|
This is the weblog of
Raymond Powers.
Here I will be sharing what I find of import, humor, concern, inspiration and on the transformational edge
|
A Quote:
When anyone reads this but you, it begins to be lost. --Author Unknown
|
Raymond lives in Ojai, where the time now is:
03:58PM
Unique Readers:
Primarily
Public Domain
Everything I've written here, except my copyrighted
essays, poetry, lyrics, and music is hereby placed in the public
domain. The quotes from other people's writings, and the pictures
used might or might not be copyrighted, but are considered fair
use. Thus the license here would best be described as:
Primarily Public
Domain.
Please ask permission if there is any question in
regards to public domain usage.
|
Syndication:
![[Valid RSS]](http://www.worldtrans.org/pic/valid-rss.png "Validate my RSS feed")
WebLog Resources:
NCN NewsLogs
Weblogs.com
blo.gs
Technorati
Organica
DayPop
Blogdex
PopDex
Blogging Ecosystem
BlogTree
BlogStreet
BlogWise
BlogChalking
Wander-Lust
|
 | |
| Thursday, May 18, 2006 |  |
|
|
|
18 May 2006 @ 06:21
What Does It Mean To Be 'Organic?'
Shoppers, Confused By Labels, Don't Always Get What They Paid For
CHICAGO, May 17, 2006
Fast Fact
Organic foods often cost 20 or 30 percent more than conventional versions.
(Christian Science Monitor) This article was written by Amanda Paulson.
Buying organic milk these days — or organic apples, eggs, or beef — no longer has to mean an extra trip to a Whole Foods supermarket or the local co-op.
Organic products now line the shelves at Safeway and Costco. And Wal-Mart — already the nation's largest organic-milk seller — says it wants to sell more organic food. Large companies including Kraft, General Mills, and Kellogg own sizable organic- and natural-food brands. Now, they are developing organic versions of their own products, too.
Still, while some organic-food fans welcome its broadening appeal and availability, others worry that the entry of corporate behemoths into the organic-food market will weaken standards or squeeze out small farmers.
Meanwhile, consumers scanning the aisles face a jumble of labels and claims — cage-free, natural, free-range, organic — with little to indicate how well those claims match reality.
"People knew that once the demand was there, that larger companies would be in there," says Sue McGovern, spokeswoman for Organic Valley, a farmer-owned dairy and meat cooperative. "How do we feel about Kraft and other folks coming into the industry? People are split. It's a difficult question."
The organic industry is still relatively tiny — 2.5 percent of all retail food sales in 2005 — but it's growing quickly. Last year, sales totaled nearly $14 billion, according to the Organic Trade Association — up 16 percent from the year before. Organic meat was particularly strong, up 55 percent in 2005. Dairy products were up 24 percent.
Such products command a premium price — often 20 or 30 percent more than conventional versions — and sorting out which ones are worth the extra cost can be tricky.
In February, a Consumer Reports article examined which organic foods offered the most benefit. With certain fruits and vegetables — including apples, peppers, cherries, peaches, and potatoes — the likelihood of pesticide residue is much higher, it concluded, so buying organic makes a big difference. Produce which showed little difference between organic and conventional kinds included asparagus, bananas, broccoli, and onions.
The report also recommended buying organic baby food, meat, eggs, and dairy, but questioned the wisdom of paying more for processed organic foods like cereal or bread, which have limited nutrient value and aren't always fully organic.
The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) issued standards for organic products in 2000, although some critics question how strictly they're applied. But the market for organic food is anything but simple. Many organic producers never bother to go through the process of becoming certified, while other producers use labels such as "free-range" or "natural" that conjure up bucolic images but may mean very little.
"People use certain terms loosely, and consumers are fooled," says Joe DePippo, president of FreeBird, which produces antibiotic-free organic chicken raised on small family farms. "Consumers associate free-range with organic, and rightfully so, but there's some market for free-range that's not organic. And to just think that you can have chickens running free all over the field — it's just not practical."
Regina Beidler and her husband, Brent, who run a 145-acre dairy farm in Vermont, take the necessary steps so that their goods receive the organic label. A visit to the Beidler's farm found their 40-cow herd grazing contentedly in the rain on a hill overlooking the White River Valley. At about 4 p.m. every day, as well as at 4 a.m., the cows take turns at the milking stations in the cedar-shingled barn, where they munch on organic grain and hay.
"Integrity is something that ... we all realize is important to maintaining consumer confidence," says Ms. Beidler, who says some of their practices go beyond USDA requirements. "I always say there's an implicit partnership between farmers who produce organic and consumers who buy it."
But recent controversies have highlighted doubts about whether everyone lives up to that standard. A report released last month by the Cornucopia Institute, which supports family-scale farming, rated organic dairy producers on their practices. While it found that the majority followed good practices, the group was highly critical of two of the nation's largest producers: Horizon Organic, a subsidiary of Dean Foods, and Aurora Organic, which supplies private-label milk to many supermarkets. Both producers, the report said, buy much of their milk from large-scale feedlots where the cows have little or no access to pasture.
