Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
With the recent salmonella scare and the eggs, one wonders if the food supply is all that safe. Out of necessity, we must put a lot of trust in food supplyers and our local grocer. What would the life be like if we had to depend on local sources, like the farmer down the road to supply us with our eggs and milk? Would all of us migrate to the country? That wouldn't be possible. But, what is the alternative? Should there be stricter inspections? Do-it-yourself tester kits for bacteria?
I say that maybe we should move toward a more sustainable model of living. It wouldn't take that much. A vegetable garden, a few chickens, a goat or two. Maybe we could go fishing on the weekend instead of wine tasting. What do you all think?
08-21-2010, 07:18 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Those things that you mentioned are a few things that some of us may be able to do; (I'm referring to having animals like chickens and goats), most of us probably cannot do that because of the location where we live. Gardening is something that almost anybody could do even on a small scale even in an apartment or high-rise, in a window/windowsill or even on rooftops in some urban areas. That is an excellent idea about gardening. Definitely more of us should get into that. Regarding your question “Should there be stricter inspections?” At the moment, I don't have any specific answers about that except; one thing not to do is trust or expect the FDA to do it “for us” correctly. That part of the system has been politicized to the point where it is essentially dysfunctional at best and more likely poisoning us. It is at this point in my opinion, not adequately “protecting” us average citizens. Instead they “protect” the vested interests as far as the money is concerned and not really interested in and give all indications that they don’t want to know allot of things, particularly when it comes to organics. They seem to be more of an impediment than a “protector” in regards to organic food production, distribution and consumption is concerned. Just look at the horrible decisions they are making and/or pondering regarding raw milk, and of course on the almond issue as well. Those FDA folks are more nuts than the nuts are! Allowing arsenic in animal feed! Can you believe that! We definitely cannot really put very much trust in the FDA and the vested $ interests and their lobbyists, government insiders etc. I am more concerned about the amount of arsenic in the commercial chicken eggs and the chicken meat than the salmonella, because I can kill the salmonella and E. coli bacteria by thoroughly cooking. I can't cook-out arsenic. As far as fishing is concerned, I guess it's a good thing for people who need to lose weight and may hang out in the river all day in waders fishing instead of being in front of the boob-tube being a couch potato. However, if everybody did it, there would be fewer fish than there is now; particularly steelhead and salmon in the Russian River. Besides that, there is also disturbing news about fish populations in certain areas being diseased with harmful pathogens too. As far as salmonella and E. coli in things like spinach, lettuce, almonds, etc. It probably is wise to know the source they are coming from to decide whether or not to cook or eat raw. Also spinach, lettuce, and other salad goods are relatively easy to grow in those windowsill gardens.:wink:
08-22-2010, 12:49 AM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Hey all you quasi-luddite waccoons,
Before the Progressive era, food quality was very sketchy. Even from local producers. Ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair? It was instrumental in the founding of the FDA. Remember the scene in, "The Road To Wellville", where Dana Carvey's creepy character goes against his father, Dr. Kellog (yes, the Kellog of corn flakes) and eats in a local steak joint? Recall the sanitation there? That was no exaggeration. That was normal way far back in the day. There's a reason those laws got written and those bureaucracies got founded. People were dieing.
I'm no fan of industrial agriculture and factory animal husbandry. But it's how the masses are fed these days, and for over a hundred years in industrial, post-industrial societies. And yes, unless you're a subsistence farmer, you're part of the "masses" I'm referring to.
It's the market, it's the market, it's the market. Cheaper, faster, more. So mistakes get made because corners get cut. In an age of massive deregulation, where the budget for food inspectors and prosecutions of food safety law violators have been gutted for decades. More E Coli, Salmonella, etc. slips through the crack.
