In the course of rearranging and reorganizing over the past couple days, one thing we needed to deal with was our charging stations. These are areas we've designated for charging our phones, game controllers, laptops, etc. (I know, I know, people think I want to drag humanity backwards two-hundred years. The truth is, I just want to take the real wisdom and truth from the past and apply it to the wisdom and truth of the present. I'm all for technology, innovation, and efficiency, just not at the expense of ourselves or Ma Nature. But I digress...) We have tried to set up convenient locations to charge things without having vampire power constantly running up our bill.
We have a HYmini with four small solar chargers (the solar chargers our ours, the HYmini is actually borrowed, but that's a whole other story). We can charge our phones and anything else that has a USB power connector. That sits in one of the south-facing windows in the living room and usually works great for one phone at a time.
For game controllers and/or two or more phones, we have a single power strip (with a surge protector) with all the various chargers plugged into it. The catch is, you have to remember to turn the power strip on when you want to charge something (not too difficult) and then remember to turn it off when you're done (a lot more difficult, it turns out).
While reorganizing I was faced with the question of what to do with a one-foot tall, light-up Las Vegas sign. The sign is plastic and a little tacky -- it lights up just like the real thing -- but my wife and I got married in Vegas and this was a wedding present from some dear friends who were there for the celebration. Be it what it may, it will always possess a place in our hearts and our living space.
How do we remember to turn off the power strip when stuff is done charging?
...and where should we display the Vegas/wedding sign?
*BLAM*
Two questions solve themselves. I set the Vegas sign up on the charging station power strip so that it lights up and flashes whenever the power strip is on. Testing so far has proved the solution to be solid. Don't get me wrong -- the Vegas sign holds sentimental value that continues to make it a part of our lives. It just happens to also make a great visual cue that can't be missed.
Re-wiring the office / music room / studio will be a whole other story...
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Monday, June 6, 2011
Coinstar and Amazon
I recently discovered that Coinstar machines offer eCertificates for Amazon.com. This will come off as a shameless plug since I've recently set up advertising with Amazon. I suppose it is in a way.
Whatever. It's not like Amazon or Coinstar are giving me any money to post this. Take it for what it's worth...
So I've known that I could take change to a Coinstar machine and get a gift card or eCert with no fee. Some years back my son and I began collecting coins. The family saves all of our change and my son and I go through it looking for coins we don't already have. As a result, we end up with a large stockpile of change every so often. I used to take it to Coinstar and get an iTunes certificate to buy music and such. At the beginning of the year we just held onto the change because we were committed to getting out of debt, but it turns out most banks (and credit unions) charge a fee to take change that has to be counted. So the change just piled up. Then I stumbled on the Amazon eCertificate.
The wife and I compared wish lists.
I got a bag for my new laptop. It has all the features of any good laptop bag, but also includes two concealed-carry compartments with elastic-band holsters. It's nice being able to carry everything I need for work or just out and about in one bag. Plus it looks pretty damn good.
My favorite item should arrive tomorrow. I've had my eye on a food mill ever since canning spaghetti sauce, tomato paste, and ketchup last fall. I can't wait to try this one out and report back. Hopefully it will make the processing of all those tomatoes (and more) much quicker and easier!
The past couple days have been very productive. I hope to have a post on that in the next 24 hours...
Whatever. It's not like Amazon or Coinstar are giving me any money to post this. Take it for what it's worth...
So I've known that I could take change to a Coinstar machine and get a gift card or eCert with no fee. Some years back my son and I began collecting coins. The family saves all of our change and my son and I go through it looking for coins we don't already have. As a result, we end up with a large stockpile of change every so often. I used to take it to Coinstar and get an iTunes certificate to buy music and such. At the beginning of the year we just held onto the change because we were committed to getting out of debt, but it turns out most banks (and credit unions) charge a fee to take change that has to be counted. So the change just piled up. Then I stumbled on the Amazon eCertificate.
The wife and I compared wish lists.
I got a bag for my new laptop. It has all the features of any good laptop bag, but also includes two concealed-carry compartments with elastic-band holsters. It's nice being able to carry everything I need for work or just out and about in one bag. Plus it looks pretty damn good.
We also got some stuff for the kitchen. We are trying to eliminate as much plastic in the kitchen as possible, so my wife picked out some Pyrex storage/cooking containers
. We got a baking mat
to cut down on parchment paper waste. We've been getting decent herbs from the garden (the oregano not only kept going through the winter, it's going gangbusters now), so we picked up an herb grinding mill
to help with that.
. We got a baking mat to cut down on parchment paper waste. We've been getting decent herbs from the garden (the oregano not only kept going through the winter, it's going gangbusters now), so we picked up an herb grinding mill to help with that.My favorite item should arrive tomorrow. I've had my eye on a food mill ever since canning spaghetti sauce, tomato paste, and ketchup last fall. I can't wait to try this one out and report back. Hopefully it will make the processing of all those tomatoes (and more) much quicker and easier!
The past couple days have been very productive. I hope to have a post on that in the next 24 hours...