"The USDA listens to big players more closely than to consumers or small farmers," says Ronnie Cummins, director of the Organic Consumers Association in Finland, Minn. "With Wal-Mart and other folks jumping in, what will happen down the road is the small- and medium-size operators will be forced out of business."
In addition to his concern about divergent practices in organic poultry and milk production (the supply of organic milk can't keep up with demand at this point), Cummins worries about companies buying products like soybeans overseas.
Consumers buying soy milk or tofu, "have no clue that in the case of soy milk and tofu, it's actually coming from China, where organic standards are dubious and labor standards are abysmal," he says.
A widening array of options reflects the many concerns on shoppers' minds: pesticides, animal welfare, environmental issues, other health concerns.
Egg Innovations, which contracts with Amish farmers for its eggs and bills itself as the "Cage Free Company," offers four varieties of eggs: certified organic, Omega-3, vegetarian, and cage free.
The organic eggs are the most expensive and have the strictest standards: Chickens have access to the outdoors, and the company meets all USDA organic requirements. But none of the chickens are fed hormones or antibiotics, and they all have a vegetarian diet. The different labels are designed largely to appeal to different types of consumers.
"Shoppers are evolving with what's important to them, and we try to evolve with them," says John Brunnquell, the company's founder and a third-generation family farmer.
Another effect of high demand and big players getting into the market is likely to be lower prices. Wal-Mart plans to sell organic products for about 10 percent more than its conventional counterparts.
And at last week's All Things Organic trade show in Chicago, Dakota Beef touted its frozen, organic ground-beef patties. Costco has just begun selling them as a pilot project in the Midwest. In the past five weeks, sales have increased more than 60 percent, says Matt Grove, a business development executive for Dakota Beef. The price: $16.98 for four pounds.
"That's a price point everyone can afford," Mr. Grove says.
Melanie Stetson Freeman contributed to this report from Vermont
The label says 'organic,' but what does that really mean?
The US Department of Agriculture issued standards for anyone using its "organic" label in 2000. These standards prohibit the use of most synthetic (and petroleum derived) pesticides and fertilizers, and all antibiotics, genetic engineering, irradiation, and sewage sludge in the production of fruits, vegetables, meat, and poultry. In order to be labeled organic, livestock must eat 100 percent organic feed that is free of animal byproducts or growth hormones. These animals also must have access to the outdoors (although the definition of "outdoor access" for chickens is ambiguous).
Even with these guidelines, labels for organic foods vary. They include:
100% organic: Contains only organically produced ingredients.
Organic: 95 percent of the ingredients must be organically grown and the remaining 5 percent must come from non-organic ingredients that have been approved by the National Organics Standards Board.
Made with organic ingredients: A product is made with no less than 70 percent organic ingredients.
Free-range or cage-free: No regulation or standard definition exists for most animals. The USDA regulates the use of the term "free-range" with poultry (not eggs), but chickens can have extremely limited access to the outdoors and still meet the criteria.
Natural: This label doesn't mean anything except on meat and poultry, where the USDA says the meat must not contain artificial flavoring, color, ingredients, chemical preservatives, or artificial ingredients. It can only be "minimally processed." No certification or verification process exists to hold companies accountable for using the term. More >
|
|
| Sunday, May 14, 2006 | |
|
|
|
14 May 2006 @ 19:50
Beyond Fair Trade: Fairtrade and Global Justice
By James O’Nions; Red Pepper;
ZNet, April 22, 2006
[link]
Gone are the days when fair trade goods were available only at charity shops and church bazaars. Fair trade - or Fairtrade, as it has branded itself - is now big business.You can choose Fairtrade coffee in high-street outlets like Starbucks and Prêt a Manger, and local authorities are starting to declare themselves Fairtrade councils. More than 1,000 products are now certified as Fairtrade in the UK and, on an international level, the industry estimates it benefits five million producers worldwide.
Yet with multinationals moving to cash in, and supermarkets approaching fair trade (with or without the Fairtrade Foundation certification mark) as just another niche market, can it avoid being co-opted by the market system it was set up to challenge?
The idea of fair trade has been around since at least the 1950s. Originally called ‘alternative trade’, and dealing not in foodstuffs but in crafts, it was pioneered by Mennonites in North America and Oxfam in Britain.The first certification label, Max Havelaar, was launched in the Netherlands in 1988; and, since 1997, the Fairtrade Labelling Organisations International has sought to establish common guarantees of ‘fairness’.
For instance, in the case of products from small farmers, importers must agree to trade directly with producers’ co-operatives, cutting out middlemen.They must also demonstrate a long-term commitment to the producers and guarantee a minimum price no matter the fluctuations of the market.This price must allow the producers to cover their costs and meet their daily needs.The producers’ co-operatives themselves must also demonstrate that they are democratically managed and their agriculture is sustainable. Only if all these conditions are satisfied is a product permitted to carry the Fairtrade mark.