You can thank the trend, since at least 1980 (aka The Reagan Era), to cut big government and let the "free" market prevail. For that freedom to profit, we can thank the "reformers" for: Deep Horizon / BP's Gusher, Food Contamination from Big Ag, Katrina (U.S. Army Corps knew decades before that MRGO and the levees were vulnerable, Congress didn't want to foot the bill, gotta fund the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan so they can fight the Commies, funding the Contras in Nicaragua wasn't cheap, once Congress stopped the gravy train, alternative funding sources needed to be worked out with Iraq, Columbia and Israel), and lots of other disasters due to the crumbling of our infrastructure because the dominant political trend is to not pay for what we need.
Unless we need expensive, destructive and criminal wars, carried out by push button remote control semi-discriminate death from above. Hellfire missiles, Cruise missiles, Predator drones, that stuff isn't cheap!
So what if some kids and old people get septicemia from dirty mass produced eggs. It's the price of doing business as usual, gotta keep those profits rolling in, what else is it about?
As for fishing, all the stats show that our strip-mining of the oceans has caused massive population drops. Runoff of toxins from our cities, farms and factories are probably also a factor, especially for species like salmon. But we've had factory ships out there since the fifties. Combine long lines, purse seine trawlers, and bottom scraping trawlers, mix with oil, pesticides, pharmaceuticals from our pee and poo, plastic trash and ... you're talking oceanic death zones growing by the day. Yeah, go fishing, see how much you can catch these days. And as more people get hungry, and more people do it...?
A similar phenomenon occurred in the settling of the wild, untamed wilderness by European immigrants. What areas the Indians hadn't died off in from disease, they were slaughtered, interned, moved away. Then the hungry people with guns came. Within only decades, wild game populations plummeted. (There are areas of metropolitan suburbs that could use more hunting now. The whitetail have no predators, other than the automobile and truck, and their populations are outstripping the food supply. Disease and starvation have come back for deer in the midwest and northeast of dis land. When it gets too obvious to ignore, local managers deal with it. But resistance to shooting Bambi makes that a hard sell.)
We love to write and talk about food around these parts. (Guilty!) Slow food, healthy food, organic food, local food, sustainable food, foodies, haute cuisine, affordable family food, cheap food, etc.
I'm all for it. But the bottom line is that as the economy tanks and populations swell, the real discussion will become, where's the food, how can I get some food, I need food my kids are starving, give me your food or else!
Quality, purity, safety, under those circumstances? To paraphrase Anthony Zimmern, "If it doesn't glow, eat it!"
We seem to be having some real difficulty prioritizing these days.
08-22-2010, 09:01 AM
someguy
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Yes!!! We should be doing more to protect the food supply. Let's start by buying our food from local farmers who are doing things the right way:
More regulation and more inspections is definitely NOT the way to go here. That kind of bureaucracy just makes it harder for these kinds of small farms to produce awesome food for their community. Just ask the farmers.......
We need to take more responsibility for our own choices. What ever happened to "buyer beware"? If we decided to buy food from local farmers, we could be our own inspection team. We could actually go to the farm and verify for ourselves that its being done right. We wouldn't have to rely on some douchebag bureaucrats to tell us what is safe. They clearly have no idea what real food is anyway.
We need to value our food more. Right now, food is far cheaper than it has ever been. A large percentage of our food supply is made up of byproducts of other industries, promoted as food to make more profit for agribusiness corporations and food processors. And our health is deteriorating because of it. Real food is more expensive, but definitely worth it for our health, and the soil's health, and the animals' health.
The reason for the salmonella in the grocery store eggs is that the chickens are eating a diet that is not natural for them (chickens are not vegetarians!), and they're also packed into a barn with hardly enough room to turn around. That's just as true for the so-called "free-range" eggs as it is for conventional. With truly pastured eggs, I never worry about salmonella. I even make ice cream with raw yolks sometimes. Pastured eggs are also much higher in nutrients than regular eggs:
And if all that wasn't enough, they also taste way better!
08-22-2010, 03:27 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
I'm glad you agree, at least in part with my post- 1) that being sustainable is cetainly a better idea than trusting a government agency 2) Gardening is a good idea.