Friday, June 3, 2011
Climate Change
This article appeared this morning. I'm going to tie it and article I posted a couple days ago because I think it's important to point out just how tragically our government is dropping the ball on this one.
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
See: Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy To Stall Projects
Here's today's article from climate scientist Heidi Cullen:
The C-Word
Posted: 06/ 3/11 09:06 AM ET
My phone tends to ring a lot more when the weather is bad. I often get calls from reporters and producers who usually ask me the same question a bunch of different ways. "Is this global warming?" "Is climate change to blame?" "Is the weather getting worse?"
These are big -- almost existential -- questions. I suspect they are a polite way of asking, "Is this our fault?"
Climate scientists approach the question a little differently. We want to test how global warming shifts the odds of a severe weather event. Just like medical researchers do with cigarette smoking and lung cancer. In fact, this line of climate research comes straight out of epidemiology. In essence, we're doing autopsies on extreme weather events to find out what made them so bad-ass.
Depending on the type of extreme weather event, my answer can be short or long, straightforward or complicated. Keep in mind, all weather is now born into an environment that is warmer and moister because of man-made greenhouse gas pollution. But we don't always know what influences (man-made or natural) will win out on any given day.
Events like droughts, wildfires, heat waves and heavy downpours get my short answer. We know they are going to become more frequent, more intense, and last longer. In fact, we can already see this playing out in historical data. (For a complete overview, check out the "Global Climate Change Impacts in the US", as well as some newly published research summarized here.)
Tornadoes get the long answer. Will they become more frequent, more intense? Will Tornado Alley get bigger? Will the season last longer? Jeff Masters and Andrew Freedman have both done a great job laying out the state of the research.
The bottom line is that two of the key ingredients that go into making a tornado are expected to change as a result of global warming -- water vapor (moisture in the atmosphere) and wind shear (changing wind speed and direction with height). Thanks in part to warmer oceans, water vapor has already increased about 4% and it will continue to increase as the planet warms -- providing more fuel for storms. But wind shear may decrease and that could mean fewer tornadoes. So which influence wins out -- increasing water vapor or decreasing wind shear? We don't know yet.
But even though we don't have all the answers -- and maybe never will -- we do know enough to act. And that is really the bigger point, the one I try to bring home when the phone rings. The recent National Research Council's "America's Climate Choices" report advised Congress that we know enough to get started on preparing for climate change and preventing the most severe consequences, and we need to get started right away. Almost anything we do to protect ourselves in the future from this hotter world we're creating, will also protect us right now from many of the extremes Mother Nature throws at us. We can't afford to wait.
Yet, despite this recent report, and despite all we do know about climate change, the topic has become the C-word in Washington, D.C. Just as the term "global warming" fell out of favor, the term "climate change" is now one that few in our nation's capital dare bring up in conversation, much less in legislation. Budgets for climate research have been threatened and now a nominee for Commerce Secretary is garnering opposition in large part because of his stance on environmental issues, including global climate change.
As the people of Joplin, Missouri begin the slow, painful process of rebuilding their lives -- a new wave of extremes is making headlines. A state of emergency was declared in Massachusetts on Wednesday after rare and powerful tornadoes ripped through the city of Springfield and smaller towns nearby. At the same time, long-standing temperature records fell as a wall of heat blanketed the eastern half of the country -- Washington, D.C. set a new daily record high of 98°F -- busting the old record that dated back to 1895. Hurricane season also started this week and forecasters expect it to be busier than usual. And I'm here ready for the phone to ring again, so that I can tell you one more time that if we do nothing to adapt and reduce our greenhouse gas pollution, things will only get worse... and yes, it will be our fault.
Heidi Cullen is a climate scientist at Climate Central (www.climatecentral.org) -- an independent, non-profit journalism and research organization. She is also a Visiting Lecturer at Princeton University and the author of The Weather of the Future.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE]
Check out the page Heidi referenced in paragraph five. It's worth a look.
Contact President Obama
Contact your representatives
Contact the senate
Dangerous Toxins From Genetically Modified Plants Found in Women and Fetuses
Institute for Responsible Technology...
When U.S. regulators approved Monsanto’s genetically modified “Bt” corn, they knew it would add a deadly poison into our food supply. That’s what it was designed to do. The corn’s DNA is equipped with a gene from soil bacteria called Bt (Bacillus thuringiensis) that produces the Bt-toxin. It’s a pesticide; it breaks open the stomach of certain insects and kills them.
But Monsanto and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) swore up and down that it was only insects that would be hurt. The Bt-toxin, they claimed, would be completely destroyed in the human digestive system and not have any impact on all of us trusting corn-eating consumers.
Oops. A study just proved them wrong.
Wednesday, June 1, 2011
Wind and Solar Opponents Use Bureaucracy to Stall Projects
I can't say this surprises me in the least. Here's the whole story in a nut:
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
"The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land..."
“...'opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics' to 'financially cripple' projects..."
"While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years."
The article doesn't name the "opponents" of wind and solar, but it seems a pretty safe bet big oil has a hand in it. Whoever the opponents are, this is further evidence that the government is subservient to big business. Since big business is only responsible for shareholder profits and not the health of people, the planet, or future generations, this is a very dangerous predicament in which we find ourselves.