The aftermath of the December 1999 Seattle protests against the WTO saw Fairtrade coffee consumption skyrocket in the US.Yet this was not the ‘hidden hand of the market’ at work as demand for Fairtrade products increased supply. In fact, it was mainly down to the direct intervention of activists, specifically San Francisco-based Global Exchange, which launched a campaign to persuade Starbucks to offer Fairtrade coffee at all of its 2,300 US outlets.
With peaceful protests for Fairtrade outside its stores to add to the public relations catastrophe it had suffered as the bogeyman of the anti-capitalist movement, Starbucks soon capitulated. Since then, big food corporations have started to see limited forays into Fairtrade as a useful PR move, similar to what environmentalists call ‘greenwash’. McDonalds recently announced it would serve Fairtrade coffee in 650 of its US east coast stores; and Nestlé, which for years has derided Fairtrade for violating ‘free-trade principles’, launched its own ‘Partners Blend’ last
October.
The Nestlé decision caused an understandable furore, with critics arguing that Nestlé’s application should have been turned down to prevent the false impression that the widely-boycotted company was now an ethical choice. As one of the world’s largest coffee retailers, Nestlé has been directly responsible for paying the kind of low prices that make Fairtrade such a necessity. The World Development Movement, which helped set up the Fairtrade Foundation, was more than a little concerned, saying: “If Nestlé really believes in Fairtrade coffee, it will alter its business practices and lobbying strategies and radically overhaul its business to ensure that all coffee farmers get a fair return for their efforts. Until then Nestlé will remain part of the problem, not the solution.”
Yet for Harriet Lamb, of the Fairtrade Foundation, the decision is a ‘turning point’. “Here is a major multinational listening to people and giving them what they want - a Fairtrade product,” she says. Justifying the Nestlé decision, the Foundation refers to the recent slump in prices on the world coffee market, which has led to undoubted hardship, but speaks almost as though ‘the market’ is a natural phenomenon over which major multinationals such as Nestlé have no power.
For many of the originators of Fairtrade, the aim was not just to create a successful niche market but to lay the basis for an alternative system of trade altogether. While some of these ‘alternative trading organisations are little different from conventional companies, others, such as Equal Exchange in the US, reflect this more radical aspiration in their own structures by being workers’ co-operatives.
Yet all of them at least apply fair trade principles to everything they do, unlike the multinationals who are now entering the market. That’s why the International Fair Trade Association has launched a ‘Fair Trade Organisation’ label that certifies the company rather than the product, and is therefore a much more reliable indicator. These organisations face difficult decisions when it comes to distributing their products, as supermarkets become increasingly hard to avoid. Tesco now takes one pound in every eight spent by UK consumers and other chains are doing everything they can to catch up; pushing down prices by squeezing producers and buying up local competition in the grocery market. Even the most political of fair trade organisations have turned to supermarkets to maximise the good that selling their product is doing. Yet by courting the supermarkets, they are strengthening the very companies that are undermining the bargaining power of producers.
This is not the only dilemma that the Fairtrade label throws up.While products such as coffee require democratic producers’ co-operatives to qualify for certification, traditional plantations can also qualify if they meet minimum standards of pay and conditions. And while trade unions must be allowed under Fairtrade rules, they are not required for certification. Some do have strong unions, and the Fairtrade Foundation highlights the instance of two Kenyan rose farms, where certification was followed by recognition of the Kenya Plantation and Agricultural Workers’
Union.
On the other hand, the central American banana workers’ federation COLSIBA has levelled accusations of the ‘systematic violation of workers’ and union rights’ by plantation owners who benefit from Fairtrade.While the TUC and British trade unions have been generally supportive of Fairtrade, they have also pointed out that trade union organisation can be a better guarantee of workers’ rights.
Meanwhile, Marks and Spencer has just launched lines of Fairtrade cotton socks and t-shirts.When they see the Fairtrade label, most consumers would assume they were buying a wholly ethical product.Yet it is only the cotton itself that has been certified, with no guarantees about conditions where the clothes were manufactured.These kinds of problems only serve to highlight the extent to which Fairtrade is merely fiddling at the edges of an international system that perpetuates huge inequalities of power and wealth.
More radical alternatives do exist. Coffee grown in the Zapatistas’autonomous zones’ in Chiapas, Mexico, can now be bought from activists involved in the social centre movement in Britain, while the Working World Market is offering the products of Argentina’s worker-run factories to north American consumers. These initiatives stand in a tradition that saw activists in the 1980s sell Nicaraguan coffee in solidarity with the Sandinista revolution. What marks these projects out is that they aim to support people who have to some degree broken with the logic of the capitalist market. Zaytoun, which imports Palestinian olive oil to Britain to help break the economic stranglehold of the Israeli occupation, could also be seen as ‘solidarity fair trade’, even if its objectives are more about the occupation than about trade itself.