I don't agree that if everyone fished that there would be less fish. Because the reason fish have dwindled is not due to men taking just the amount needed for survive, but to commercial fishing where there is a lot of waste and use of fish for animal feed and fertilizers-and harm to other marine animals that are caught in nets, etc. If we lived the way our predecesors did, only taking what was needed for consumption at one or two meals and not wasting ANYTHING (i.e., using the parts we don't eat to fertilize our gardens and feed our companion animals), then the fish population would replenish itself through natural selection. There is also the problem of water being redirected to irrigation projects, causing local fish populations to die out, among other causes. So, just fishing for a couple of dinners on a Sunday is not going to cause the local salmon population to go extinct. If someone had the energy, there's also fish farming. At one point I considered raising crawfish, as this is an excellent source of protein, and who doesn't like crawdads with melted butter? I researched it, and it didn't seem like it would be that difficult. I just didn't have the time or the funds to set up the pools and the water filtering system that were required.
Perhaps if we went back to a simpler way of doing things, we could barter for certain things we did not have the land or facilities to raise, like goats and chickens for meat, eggs and milk. We could perhaps trade our services for a dozen fresh eggs or a quart of milk. Seems like a winning idea to me. There are many rancher who I'm sure might need a helping hand to fix some fences, set up a website, or have their children cared for. Most people have the skills to do something that a rancher would value.
Since we cannot trust the government agencies to do the job of protecting our food supply, and most of us don't have the time or the gumption to be activists, what else can we do about it?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
Those things that you mentioned are a few things that some of us may be able to do; (I'm referring to having animals like chickens and goats), most of us probably cannot do that because of the location where we live. Gardening is something that almost anybody could do even on a small scale even in an apartment or high-rise, in a window/windowsill or even on rooftops in some urban areas. That is an excellent idea about gardening. Definitely more of us should get into that. Regarding your question “Should there be stricter inspections?” At the moment, I don't have any specific answers about that except; one thing not to do is trust or expect the FDA to do it “for us” correctly. That part of the system has been politicized to the point where it is essentially dysfunctional at best and more likely poisoning us. It is at this point in my opinion, not adequately “protecting” us average citizens. Instead they “protect” the vested interests as far as the money is concerned and not really interested in and give all indications that they don’t want to know allot of things, particularly when it comes to organics. They seem to be more of an impediment than a “protector” in regards to organic food production, distribution and consumption is concerned. Just look at the horrible decisions they are making and/or pondering regarding raw milk, and of course on the almond issue as well. Those FDA folks are more nuts than the nuts are! Allowing arsenic in animal feed! Can you believe that! We definitely cannot really put very much trust in the FDA and the vested $ interests and their lobbyists, government insiders etc. I am more concerned about the amount of arsenic in the commercial chicken eggs and the chicken meat than the salmonella, because I can kill the salmonella and E. coli bacteria by thoroughly cooking. I can't cook-out arsenic. As far as fishing is concerned, I guess it's a good thing for people who need to lose weight and may hang out in the river all day in waders fishing instead of being in front of the boob-tube being a couch potato. However, if everybody did it, there would be fewer fish than there is now; particularly steelhead and salmon in the Russian River. Besides that, there is also disturbing news about fish populations in certain areas being diseased with harmful pathogens too. As far as salmonella and E. coli in things like spinach, lettuce, almonds, etc. It probably is wise to know the source they are coming from to decide whether or not to cook or eat raw. Also spinach, lettuce, and other salad goods are relatively easy to grow in those windowsill gardens.:wink:
08-22-2010, 06:02 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Hey all you quasi-luddite waccoons,
Before the Progressive era, food quality was very sketchy. Even from local producers.
And today it still is, but for some different (and also same such as unsanitary processing practices) reasons such as pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, runoffs of those things into rivers, streams, lakes, and in the ocean causing toxins that go into the environment and ultimately into our drinking water systems etc. .
That is just agricultural part of it.
Then there is the pharmaceutical part which also, ultimately as its own aspect that ends up with unintended input of pharmaceuticals into the drinking water system by way of, not being able to process out those chemicals from the drinking water systems “purification” and filtration.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Ever read "The Jungle" by Upton Sinclair?