June 1, 2011, 5:03 p.m. EDT
Permits, uncertainty obstruct wind, solar energy
By Eric Skalac of Medill News Service
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) – The government issued only a few dozen permits to develop wind and solar energy projects on public land last year compared with more than 1,300 oil and gas permits issued on federal land, a shockingly low number that needs to be fixed fast, members of a House committee said Wednesday
The culprit, according to many of the wind and solar industry officials testifying at the Natural Resources Committee hearing, is a bureaucratic process that can be used by project opponents to stall plans until they become economically unfeasible.
“I’m shocked at the constant problem of permitting and uncertainty,” said Rep. Jeff Landry, Republican of Louisiana.
James Gordon, president of Cape Wind Associates, LLC, detailed the permitting process during his experience with what could become the nation’s first offshore wind generation project, which has been in development for the last 11 years.
With no legal requirement for the duration of a permit review period, “opponents can use regulatory stalling and delay tactics” to “financially cripple” projects that may meet the necessary standards, he said. “One small group can tie you up in knots for many years,” Gordon said, referring to a special interest group that he said “has sought to delay the [permit] review process at every turn.”
The Natural Resources Committee has been trying to identify roadblocks to wind and solar energy projects. At its first hearing on May 13, the committee asked the directors of the Bureau for Land Management and the Bureau for Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and Enforcement to explain the alleged permitting delays. The officials said they were working to eliminate redundant steps.
The wind energy industry alone employs about 75,000 people in the U.S., and the generating capacity has grown annually by 35% over the past five years, “second only to natural gas and more than nuclear and coal combined,” said American Wind Energy Association spokesman Roby Roberts in a prepared statement. But despite industry growth, the witnesses agreed that the major roadblocks of policy uncertainty and a lengthy permitting process remain.
While federal incentives such as production tax credits and investment tax credits have helped the wind and solar industries, current credits are set to expire in a few years.
In addition, a grant program in the 2009 stimulus law provided $7 billion to be awarded to 2,601 renewable energy projects so far, “leveraging approximately $22 billion in private sector investment,” according to Stanford University energy expert Dan Reicher. But if projects have not started construction by the end of this year, they will lose the money.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
I am reminded of our own Declaration:
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
Something needs to change.
Economic Consequences
Two articles appeared on Market Watch today that I wanted to share.
The first reports that the housing market is taking yet another dive, indicating no foreseeable economic recovery on the horizon:
May 31, 2011, 12:56 p.m. EDT
Housing in double-dip decline as prices fall again
S&P/Case-Shiller index shows U.S. values falling below 2009 trough
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. home prices fell in March for the eighth straight month, confirming the beleaguered housing market has entered a double-dip recession, according to a closely followed index released Tuesday.
Home prices in 20 major U.S. cities declined 0.8% in March on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, according to the Case-Shiller home-price index released by Standard & Poor’s.
Prices fell in 18 of 20 cities in March on a monthly basis. Only Washington, D.C., and Seattle showed advances. Over the past year, only Washington, D.C., has seen prices advance.
Prices fell 3.6% on a year-over-year basis in March, compared with a 3.3% year-over-year drop in February.
The 20-city index is now below its April 2009 trough, meaning that home prices have fully retreated from gains posted from May 2009 through June 2010, putting housing in a double-dip downturn.
“Home prices continue on their downward spiral with no relief in sight,” said David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor’s.
[READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]
The second article really puts the economic problem in perspective. After three years of financial ruin, seems a lot of people want to point fingers but no one wants to take blame. Worse yet, there doesn't seem to be any entity interested in holding anyone -- except for the American tax payer, that is -- responsible...
May 31, 2011, 12:01 a.m. EDT
Why no jail time for Wall Street CEOs?
Commentary: Little reason to hope that justice will be served
By David Weidner, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — It’s probably the most asked question to come out of the financial crisis: why aren’t any Wall Street CEOs in jail?
It’s asked on the message boards, over dinner, in the media, in Washington and in schools. Most people shrug and agree, someone important — Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -.00% , Stan O’Neill, formerly of Merrill Lynch & Co., or Dick Fuld, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers — should go to jail, right?
A lot of us have tried to answer this question. Joe Nocera at the New York Times wrote in February that prosecutions were unlikely because “delusion is an ironclad defense.”
More recently, Roger Lowenstein, writing for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, concluded “risk-taking and stupidity aren’t criminal.” Lowenstein’s argument won praise from the Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin who tweeted that Lowenstein was “probably right.”
Finally, Bill Black, the University of Missouri at Kansas City law school professor, and one of clearest-thinking minds on culpability in the financial crisis, wrote a blistering takedown of both Lowenstein and Sorkin on The Big Picture blog by quoting their previous writing on Wall Street against them. In Sorkin’s case:
“If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least we’d have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.”
Taking down the ‘Don’
The upshot of these assessments of legal culpability seems to be that while a successful prosecution may have long odds, it’s probably worth doing. Indeed, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the Senate Investigations Subcommittee report on Wall Street, the Levin-Coburn report, both suggest further investigations are in order.