Trade as solidarity is an attractive concept, but its usefulness may be limited to quite specific political situations.The Movimento Sem Terra (MST) is Latin America’s largest social movement, organising landless rural workers and urban slum dwellers to occupy and cultivate unused land. Its innovative and highly effective tactics (it has settled 580,000 families) have won admirers across the world and it would surely have a ready-made market for a very political form of Fairtrade-endorsed products. Yet its concern has always been with feeding Brazil’s population, and the MST specifically rejects the export-led agribusiness model, encouraging mixedcropping rather than the monoculture required by international markets (see box). For them and other organisations in the global peasants’ coalition,Via Campesina, this concept of ‘food sovereignty’ is much more relevant than Fairtrade.
MST activist Marcelo João Alvares was a guest at War on Want’s annual conference in the UK in February, and gave us his personal take on
Fairtrade.
‘For Brazilians, Fairtrade is a distant concept. There are so many people living in shanty towns, so many street children; people don’t even have their basic rights to food and shelter. For the MST, feeding Brazilians is our priority, so certification has not even been discussed, not least because we see quality food not as a niche market, but as something we should provide as part of a wider strategy of food sovereignty. This requires policies that work to guarantee people freedom to produce their own quality food with respect to their own culture. We aren’t opposed to exports, but we don’t agree with the agribusiness model of valuing exports over the needs of domestic consumption. Primarily, food sovereignty is about feeding the people.’
The current popularity of Fairtrade is a sign of a growing understanding of the fundamental unfairness of global trade, but it risks being reduced to a branding exercise for multinationals - or, at best, a set of niche products that helps a small minority of producers but fails to affect the structure of the market as a whole.Yet if Fairtrade is embedded in a wider critique of the market, and is part of a movement of real solidarity with the global South, it still holds the potential to help us move towards a fundamentally different global economy.While we might continue to buy Fairtrade products where we can, it is not as consumers that we can determine the future direction of Fairtrade, but as activists building opposition to neoliberalism and corporate control. More >
|
|
|
|
14 May 2006 @ 19:44
Deconstructing Starbucks' 'Fair Trade'
Starbucks-Show Me the Money!
[link]
Starbucks-Show Me the Money!
This is a little coffee tale about fudging the truth with statistics. Or maybe it's that the largest specialty coffee company in the world simply made a little inadvertent mistake. You be the judge. As people learn more about the long-term crisis in coffee pricing, they are wanting to know what their favorite coffee company is paying its farmers. As a 100% Fair Trade company, our answer is easy - we pay $1.41/lb at a minimum to the farmer cooperatives for all of our coffees. To this we add a Social Equity Premium of five cents and a Cooperative Development Premium of one cent. (For all you liberal arts majors, that means we pay $1.47/lb). At a recent international coffee conference I was listening to Starbucks talking about their pricing policies. They said they pay an average of $1.20/lb for their coffees, which "compares favorably to the Fair Trade minimum of $1.26".
Sounds good, doesn't it? But it's apples and oranges (regular and decaf?). Here's why: First of all, Starbucks is not an importer. They buy their coffee through importers, exporters, processors or other middlemen. The $1.20 is the average price they pay to the middleman, not the farmer. When you subtract out all the middleman fees, the figure is more likely about .80 cents, although when I asked the speaker for that figure, he said he didn't actually know it. But it's that $.80 that should be compared to the Fair Trade minimum of $1.26. The $1.20 is also an average of all Starbuck's purchases - conventional and organic; whereas Fair Trade minimums are $1.26 for conventional and $1.41 for organics.
Further, if you really wanted an apples to apples comparison of landed costs at this end (which is the Starbucks $1.20), by adding importing and transportation costs, our landed cost would be $1.86. To their credit, the Starbucks representative admitted that their $1.20 figure didn't actually represent what it looked like it represented - how much they actually pay to the farmers. Having said that, I have seen Starbucks advertisements since the conference that still crow that $1.20.
Let's keep an eye on those guys and see if they'll ever come clean. If telling the world that they pay the farmers more than they actually pay for coffee was a mistake or a misunderstanding, they should be big enough to just admit it and move on. If it was a marketing move calculated to blunt criticism of its possibly rapacious buying practices and to mislead the public...well, that's another story, isn't it? O.K., Howard and Orin, show me the money!
|
|
|
|
14 May 2006 @ 19:38
California and North Dakota Race to Restart Industrial Hemp Farming
Adam Eidinger, May 12, 2006
[link]
Is 50 years of prohibition on “industrial” hemp farming about to end? That’s what U.S. farmers are asking as they have new reasons to believe 2007 could mark the first hemp crop since the last U.S. harvest in 1957. Since the demand for hemp seed and oil has exploded in recent years, legislative and legal challenges to bring back versatile low-THC hemp have new momentum. Healthy hemp foods such breads, salad dressing, cereal and snack bars as well as body care products such soaps and lotions are more popular than ever. With hemp imports including fiber products such as clothing and rope estimated at $250 to $300 million annually, U.S. farmers feel left out and are speaking up.
In response, North Dakota’s Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson formally proposed rules May 3 to license farmers in his state to grow industrial hemp under existing state law. Meanwhile the California Senate is expected to pass hemp farming legislation in early summer and hemp industry experts are optimistic Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will sign the bill which has bipartisan support in the California legislature.