No, I have not.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
It was instrumental in the founding of the FDA. Remember the scene in, "The Road To Wellville", where Dana Carvey's creepy character goes against his father, Dr. Kellog (yes, the Kellog of corn flakes) and eats in a local steak joint? Recall the sanitation there? That was no exaggeration. That was normal way far back in the day. There's a reason those laws got written and those bureaucracies got founded. People were dieing.
Just because something got founded for good reasons (unfortunately) doesn't mean it is not infallible or not corruptible.
I still believe that as far as organic is concerned that the FDA is understaffed, and therefore, if for no other reason than that incapable of dealing with the organic almonds for example. So they put everybody there grows almonds in the same category and forces them by way of law in such a way that it is impossible to get organic (or non-organic for that matter) raw , untreated almonds in any store in California. So the only organic raw almonds that you can get here in California from a store are blanched. That reduces their quality and shelf life.
Also at the same time, the FDA allows arsenic to be added into animal feed for purposes other than getting rid of parasites. It is specifically for the purpose of fattening the stock.
The list goes on, but my point is that there are certain political and financial interests that have infiltrated a protection system that is ultimately undermining, in many ways, it’s (the FDA) reason for existing in the first place.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
I'm no fan of industrial agriculture and factory animal husbandry. But it's how the masses are fed these days, and for over a hundred years in industrial, post-industrial societies. And yes, unless you're a subsistence farmer, you're part of the "masses" I'm referring to.
It's the market, it's the market, it's the market. Cheaper, faster, more. So mistakes get made because corners get cut. In an age of massive deregulation, where the budget for food inspectors and prosecutions of food safety law violators have been gutted for decades. More E Coli, Salmonella, etc. slips through the crack.
Yup. Sometimes it's so blatant it seems almost intentional by certain interests. That's where all the conspiracy theories come and even though almost of them are probably a little off and some of them are very far off.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
You can thank the trend, since at least 1980 (aka The Reagan Era), to cut big government and let the "free" market prevail. For that freedom to profit, we can thank the "reformers" for: Deep Horizon / BP's Gusher, Food Contamination from Big Ag, Katrina (U.S. Army Corps knew decades before that MRGO and the levees were vulnerable, Congress didn't want to foot the bill, gotta fund the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan so they can fight the Commies, funding the Contras in Nicaragua wasn't cheap, once Congress stopped the gravy train, alternative funding sources needed to be worked out with Iraq, Columbia and Israel), and lots of other disasters due to the crumbling of our infrastructure because the dominant political trend is to not pay for what we need.
Yup, that's pretty much the gist of what I've been saying to the preachers and fanatics of the free-market cannibalism ... ... I mean (capitalism) crowd.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
...Then the hungry people with guns came. Within only decades, wild game populations plummeted. (There are areas of metropolitan suburbs that could use more hunting now. The whitetail have no predators, other than the automobile and truck, and their populations are outstripping the food supply. Disease and starvation have come back for deer in the midwest and northeast of dis land. When it gets too obvious to ignore, local managers deal with it. But resistance to shooting Bambi makes that a hard sell.)
Deer hunting around certain suburbs!? Hmmm, what an interesting concept! I have heard that before, about six or seven years ago, but I forget where. I think it was upstate New York or somewhere like that.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
We love to write and talk about food around these parts. (Guilty!) Slow food, healthy food, organic food, local food, sustainable food, foodies, haute cuisine, affordable family food, cheap food, etc.
I'm all for it. But the bottom line is that as the economy tanks and populations swell, the real discussion will become, where's the food, how can I get some food, I need food my kids are starving, give me your food or else!
That really got on the fast track, (if my memory serves me correctly) at the end of the Bill Clinton era; with the North American free trade act, and in particular, the doing away with Glass-Steagall act ( The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act; also known as the Financial Services Modernization Act of 1999 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%...lative_history)... ...( This legislation was signed into law by Democratic President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gramm%...lative_history) and other compromises that were made by the Clinton administration to satisfy the so-called bipartisan ism, which was supposed to be a selling point, not a sellout but ended up at this point in time looking more like a sellout to the ultra big business interests.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Quality, purity, safety, under those circumstances? To paraphrase Anthony Zimmern, "If it doesn't glow, eat it!"