“It is possible for certain senior executives at major financial firms and banks to be held liable for the credit crisis,” said Michael Chester, a partner at Skarzysnki Walsh & Black. “However, putting together a successful case will likely be much more problematic than most realize.”
For one, regulators just haven’t been keeping up, Chester said.
“Traditionally, these agencies have always amassed large amounts of information to use in subsequent criminal prosecutions. However, statistics show that these agencies have referred fewer financial cases to the U.S. Department of Justice in recent years.”
Also, a ruling in the case against former Enron Chief Executive Jeff Skilling about the “honest services” statute now strictly applies to bribes and kickbacks, Chester said.
Moreover, the statute of limitations has run out on a lot of securities law claims, said Max Gardner, a consumer advocacy lawyer who’s been working in the foreclosure space. He adds that it’s difficult to pursue claims against securities sold by the banks these CEOs ran, because common-law fraud claims require a showing of intent.
“There’s also the representations and warranties in the securitization documents themselves, including that there is good title to the mortgages and that they’re not in default,” he said. “”It’s important to emphasize, however, that there could be suits against mortgage-backed securities sponsors, MBS servicers, and MBS trustees.”
But those targets are admittedly below the executive suite for which we’re aiming. It’s hard, but not impossible, to believe those CEOs didn’t know how reckless their standards had become on the mortgage and securitization front. Again, the Coburn-Levin report suggests there are some smoking guns that could link high-level executives who testified that they just didn’t know what was happening.
Even if there was evidence enough to build a case, it probably wouldn’t satisfy us.
“For those who sold financial products that misrepresented their credit worthiness, how far up the chain do you want to go?” asked Brian Greenberg, an accountant and investor based in Marlton, N.J. “Do you want to take down the ’Don’?
“In that case start with the Federal Reserve that made credit plentiful and cheap without any regard to creditworthiness of the buyer. If their excessive policy of pushing cheap money did not exist, then Wall Street would not have been able to push the ’junk’ to the kids — er, public.”
Greenberg makes a fair point. There’s a lot of blame to go around.
It’s the ability to mete out punishment that has its limits.
David Weidner covers Wall Street for MarketWatch.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
We've all been much, much too complacent.
The first reports that the housing market is taking yet another dive, indicating no foreseeable economic recovery on the horizon:
May 31, 2011, 12:56 p.m. EDT
Housing in double-dip decline as prices fall again
S&P/Case-Shiller index shows U.S. values falling below 2009 trough
By Greg Robb, MarketWatch
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — U.S. home prices fell in March for the eighth straight month, confirming the beleaguered housing market has entered a double-dip recession, according to a closely followed index released Tuesday.
Home prices in 20 major U.S. cities declined 0.8% in March on a non-seasonally adjusted basis, according to the Case-Shiller home-price index released by Standard & Poor’s.
Prices fell in 18 of 20 cities in March on a monthly basis. Only Washington, D.C., and Seattle showed advances. Over the past year, only Washington, D.C., has seen prices advance.
Prices fell 3.6% on a year-over-year basis in March, compared with a 3.3% year-over-year drop in February.
The 20-city index is now below its April 2009 trough, meaning that home prices have fully retreated from gains posted from May 2009 through June 2010, putting housing in a double-dip downturn.
“Home prices continue on their downward spiral with no relief in sight,” said David Blitzer, chairman of the index committee at Standard & Poor’s.
[READ THE FULL ARTICLE HERE]
The second article really puts the economic problem in perspective. After three years of financial ruin, seems a lot of people want to point fingers but no one wants to take blame. Worse yet, there doesn't seem to be any entity interested in holding anyone -- except for the American tax payer, that is -- responsible...
May 31, 2011, 12:01 a.m. EDT
Why no jail time for Wall Street CEOs?
Commentary: Little reason to hope that justice will be served
By David Weidner, MarketWatch
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) — It’s probably the most asked question to come out of the financial crisis: why aren’t any Wall Street CEOs in jail?
It’s asked on the message boards, over dinner, in the media, in Washington and in schools. Most people shrug and agree, someone important — Lloyd Blankfein at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. GS -.00% , Stan O’Neill, formerly of Merrill Lynch & Co., or Dick Fuld, the former CEO of Lehman Brothers — should go to jail, right?
A lot of us have tried to answer this question. Joe Nocera at the New York Times wrote in February that prosecutions were unlikely because “delusion is an ironclad defense.”
More recently, Roger Lowenstein, writing for Bloomberg BusinessWeek, concluded “risk-taking and stupidity aren’t criminal.” Lowenstein’s argument won praise from the Times’ Andrew Ross Sorkin who tweeted that Lowenstein was “probably right.”
Finally, Bill Black, the University of Missouri at Kansas City law school professor, and one of clearest-thinking minds on culpability in the financial crisis, wrote a blistering takedown of both Lowenstein and Sorkin on The Big Picture blog by quoting their previous writing on Wall Street against them. In Sorkin’s case:
“If the government spent half the time trying to ferret out fraud at major companies that it does tracking pump-and-dump schemes, we might have been able to stop the financial crisis, or at least we’d have a fighting chance at stopping the next one.”