The progress in two of the nation’s biggest agriculture states plays to the backdrop of farmers across Canada planting over 30,000 acres of industrial hemp this year. Organic farmers have reported net profits averaging $250 per acre over the past three years. Although this amount might seem low, farmers say they are earning three to ten times what they would make growing traditional crops such as wheat, soy or corn.
In February, Commissioner Johnson, along with agriculture commissioners from three other states, met with Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) officials in Washington, DC to explore acceptable rules on industrial hemp farming. The official meeting marked a turning point in the federal government’s relations with hemp-friendly policymakers who have been routinely ignored by DEA officials.
“This is seemingly an about face for an agency that has threatened to prosecute anyone who tries to grow non-psychoactive hemp in America,” says Vote Hemp President Eric Steenstra, whose organization is working to promote industrial hemp farming and was instrumental in getting the first federal hemp bill (H.R. 3037) introduced last year.
While North Dakota’s rules would require farmers to secure a permit from DEA before their licenses would become effective, there is precedent for this as the DEA permitted a test plot of industrial hemp in Hawaii from 1999 to
2003. North Dakota’s proposed rules cover commercial hemp farming and include a number of restrictions to alleviate law enforcement concerns.
Some highlights of the proposed hemp farming rules include:
? Farmers must consent to a criminal background check including fingerprints
? Who the farmer sells to and how much is sold must be documented within 30 days of sale
? The location of the hemp field must be provided using geopositioning (GPS) coordinates
? Planted hemp must contain less than three-tenths of one percent tetrahydrocannabinol
Many of hemp's uses such as in foods, animal bedding, biofuel and composites will become more viable if hemp is treated like other crops. “How can a raw material that's legal to import, to sell, to eat and to use in all kinds of everyday products not be legal for farmers in America to grow? No other agricultural commodity is restricted to just importation," says Steenstra.
While North Dakota’s progress could get hung up by DEA disapproval, lawyers with the hemp industry are preparing a court challenge if the DEA fails to cooperate with North Dakota or California when hemp legislation becomes law. The legal theory supporting the right of these states to regulate hemp farming stems from language in the Controlled Substances Act which exempts hemp from federal control. Using this legal theory the Hemp Industries Association created a legal precedent when the group which represents 300 hemp businesses won their lawsuit in 2004 against DEA, protecting sales of hemp foods and body care the agency tried to ban.
Building upon HIA v. DEA makes sense since its legal to grow poppy plants in the US even though it’s a controlled substance. Since the DEA ignores poppy cultivation so long as the farmer isn’t making heroin, one would think the DEA would also ignore hemp farming that is regulated by local authorities who ensure it is not the marijuana variety of cannabis.
Currently seven states (Hawaii, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Montana, North Dakota and West Virginia) have passed pro-hemp farming laws. Sales of hemp foods in 2004/2005 grew by 50% over the previous 12-month period. There are more than 2.5 million cars on U.S. roads that contain hemp composites. Hemp cultivation in Canada is expected to exceed 30,000 acres in 2006, while European farmers now grow more than 40,000 acres. More information about hemp legislation and the crop’s many uses can be found at [link]
|
|
| Friday, May 12, 2006 | |
|
|
|
12 May 2006 @ 06:51
This was circulated a few years ago, but I'm glad someone sent it to me again. Inspires my compassion and gratitude. May it do the same for you.
The World at Glance
If we could reduce the worlds population to a village of precisely
100 people, with all existing human ratios remaining the same, the demographics would look something like this:
60 Asians 12 Europeans 5 US Americans and Canadians 8 Latin Americans 14 Africans
49 would be female 51 would be male
82 would be non-white 18 white
89 heterosexual 11 homosexual
33 would be Christian 67 would be non-Christian
* 5 would control 32% of the entire worlds wealth, and all of them would be US citizens
* 80 would live in substandard housing
* 24 would not have any electricity
* (And of the 76% that do have electricity, most would only use it for light at night.)
* 67 would be unable to read
* 1 (only one) would have a college education.
* 50 would be malnourished and 1 dying of starvation
* 33 would be without access to a safe water supply
* 1 would have HIV
* 1 near death
* 2 would be near birth
* 7 people would have access to the Internet
If to take a look at the world from this condensed perspective, the need for acceptance, understanding and education becomes evident.
Think of it!
If you woke up this morning with more health than sickness, you are luckier than the million that will not survive this week.
If you have never experienced a war,
a loneliness of an imprisonment,
an agony of tortures
or a famine
You are happier, than 500 million persons in this world.
If you are able to go to church, mosque or synagogue without fear of harassment, arrest, torture or death, you are happier, than 3 billion persons in this world.
* If there is a meal in your refrigerator,
* if you are dressed and have got shoes,
* if you have a bed and a roof above your head,
you are better off, than 75% of people in this world.
If your parents are still alive and still married, then you are a rarity.
* If you have a bank account,
* money in your purse
* and there is some trifle in your coin box,
you belong to 8% of well-provided people in this world.
