last year, as Time‘s Jay Newton-Small and Katy Steinmetz remind us,
Barton suggested that
wind is a “finite resource” and that trying to harness it could “slow the winds
down” and in turn “cause the temperature to go up.”

5.  First,
we kill all the turtlenecks:
At another hearing a few weeks later, he argued
that the best way to deal with global warming is to adapt to it, like the Brits
and Vikings did when the Ice Age came along. 
Here, thanks to Aaron
Wiener, writing for the Washington
Independent
, is
more pure Joe.

I think that it’s inevitable that
humanity will adapt to global warming. I also believe the longer we postpone
finding ways to do it successfully, the more expensive and unpalatable the
adjustment will become. Adaptation to shifts in temperature is not that
difficult. What will be difficult is the adaptation
to rampant unemployment—enormous, spontaneous, and avoidable changes to our
economy—if we adopt such a reckless policy as cap-and-tax or cap-and-trade.

6.  Funnel
of love: 
Barton is the person behind
a political action committee called the Texas Freedom Fund that funnels campaign
contributions from oil execs and lobbyists to candidates who’d rather not be
seen taking money from Big Oil.  One
recent recipient of Texas Freedom cash is a Republican named Tim Griffin, who’s
running for Congress in Arkansas.  Howie
Klein, writing for The Huffington Post
, provides some background:

Most of us became familiar with
Griffin around the time of the 2000 election when he worked as an opposition
research director for Bush. His job, to smear Al Gore, was covered in Peter
Marshall’s BBC documentary Digging
the Dirt
, and viewers got the impression, which over the years has
proven correct, that he is one of the slimiest and least trustworthy rogues to
mount the political stage in our lifetime.

Hey, look over here!  Democrats, for their part, will be working hard to ensure that Barton and his choice remarks aren’t forgotten:

Related Links:

Hoping for a shakeup at the G8/G20

G20 may punt on fossil-fuel subsidies in Toronto

Hoping for a shakeup at the G8/G20






View full post on Grist – the latest from Grist