Taking down the ‘Don’
The upshot of these assessments of legal culpability seems to be that while a successful prosecution may have long odds, it’s probably worth doing. Indeed, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission and the Senate Investigations Subcommittee report on Wall Street, the Levin-Coburn report, both suggest further investigations are in order.
“It is possible for certain senior executives at major financial firms and banks to be held liable for the credit crisis,” said Michael Chester, a partner at Skarzysnki Walsh & Black. “However, putting together a successful case will likely be much more problematic than most realize.”
For one, regulators just haven’t been keeping up, Chester said.
“Traditionally, these agencies have always amassed large amounts of information to use in subsequent criminal prosecutions. However, statistics show that these agencies have referred fewer financial cases to the U.S. Department of Justice in recent years.”
Also, a ruling in the case against former Enron Chief Executive Jeff Skilling about the “honest services” statute now strictly applies to bribes and kickbacks, Chester said.
Moreover, the statute of limitations has run out on a lot of securities law claims, said Max Gardner, a consumer advocacy lawyer who’s been working in the foreclosure space. He adds that it’s difficult to pursue claims against securities sold by the banks these CEOs ran, because common-law fraud claims require a showing of intent.
“There’s also the representations and warranties in the securitization documents themselves, including that there is good title to the mortgages and that they’re not in default,” he said. “”It’s important to emphasize, however, that there could be suits against mortgage-backed securities sponsors, MBS servicers, and MBS trustees.”
But those targets are admittedly below the executive suite for which we’re aiming. It’s hard, but not impossible, to believe those CEOs didn’t know how reckless their standards had become on the mortgage and securitization front. Again, the Coburn-Levin report suggests there are some smoking guns that could link high-level executives who testified that they just didn’t know what was happening.
Even if there was evidence enough to build a case, it probably wouldn’t satisfy us.
“For those who sold financial products that misrepresented their credit worthiness, how far up the chain do you want to go?” asked Brian Greenberg, an accountant and investor based in Marlton, N.J. “Do you want to take down the ’Don’?
“In that case start with the Federal Reserve that made credit plentiful and cheap without any regard to creditworthiness of the buyer. If their excessive policy of pushing cheap money did not exist, then Wall Street would not have been able to push the ’junk’ to the kids — er, public.”
Greenberg makes a fair point. There’s a lot of blame to go around.
It’s the ability to mete out punishment that has its limits.
David Weidner covers Wall Street for MarketWatch.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
We've all been much, much too complacent.
Monday, May 30, 2011
New Research Shows Factory Farms are NOT the Way to Feed the World
I saw this article last week and haven't had a chance to share it until now. The article mentions the video here (which plainly says "unauthorized use or distribution prohibited", but I'm going to assume that, since it's up on You Tube, it's safe to embed alongside an article promoting it.)
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Here's the article, by pollywog on My Auburn California:
Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty (Google this or go to Mercola doc com to watch the video. Just search for the title of this article)
Conventional opinion is that feeding the world by 2050 will necessitate a massive, global ramp-up of industrial-scale, corporate-led agriculture. But this is not always the opinion of scientists whose work takes them out of the laboratory and into farm fields and ecosystems, such as soil experts, ecologists, and development specialists.
One recently published scientific paper urges a fundamental rethinking of the U.S. agricultural-research system, which it calls "narrowly focused on productivity and efficiency" at the expense of public health and ecological resilience. It also calls for a revamping of the Farm Bill, which it argues uses subsidies to "mask market, social, and environmental factors associated with conventional production systems."
According to Grist:
"While conventional wisdom holds that scientists who study agriculture think only lots of GMOs and agrichemicals can feed us going forward, [this research] team has quite a different set of recommendations in mind: 'organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.' They are by no means the only high-level researchers to reach such conclusions."
Sources:
Grist May 11, 2011
Science May 6, 2011 (PDF)
Dr. Mercola's Comments:
From a purely financial perspective, factory farms, or Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) make loads of economic sense. Large numbers of animals, typically 1,000 or more, are raised in a small area, fed cheap, typically grain-based, genetically modified food, and supplemented with hormones and antibiotics to maximize their growth potential in the shortest amount of time possible.
"Indulgences" like access to pasture or natural foods, sunlight and fresh air are not a part of the equation as they don't positively impact profits.
As it stands, Time magazine reported that 2 percent of U.S. livestock facilities produce 40 percent of farm animals, and these CAFOs have been highly promoted as the best way to produce food for the masses.
But thankfully a ray of hope has emerged.
New Policy Reform Paper Urges Transition to Sustainable Agriculture Systems
A very bright, forward-thinking paper from a group of researchers led by Washington State University soil scientist John P. Reganold, published in Science, has summed up problems with CAFOs and the need for transformative farming approaches that address long-term sustainability.
They say:
"Achieving sustainable agricultural systems will require transformative changes in markets, policy, and science."
To realize this change will involve a transition away from CAFOs and toward innovative farming practices that:
" … integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
The paper builds on a National Research Council report released last year – Toward Sustainable Agricultural Systems in the 21st Century – that reported in 2007 the largest 2 percent of U.S. farms were responsible for 59 percent of total farm sales.