If you read this text, you are blessed three times as much, because
1. Someone has thought of you;
1. You do not belong to those 2 billion people who cannot read
1. and... you have your computer
Someone said once:
* Work like you don't need money,
* Love like you've never been hurt,
* Dance like nobody's watching,
* Sing like nobody's listening,
* Be surprised, like you were born yesterday,
* Tell the truth and you don't have to remember anything,
* Live like it's Heaven on Earth.
This is your World!
And you are able to make changes!
Hasten to do good works!
Think of it! More >
|
|
| Thursday, May 11, 2006 | |
|
|
|
11 May 2006 @ 15:23
The Care Crisis
by Ruth Rosen, TPMcafe
If you think its about sexual prowess, you’d be wrong. If you think it’s about size, forget it. And if you imagine we follow the various pissing contests going on among male liberals, you’re too self-absorbed. It’s about what I call the Care Crisis.
During the last week, I’ve had a series of conversations with intellectual, liberal women who, like most of our male friends, companions and husbands, want to restore American democracy, end the war and free up our nation’s wealth to support the health and well being of our nation’s citizens.
We care about the common good. We believe in a public good. We agree with those liberal men who are writing about how Democrats will have to be more than a “collection of aggrieved out-groups,” to quote David Brooks (New York Times, April 27). We agree with Brooks that “the message voters respond to best is notions of shared sacrifice for the common good…people are ready for an appeal to citizenship.”
Multiculturalism and identity politics, gloats Brooks, are dead. Fine by me. Gleefully, Brooks announces that “Democrats are purging the last vestiges of the New Left and returning to the older civic liberalism of the 1950s and early 1960s.”
But here’s the rub: Notice the years Brooks chooses as the historical moment to which we should return–before American women began demanding the equality that is essential to their citizenship.
In these conversations you men never hear, this is what we discuss: For four decades, working women have poured into the paid labor force. Yet American society has done precious little to restructure the workplace or family life. The result? Working mothers are burdened and exhausted, families are fractured and children are often neglected. The dirty little secret, we repeatedly tell each other, is that it is both profitable and convenient to our government, business and many men, for women to wear themselves out trying to do the unpaid work of caring for children, caring for the elderly and caring about the social networks of our communities.
It’s as though Americans are trapped in a time warp, certain that women will still do all this caring, even though they can’t, because more than half are outside their homes working in the paid workplace. And so, we have the mounting Care Crisis.
But somehow male progressives and liberals continue to view these problems as those of a special interest group and part of identity politics. Yet it is the core dilemma faced by most middle class and working class American families, all along the political spectrum.
These are some of the war stories we share with each other:
A distinguished op-ed editor rejects an opinion piece that describes the need for high-quality, affordable, accessible child care because “It’s been written about thousands of times.” He’s right. But nothing’s changed.
A distinguished editor tells a journalist that he doesn’t really want articles about “women’s” problems because he’s more interested in addressing the public good. Hasn’t he heard that women hold up half the sky and then-some?
Fortunately, one person may have found a way around these gatekeepers who are so bored with vital changes that have never been addressed and implemented.
Joan Blades, co-founder of the online activist web movement, Moveon.org, has launched a grassroots virtual campaign dedicated to making working mothers’s private choices and dilemmas a central part of our national conversation and political agenda.
She and her co-author Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner have just published The Motherhood Manifesto (Nation Books), a book filled with elegantly accessible stories that reveal the problems faced by working mothers in the early 21st century Without using the F word, they also prescribe such essential changes as paid parental leave, flexible working conditions, after-school programs, universal health care, excellent, affordable and accessible child care and realistic living wages.
Maybe, just maybe, you’ll finally hear us. True, it’s boring to discuss the vital needs of working mothers and families, when nothing ever changes. But while you’re talking about the common good, consider this: There is nothing more vital to the common good of our nation than the well-being of our working mothers and their families. And that, dear gentlemen, is where the votes are.
Ruth Rosen is a historian and journalist who teaches public policy at UC Berkeley. She is a senior fellow at the Longview Institute. More >
|
|
| Thursday, May 4, 2006 | |
|
|
|
4 May 2006 @ 16:47
Manila welcomes Asia’s first big biodiesel plant
By Roel Landingin in Manila
Published: May 4 2006 01:01
The Philippines yesterday inaugurated Asia’s first large-scale biodiesel plant, which can produce up to 60m litres a year of the alternative fuel from coconut oil, a big step for the poor south-east Asian country.
Chemrez Inc, a Manila-based oleochemicals maker, built the plant for 650m pesos ($12.6m, €10m, £6.9m) ahead of the passage later this year of legislation requiring petrol refiners and distributors to sell diesel fuel mix with at least 1 per cent coconut oil, and petrol containing at least 5 per cent of sugar ethanol.
The company expects initially to export up to 80 per cent of its output to Europe, the world’s biggest biodiesel market, as well as to Japan and Australia, while local petrol distributors set up the infrastructure for pre-blending the biofuel, said Jun Lao, Chemrez president.
Across Asia, governments and companies are developing plans to build biofuel plants or expand production of palm oil, sugar, jatropha and other crops that could prove to be cheaper and more sustainable alternatives to fossil fuel-based petroleum products.