I'm not so sure about that just because it's not contaminated enough to have radioactive afterglow, doesn't mean it's not toxic.
That might be a good one-liner, but not the best way to choose food.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
We seem to be having some real difficulty prioritizing these days.
So I guess one question would be; if I was starving would I eat any of those eggs that are suspected of having Salmonella or E. coli contamination?
The answer is yes of course as long as I was able to cook them enough.
The next question is would I trust those eggs or the chicken meat if it had the arsenic in it?
The answer is probably no. If I was starving I might decide to eat it instead of starving to death, but not as regular, daily diet.
Would I eat farmed fish? The answer to that is yes. But I would want it to be thoroughly cooked, and preferably from an area I knew was not polluted with residues from any kind of mining such as mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium, uranium, or industrial and/or agricultural runoff or other toxic pollutants that cannot be cooked out.
Food most definitely is a very high priority. Therefore, the food, and also water must not be toxic, either.
So when you say; something like “We seem to be having some real difficulty prioritizing”... ... I'm assuming you mean (in a general sense) we as a country as a whole and not necessarily as (lone) individuals here on waccobb.
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Hotspring44,
Thanks for such a detailed reply! We are on the same page here, even the same paragraph! You provided way more detailed information. I was just spouting off.
The "If it glows", was just a joke, not meant to be taken seriously, but you did and made it work that way too!
"The Jungle" is an excellent, gripping, tragic read. It used to be part of the English curriculum in High School when I came up. And that was in Huntsville, Alabama! Granted it is Rocket City USA, home to Redstone Arsenal and Marshall Space Flight Center for NASA (third largest NASA base, at that time) so they wanted their future technocrats to have a solid grounding in all the usual subjects.
Gonzo,
There are a lot more people walking around than there were prior to the industrial food revolution. If everyone was getting their Sunday dinner, by hooking, tickling, or netting a couple of salmon, how long do you think they'd last? Assuming there are any given the runoff proplems both Hotspring44 and I brought up.
The 20th annual Cotati Accordian Festival was a blast this afternoon. I missed focusing on Flaco's set because I was chatting up a beautiful woman in a dirndl and Swiss Alpine hat!
08-23-2010, 08:27 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
I don't agree that if everyone fished that there would be less fish.
I think for a multitude of reasons (some of which you specifically mentioned) would have to be mitigated, and to do the that it would take many decades to come anywhere close to reestablishing fish populations in the rivers, streams, natural lakes, and ocean to pre early 1800s level, in streams, lakes, and ocean.
Therefore, I think that statement would only be true long after our lifetimes are over.
And to be blunt about it, if everybody did go to the river that could go to the river whom did not have a boat that was ocean worthy; just think of it, how filthy the river would become. Where would all those people go to relieve themselves? Where would they pee?... ...in the river? What about (their) poop?
It would probably take 100 or 200 years at least, to reestablish the watershed to have enough shaded areas, and seasonally landlocked cool pools for the fish to live in and not to mention gravel beds for them to spawn in and successfully survive during the summer months in viable breeding stock for future populations.
If "everybody" (who lives in the area now) fished even under those circumstances what little is left of the wild breeding stock would inevitably be destroyed.
There are far more people living on the watershed now than there ever was in known history.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
Because the reason fish have dwindled is not due to men taking just the amount needed for survive, but to commercial fishing where there is a lot of waste and use of fish for animal feed and fertilizers-and harm to other marine animals that are caught in nets, etc. If we lived the way our predecesors did,...
Yes but; we wouldn't have cars, roads, guns, fishing poles, waders, motorized boats, etc. etc.
We would be whom the people were before Europeans arrived here. And the population would be close to the same as it was before Europeans arrived here That just ain't gonna happen, it cannot happen like that it's just impossible at this point in time.