What are the Consequences of Relying on CAFOs for Food?
The trend of large corporate-controlled CAFOs making up the lion's share of U.S. food production has lead to an abundance of cheap food, but not without consequence.
As the report noted:
"Many modern agricultural practices have unintended negative consequences, or externalized costs of production, that are mostly unaccounted for in agricultural productivity measurements or by farm enterprise budgets."
This includes:
Loss of water quality through nitrogen and phosphorus contamination in rivers, streams and ground water (which contributes to "dramatic shifts in aquatic ecosystems and hypoxic zones")
Agricultural pesticide contamination to streams, ground water and wells, and safety concerns to agricultural workers who use them
A decline in nutrient density of 43 garden crops (primarily vegetables), which suggests "possible tradeoffs between yield and nutrient content)
Large emission of greenhouse gases including carbon dioxide and nitrous oxide
Negative impact on soil quality through such factors as erosion, compaction, pesticide application and excessive fertilization
Industrial agriculture also raises concerns about the welfare of farm animals and the farmers themselves. Net farm income received by farmers has remained stagnant for the last four decades, and more than 50 percent of U.S. farmers must supplement their income with additional jobs during the off-season.
A large number of these farmers are slated to retire in the next decade, which means there may be a vast shortage of farmers in the United States, and corporate agriculture could continue to reign supreme.
This is a problem for another glaring reason as well – namely that this system directly contributes to Americans' increasing reliance on processed junk foods – the very same foods that are making us fat and riddled with chronic disease. This is in large part due to the fatally flawed Farm Bill, which is slated to be renewed in 2012.
What's the Farm Bill Got to do With It?
The Farm Bill is renewed every four years. The last version was revamped in 2008, and at that time it set aside $2.3 billion to subsidize small farmers' specialty crops, which sounds promising until you hear that $290 billion was given to big business in the form of corn, soybean and cotton subsidies.
By subsidizing these, particularly corn and soy, the U.S. government is actively supporting a diet that consists of these grains in their processed form, namely high fructose corn syrup (HFCS), soybean oil, and grain-fed cattle – all of which are now well-known contributors to obesity and chronic diseases.
In a nutshell, the American agricultural system promotes and produces junk food, which is the precise opposite of what we all need in order to be healthy.
Take HFCS, for example. It's actually quite difficult to find a processed food product that does NOT include HFCS, and oftentimes it's one of the top three ingredients. With everything we now know about how HFCS and other sugars create obesity and chronic disease, is it any wonder we have a health care crisis on our hands?
The breakdown of government farm subsidies is really quite eye-opening and clearly correlates with which foods are heavily consumed in the United States:
Meat/Dairy -- 73.8 percent
Grains -- 13.2 percent
Sugar/Oil/Starch/Alcohol -- 10.7 percent
Nuts/Legumes -- 1.9 percent
Vegetables/Fruits -- 0.4 percent
Notice that less than half a percent of food subsidies is for fruits and vegetables! This is precisely why families have trouble affording green peppers, leafy greens and tomatoes, but can get a fast-food cheeseburger for a buck.
The bad news is that the foods receiving the greatest subsidies are the very foods you should avoid or limit, according to federal nutrition guidelines. It's a perfect example of saying one thing but doing another, and then blaming the ill effects on human nature.
The Science report, which is calling for a reform of the Farm Bill, further notes:
"Most elements of the Farm Bill were not designed to promote sustainability. Subsidies are commonly criticized for distorting market incentives and making our food system overly dependent on a few grain crops mainly used for animal feed and highly processed food, with deleterious effects on the environment and human health."
A Better Way to Raise Our Food
The video above is the trailer from a full-length documentary called Farmageddon...The Unseen War on American Family Farms, produced and directed by Kristin Canty. It offers an in-depth look into the escalating fight for food rights in the United States, including the right to purchase raw milk from small family farms.
The growing demand for raw milk is one sign that people are increasingly looking for fresh, whole foods that come from sustainable sources.
Partly in response to this consumer demand, researchers are now calling for both incremental and transformative approaches to make U.S. agriculture sustainable. This includes not only short-term goals like two-year crop rotations and reduced (or no) tillage but also a long-term transformative approach that:
" … builds on an understanding of agriculture as a complex socioecological system. Transformative change looks to whole-system redesign rather than single technological improvements. Examples of such innovative systems make up a modest, but growing, component of U.S. agriculture and include organic farming, alternative livestock production (e.g., grass-fed), mixed crop and livestock systems, and perennial grains.
Such systems integrate production, environmental, and socioeconomic objectives; reflect greater awareness of ecosystem services; and capitalize on synergies between complementary farm enterprises, such as between crop and livestock production."
This sounds very much like one emerging type of farming known as permaculture. The Permaculture Institute defines permaculture as an "ecological design system for sustainability in all aspects of human endeavor."