In Malaysia, palm oil plantation companies, in partnership with the Malaysian Palm Oil Board, are planning to build three 60,000-tonne plants to export biodiesel.
Kuala Lumpur is also considering a law requiring petrol stations to sell biodiesel using palm oil from 2007 in an effort to reduce state diesel subsidies.
“We expect to hold the distinction of being Asia’s first large-scale biodiesel plant for only six to eight months because bigger projects, especially in Malaysia, are coming on stream later this year and early next year,” said Mr Lao.
He said global demand for biodiesel was set to rise as European Union members switched to palm or coconut oil from more expensive rapeseed in producing biofuels.
The Philippines, which buys all its crude oil requirements from abroad, saw economic growth fall to 5 per cent last year from a 15-year high of 6.1 per cent in 2004 mainly because of inflationary pressures stemming from soaring crude oil prices. The country’s trade deficit grew by almost a third to $7.5bn as its oil import bill surged.
Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, the Philippine president, welcomed the new biodiesel plant and said it represented a big step forward in the country’s efforts to find a solution to soaring world crude prices.
Unable to cut taxes on petroleum, much less subsidise gas prices because of the government’s large budget deficits, Mrs Macapagal is instead promoting private investments in alternative fuels such as biodiesel from coconut oil, ethanol from sugar and compressed natural gas.
Her cabinet recently rejected a proposal from an economic adviser to suspend the collection of the 12 per cent value added tax on petroleum products to provide immediate relief to consumers.
The move could lower the unleaded gasoline price by about a tenth but would also cost the government about 29bn pesos a year in forgone revenue, equivalent to about a fourth of its 125bn pesos budget deficit target this year. More >
|
|
|
|
4 May 2006 @ 00:40
State's first hemp farming rules aimed at clearing federal hurdle
By James MacPherson, Associated Press
Grand Forks Herald - Grand Forks, ND
May 3, 2006
BISMARCK, N.D. - State Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson is
proposing rules that he hopes will make North Dakota the first state
to allow commercial hemp cultivation and quell law enforcement fears
about the biological cousin of marijuana.
Johnson acknowledges it's an uphill battle.
The rules would require a criminal background check on farmers who
want to grow hemp. The sale of hemp and location of the hemp fields
must be documented. And the farmer must get a permit from the Drug
Enforcement Administration.
Hemp contains trace amounts of tetrahydrocannobinol, or THC, a banned
substance, and it falls under federal anti-drug rules, said Steve
Robertson, a DEA special agent in Washington.
The DEA does not have the authority to change existing federal law,
Robertson said.
"It's very simple for us: The law is there and we enforce the law,"
he said Wednesday. "We are law enforcement, not lawmakers."
The state rules would be "contingent on the federal government
changing its mind," Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said. The
likelihood of that is "very small," he said.
Johnson and other proponents say hemp is safe because it contains
only trace amounts of the mind-altering chemical. Industrial hemp
would be an alternative cash crop for North Dakota farmers because
it's used to make food, clothing, cosmetics, paper, rope and other
products, they say.
Johnson said his department crafted the state's industrial hemp rules
after he and agriculture commissioners from three other states met in
February with DEA officials in Washington. They discussed what would
be required to allow industrial hemp production, Johnson said, and he
believes North Dakota's proposed rules address those requirements.
READ More >
|
|
|
|
4 May 2006 @ 00:39
T R A N S I T I O N S
by Steve Sprinkel
appearing in ACRES,USA
June 2006
2006 should have been the year when industrial hemp was finally produced commercially again in the United States. Though hemp is produced in forty countries, in the United States unfortunately that is still for the future. However, recent developments in various state governments have opened the way so that a new crop can be added to an organic farmer’s rotation in as few as three and probably no more than five years.
Lobbying government, rational publicity and dialogues in state legislatures help, but the coming explosion in hemp products worldwide and consequential economic forces will make cultivation irresistible. In a few short years there will be so many organic hemp products on the market that further delay in the US will just be bad business. And its business that steers the Washington, DC leviathan more than any appeal to reason.
We may merely wear a bit of cannabis now and nibble on a spoonful of seed, but the inevitable advent of a multitude of viable products, from fuels to packaging and construction materials to a replacement for plastics is upon us. This was the consensus at an impromptu meeting in southern California of five international hemp production experts hosted by John Roulac of Nutiva.
Mr. Roulac, the author of Hemp Horizons ( 1997, Chelsea Green Publishing Co.) manufactures a number of hemp food products made from Canadian-grown hempseeds. This season he is offering Hemp Shakes at retail. He has positioned himself as a realist in the campaign to make industrial hemp cultivation in the US possible.
Mr. Roulac is careful to choose moderate allies, while at the same time serving as an activist litigant to repel ongoing legal challenges launched by the Department of Justice. Mr. Roulac, who lives a few miles from us in a small community surrounded by the Los Padres National Forest, was a key defendant in the landmark 2004 victory against the US Drug Enforcement Agency that renewed importation of processed hemp foods.