It would take 1000 or 2000 years at least, just for the environment to begin to heal the scars (which some of you did mention) and for the existing redwoods to grow into old growth redwoods enough to shade and to cool the river beds and for the silt to settle from the damage caused by the roads and the dams,and also for the gravel beds to return to large and cleaning up levels for the spawning grounds that the fish could actually use, etc. etc..
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
If someone had the energy, there's also fish farming.
There are pros and cons to that depending upon how it is done. I think it's a good idea, if it does not contaminate the wild population or make people think that they can no longer be responsible for the health of the ecosystem in regards to wild populations of fish, rivers and streams etc..
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
Perhaps if we went back to a simpler way of doing things, we could barter for certain things we did not have the land or facilities to raise, like goats and chickens for meat, eggs and milk. We could perhaps trade our services for a dozen fresh eggs or a quart of milk. Seems like a winning idea to me.
Since we cannot trust the government agencies to do the job of protecting our food supply, and most of us don't have the time or the gumption to be activists, what else can we do about it?
What it comes to commercially mass-produced farmed eggs, cook them thoroughly enough to kill salmonella or E. coli.:thumbsup:
I don't think one has to become an "activist" nor do I think one is an "activist" simply for writing a letter to a political representative. Like I have done. In regards to these FDA issues that I have mentioned.
But I think all of us in our own way, whether we intend to or not; by way of the actions we do or don't do, are "activists" anyway.:wink:
08-25-2010, 04:21 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Miles, or should I be calling you Mad? (I find animated GIFs annoying, by the way),
You seem like a reasonable man, if not a little self rightous and arrogant, one wonders where you arrived at this place-guess I'll have to take another look at your history here.
I think we have a disagreement over the fishing issue. I said that if people went fishing, instead of wine tasting, not boob-tube viewing (you took that from somewhere else, I don't know where), and I was thinking local fishing, in one's own backyard, so to speak. This type of local fishing and eating of local goods seems to me a good idea (I thought 'Some Guy's" links to be very helpful, in a positive way). I don't believe that this type of gathering, or hunting if that's what you want to call it would lead to extinction of local fish populations. Why don't we let the people who are reading this thread, those who haven't lost interest, choose?
Let me present my quals. I am a retired employee of a public utility company (hiss, boo-let me hear it!), whose function while employed was to test the quality of the water and the effects of temperature changes on the local fish population (Northern California). I received a BS degree in Environmental Biology and Management when I attended the UC Davis Environmental Studies program in 1984. While this is only a bachelor's degree, I think it does give me some credibility. I went on to study the biology of vector-borne diseases and finally (after 10 long years) received a Phd in Entomology.
I cannot tell you how long the local fish species would last, however if people were to fish for their dinners as opposed to buying their dinner at the supermarket or Trader Joes this might give the local fish populations a fighting chance. Anyone agree?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by "Mad" Miles:
Gonzo,
There are a lot more people walking around than there were prior to the industrial food revolution. If everyone was getting their Sunday dinner, by hooking, tickling, or netting a couple of salmon, how long do you think they'd last? Assuming there are any given the runoff proplems both Hotspring44 and I brought up.
The 20th annual Cotati Accordian Festival was a blast this afternoon. I missed focusing on Flaco's set because I was chatting up a beautiful woman in a dirndl and Swiss Alpine hat!
08-25-2010, 04:34 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Thank you for posting all the great links, I shall have to investigate all of these on my ramblings across the countryside!
So true about the chickens, I used to live around the corner from an "organic" chicken ranch. The smell in the summer months was unbearable. They kept the poor birds cooped (!) up all the time in a room with only artificial light and no ventilation because they were not to be contaminated with the spray that wafted over from the neighboring fields. Get real people, organic chicken simply means that the poor bird is a product of man's stupidity!
A chicken's diet is rich, it eats insects, caterpillars, plants, in addition to seeds that fall on the ground (grain in it's purest form). The yolks should be bright orange, not pale yellow. You see a bright orange yolk, standing up straight and tall and you know that's a freshly layed egg, from a healthy hen.