The word itself comes from "permanent agriculture" and "permanent culture," and at its foundation is developing agricultural and other systems that are interconnected and dependent on one another. In other words, they mimic the natural ecologies found in nature. The focus is not on any one element of the system, rather the focus is on the relationships between animals, plants, insects, soil, water and habitat -- and how to use these relationships to create synergistic, self-supporting ecosystems.
How to Help Support Sustainable Agriculture
If you want to optimize your health, you simply must return to the basics of healthy food choices and typically this includes buying your food from responsible, high-quality, sustainable sources.
This is why I encourage you to support the small family farms in your area. This includes not only visiting the farm directly, if you have one nearby, but also taking part in farmer's markets and community-supported agriculture programs.
Now that summer is almost here in the United States, fresh produce and other wonderful whole foods are available in abundance. Not only is the food so much tastier and healthier when you get it from sustainable, non-CAFO sources, but there is something about shopping for fresh foods in an open-air, social environment that just feels right. An artificially lit, dreary supermarket -- home to virtually every CAFO food made -- just can't compete.
If you want to experience some of these benefits first-hand, here are some great resources to obtain wholesome food that supports not only you but also the environment:
Alternative Farming Systems Information Center, Community Supported Agriculture (CSA)
Farmers' Markets -- A national listing of farmers' markets.
Local Harvest -- This Web site will help you find farmers' markets, family farms, and other sources of sustainably grown food in your area where you can buy produce, grass-fed meats, and many other goodies.
Eat Well Guide: Wholesome Food from Healthy Animals -- The Eat Well Guide is a free online directory of sustainably raised meat, poultry, dairy, and eggs from farms, stores, restaurants, inns, and hotels, and online outlets in the United States and Canada.
Community Involved in Sustaining Agriculture (CISA) -- CISA is dedicated to sustaining agriculture and promoting the products of small farms.
FoodRoutes -- The FoodRoutes “Find Good Food” map can help you connect with local farmers to find the freshest, tastiest food possible. On their interactive map, you can find a listing for local farmers, CSA's, and markets near you.
[READ THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE HERE]
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
Harbinger
Seriously? The U.S. Senate needed sixty votes to proceed with a bill to reduce the deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes and there were 48 Senators willing to vote against it?!? We are fighting two foreign wars, global climate change, an economic crisis, and we desperately need to curb the American appetite for petrol, but 48 U.S. Senators wanted to be sure big oil companies don't have to pay their fair share?!?
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
This is exactly what the founders meant when they spoke of "voting the rascals out". We should be paying more for gas because the cost is high. We should be paying more for food produced with petrochemicals and being transported long distances. We need to find a balance with nature and the planet so that it will continue to sustain us, but the U.S. Senate just decided big oil's profits are more important than you, me, and our children.
From Congress.org:
| Motion to Proceed to the Consideration of S. 940; A bill to reduce the Federal budget deficit by closing big oil tax loopholes, and for other purposes | ||
05/17/2011 Senate Roll Call No. 72 112nd Congress, 1st Session Rejected: 52-48 (see complete tally) | ||
| By 52 yeas to 48 nays (Vote No. 72), Senate did not agree to the motion to proceed to consideration of the bill. | ||
| Vote Map: Senate Roll Call No. 72 |
| 52 |
| ||
| 48 |
|
|  |
I read somewhere someone wrote this:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."
We The People need to seriously reexamine our consent!
Monday, May 23, 2011
Money Lessons for High School Grads
I'm posting a lot today. I suppose that's what happens when you're actually on the computer more...
Just came across this article, Money Lessons For Every High School Grad, By Zac Bissonnette on MarketWatch. The key points:
1. Debt is slavery
2. College debt takes its toll
3. Rich friends may be broke
4. Materialism is misery
5. TV makes you feel poor
So true.
[CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Just came across this article, Money Lessons For Every High School Grad, By Zac Bissonnette on MarketWatch. The key points:
1. Debt is slavery
2. College debt takes its toll
3. Rich friends may be broke
4. Materialism is misery
5. TV makes you feel poor
So true.
[CLICK HERE FOR THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Two News Items
Two news items caught my eye today that I wanted to share.
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
First, this article from the BBC World News:
Australia Climate Commission says warming risk is real
The Australian Climate Commission has warned that the world's sea levels could rise by 1m by the end of the century, much more than thought.
In its first report, the commission says the evidence that the planet is warming is stronger than ever.
It said that climate science was being attacked in the media by people with no credentials in the field.
The Australian government has welcomed the report as it seeks public support for its proposed carbon tax.
The BBC's correspondent in Sydney, Nick Bryant, says the commission's report delivers a strong rebuke to those who question that human emissions are causing global warming.
It warned that the window to take action to limit global warming was closing fast.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Second, was this article in The Times of India:
Tasty, healthy, but pricey: Organic mangoes make a splash in Chennai
Karthikeyan Hemalatha, TNN | May 23, 2011, 01.04am IST
CHENNAI: TS Sujatha, a housewife from RA Puram, loves mangoes. She pays a premium for these fruits at ReStore -- an organic food store in Adyar. The mangoes cost twice as much but they promise to be pesticide-free and healthier. "For me the difference is in the taste. The moment I bite into an organic mango, my mouth is filled with the taste and the flavour," says Sujatha.