US Hemp food sales are growing at a 50% annual clip according to the US industry research group SPINS. Hempseed-based foods are becoming more common in a variety of applications, including bread, cereal, specialty nutritional oils, food bars, nut butters, and protein powders and shakes. The market is always hunting up the new, and hemp delivers good values like omega three in the nutraceutical category filled by flax and fish oils.
John Roulac is certain that hemp oil is primed for significance: “ …the product tastes as good ( many say better), provides a wider array of beneficial nutriments ( omega three, plus steridonic and gamma linoleic acids) and is competitively priced. The high-end market for the specialty oils has been built by flax and fish, so we are optimistic.”
READ More >
|
|
| Monday, May 1, 2006 | |
|
|
|
1 May 2006 @ 06:12
I’m excited to share that I have been given the honor to steward the Matilija Sanctuary in Ojai,CA. I will be in residence there, as well as managing the property and retreat rentals. It’s 9 acres of secluded private land, tucked in a canyon on the Matilija River just north of Ojai, with year round natural hot and cold springs and accommodations for 40+ guests
I have been in conversations with the new owners for several months developing our vision and intention for the land and resources there. We want to invite workshop and seminar facilitators to come and utilize the space for education, training and community. For many years it has been a hub of new thought, spiritual exploration, permaculture, and conscious gatherings. We will be continuing this legacy and plan to have it available by June.
Though a private residence, and not available for unscheduled public use, we do want to continue renting it for single and multiple person retreats and vacations, as the previous stewards had. If you want ore information or to visit the property, please contact me.
It’s a nourishing, potent, inspirational location where I will have the opportunity to host and nurture our visitors, share the healing power of nature, provide live music for our guests and offer private coaching and mentoring sessions upon request.
I am grateful to be in service and entrusted with the care of this amazing land and hold the container for those that will be visiting. More >
|
|
| Saturday, April 29, 2006 | |
|
|
|
 29 Apr 2006 @ 08:34
the Goddess Re-Awakening
an introduction to the Goddess Religion
Presented by Letecia Layson
According to Demetra George, Feminist Astrologer and Author, the Goddess is awakening from a 5,000 year cycle of sleep. Hear Her-Story as we trace the roots of the Goddess Religion, the contemporary Goddess Movement and how these are both affecting and contributing to a sustainable future.
Join us for an lively afternoon of sharing, guided visualization, and ending with a short ritual. The content includes insights and information from Letecia's travels. Through sound, we will merge our voices with hers in celebration of ourselves, the season and our commitment to personal and planetary transformation.
Date/Time: Sunday, April 30th, 2006 ~ from 2:00 to 5:00 p.m.
Location: The Goddess Temple of Orange County
17905 Sky Park Circle, Suite A, Irvine, CA 92614
Directions: San Diego/405 freeway (Irvine) exit MacArthur (north/inland)
on MacArthur go two streets, past Main to Sky Park East
Left on Sky Park East one street to Sky Park Circle
Right on Sky Park Circle about two blocks to building 17905 on right
Temple at end of building. Abundant free parking all around.
Cost: $30.00 at the door ($20 pre-registration by April 20th)
What to Bring: journal/note-taking materials and a candle in a holder
About the Presenter: Letecia Layson is a Filipina, Feminist, Futurist, Priestess of Morphogenesis (Form Coming Into Being), Priestess of Isis and High Priestess of Diana, ordained in the Dianic Tradition, The Fellowship of Isis (FOI) and TheTemple of Isis. Letecia was the recipient of the 2003 Catherine Wright Award for Equality and Justice in Alternative Spiritual Awareness by Feas2t. In 2005 Letecia's activism has brought her to the World Social Forum in Porto Alegre, Brazil and 13th Commission of Sustainable Development at the UN in New York.
Dedicated to a path of service to She of Ten Thousand Names, Letecia is committed to embodying the principle, 'personal is political' by healing and transforming civilization through her words, voice, dance, art and rituals. She works with her communities, Circle of Aradia and The Temple of Isis in Los Angeles, CA. She cultivates Life and land through permaculture in Ojai, CA with her new cat who has not shared her name, three housemates, their two cats and Kalu a Tibetan Mastiff.
Additional Info / Questions – leave a message for Bridget at 949-589-7236 More >
|
|
<< Newer entries Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 52 Older entries >> |
|
Sounding Circle implies the cycles, spirals and symbols of our thought, our culture, our lineage and our imagination.
A place to share ideas, create community, and give voice to our muse.
"Giving more than we take, taking just what we need."
"The universe is music connecting 10th dimensional hyperspace".
Prof. Michio Kaku, Phd. |
| Mon | Tue | Wed | Thu | Fri | Sat | Sun |
|---|
|
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
| 7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| 14 |
15 |
16 |
17 |
18 |
19 |
20 |
| 21 |
22 |
23 |
24 |
25 |
26 |
27 |
| 28 |
29 |
30 |
31 |
|
"It's not what you think, it's what you think about."
- lyric from You Can't Turn Back (But You Can Turn Back On) |
|
|
Sounding Circle