Sujatha is among a growing group of consumers who prefer organic produce including mangoes. There are at least 20 shops in the city that sell organic produce exclusively. Other shops such as Pazhamuthir Nilayam in Anna Nagar have sections devoted to organic produce. Officials estimate that the organic mango market has grown from zero to 3% in the last few years. They say that the trend toward all organic food is only growing. "The awareness of healthy organic food among urban consumers was pretty low when the store was launched eight years back and is slowly picking up now," says Sandhya Srikhant from Eco-nut, an organic food store in Besant Nagar.
Sujatha, the shopper at ReStore, prefers organic mangoes not just for the taste and their promise of good health but also because her son's pediatrician has asked her not to buy mangoes from regular shops. The doctor has told her that these mangoes may have been artificially ripened and contain traces of toxic chemicals such as arsenic that will harm her son.
Eco-nut assures that they buy their organic mangoes directly from farms that have been certified organic by the Tamilnadu Organic Certification Department (TNOCD) -- a first-of-its kind government agency in India that is vested with the authority to issue the organic certificate. Some 20 other private agencies also certify organic farms. Certification is given after a rigorous process of record keeping, testing and inspection over three years.
[CLICK HERE TO READ THE ENTIRE ARTICLE]
Garden Notes, May 23rd, 2011
The weather has, thus far, not shown any improvement over last year. The good news is that several peas have started coming up and are doing very well. Three of the four artichokes survived the winter and are thriving. The strawberries also came through and already have several buds flowering. The onions are slowly making an appearance, though I had not anticipated how quickly the artichokes would grown to overshadow the area the onions were planted. The radishes, of course, are doing great.
We had some squash coming up and looking good, but they all disappeared over night. We don’t know if it was slugs, birds, or wild bunnies, but something ate them. I still haven’t seen any birds get near the garden. After the squash disappeared we put out a perimeter of slug killer. I’m going to have to seek out ideas for the bunnies. Maybe traps? I’m not sure...
Our indoor gardening has taken a tragic turn as well. We have had a few nice days over the past couple weeks and, in an effort to harden the tomato and pepper starts I put them outside a couple times. They did great the first time, but the second time outside withered them pretty badly. I’m not sure if they’re going to recover and my wife is even less optimistic.
Today or tomorrow we will be planting some more seeds. Even if the tomato and pepper sprouts do pull through, they are so far behind this late in the season I think we will have to buy some plants if we want to have any tomatoes or peppers this year.
New Computer
I have some exciting news: I am now the proud owner of a MacBook Pro! I'm not really a tech-geek and in fact I have something of a love-hate relationship with computers. I've been on the internet since the early 90's when I used a Commodore 128 with a 1200 baud modem to log on. I've always had hand-me-down gear because I have tech-geek friends, it's much less expensive, and I just don't (usually) have the desire to have the latest and greatest gadget. I'm the guy who doesn't want a new phone when I renew my plan because I'm familiar with the phone I have. I'm still running Windows 2000
on my desktop because it works, I know how it works, and I don't want to shell out money for a new OS with which I am not familiar and is likely to be buggy.
So why now? Several reasons. Primarily, my career has evolved to a place where a laptop is almost mandatory. My wife bought a used MacBook about a year ago and has been very happy with it. My son received a hand-me-down laptop last Christmas. Being the only family member without a laptop, I have found myself frequently borrowing one or the other to avoid isolating myself in the back room where my desktop computer is set up. I wanted to go with a Mac because my wife's MacBook is so easy to use, they are great for music applications, and, well, that's where everything seems to be headed.
So I have stepped out of my comfort zone entirely with my first brand new computer, my first laptop, and all on a platform to which I am relatively new. It's odd knowing that I can't just open the thing up and upgrade hardware myself because I have yet to learn how this beast works. Transferring iTunes has been a long, arduous process that is still not complete. I finally figured out how to import my contacts from my old computer this morning.
Still, all in all, I am happy with it so far. Hopefully it won't be long before I am up to speed and able to focus more fully on the garden and the next backpacking trip!
on my desktop because it works, I know how it works, and I don't want to shell out money for a new OS with which I am not familiar and is likely to be buggy.So why now? Several reasons. Primarily, my career has evolved to a place where a laptop is almost mandatory. My wife bought a used MacBook about a year ago and has been very happy with it. My son received a hand-me-down laptop last Christmas. Being the only family member without a laptop, I have found myself frequently borrowing one or the other to avoid isolating myself in the back room where my desktop computer is set up. I wanted to go with a Mac because my wife's MacBook is so easy to use, they are great for music applications, and, well, that's where everything seems to be headed.
So I have stepped out of my comfort zone entirely with my first brand new computer, my first laptop, and all on a platform to which I am relatively new. It's odd knowing that I can't just open the thing up and upgrade hardware myself because I have yet to learn how this beast works. Transferring iTunes has been a long, arduous process that is still not complete. I finally figured out how to import my contacts from my old computer this morning.
Still, all in all, I am happy with it so far. Hopefully it won't be long before I am up to speed and able to focus more fully on the garden and the next backpacking trip!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)