As far as I can tell, Petaluma was destroyed by the chicken farmers who left old buildings to rot and pollute the water supply with the concentrated chicken manure. It's not a legacy one should be proud of, and I have no idea why this heritage is celebrated.
The reason for the salmonella in the grocery store eggs is that the chickens are eating a diet that is not natural for them (chickens are not vegetarians!), and they're also packed into a barn with hardly enough room to turn around. That's just as true for the so-called "free-range" eggs as it is for conventional. With truly pastured eggs, I never worry about salmonella. I even make ice cream with raw yolks sometimes. Pastured eggs are also much higher in nutrients than regular eggs:
And if all that wasn't enough, they also taste way better![/QUOTE]
08-25-2010, 05:45 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Gonzo,
You live up to your screen name. Although your credentials in biology are respectable, I'm surprised that you resist the idea that millions of people fishing for their supper in local waterways is a recipe for extinction, of the fish, if not the people, should wild caught fish be their only source of sustenance.
You also wrote:
"if not a little self rightous and arrogant, one wonders where you arrived at this place-guess I'll have to take another look at your history here. "
I think you mistake assertion for arrogance. You're not the first to do so, I doubt you'll be the last. Balancing humility with clear claims about what one thinks to be true, is difficult. I don't always hit the mark, but I try.
And lest you have not been reading the traffic here lately, everything anyone writes here is only their opinion. You, me, everybody. Nobody has a claim on objective truth that is superior to anyone else's. In the end it's only about persuasion
"I think we have a disagreement over the fishing issue. I said that if people went fishing, instead of wine tasting, not boob-tube viewing (you took that from somewhere else, I don't know where)"
I have no idea what I, "took from ... from somewhere else...". I did not compare fishing to local tourist activities, you did, and I don't recall comparing them to TV viewing.
I do not enjoy the former, and I do enjoy the latter, but will not take the time here to defend that activity. I don't get what you're referring to in that parenthetical comment.
I sense you bristle when challenged. Don't we all. My goal was to seek reason and point out exaggeration and irrationality. I can take it when others criticize me, with cogent arguments. I'm less tolerant of veiled, and unveiled, insults and absurd claims.
Sorry you don't like the bouncing green burning butt guy. I adopted him years ago and I'm not about to disown him. He's only at the bottom of the post, ignore him. Be glad Hotpring44 isn't using a "Smilie" every few lines like he used to! ;-)
Enjoy your retirement, and stay out of the sun, it's unseasonably hot today, and was worse yesterday.
Be Cool, Stay Strong.
08-25-2010, 06:24 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
To clarify I'm the one that said:
Quote:
As far as fishing is concerned, I guess it's a good thing for people who need to lose weight and may hang out in the river all day in waders fishing instead of being in front of the boob-tube being a couch potato.
...in Post number two of this thread.
Also, I do use similes (that's a good point "Mad" Miles; LOL!) more frequently then others do.
That has bothered one or two (well... ...maybe a little more than one or two) people. But to each his own I'm not going to stop using them when I feel that it Works well in the intended overall statement/s and or acknowledgment/s (sometimes they, like pictures and actions; speak better than words I can come up with at the time). But I will attempt to not use them as much replying to certain people that I know detest them. (no guarantees that I won't use them, but rather, affirmation that I probably/{inevitably} will sometimes).
08-25-2010, 07:03 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
I don't agree that if everyone fished that there would be less fish. Because the reason fish have dwindled is not due to men taking just the amount needed for survive, but to commercial fishing where there is a lot of waste and use of fish for animal feed and fertilizers-and harm to other marine animals that are caught in nets, etc. If we lived the way our predecesors did, only taking what was needed for consumption at one or two meals and not wasting ANYTHING (i.e., using the parts we don't eat to fertilize our gardens and feed our companion animals), then the fish population would replenish itself through natural selection.
Actually the human population is too high in numbers for that to occur without the humans proactively doing things that increase the fish populations such as hatcheries, reestablishing the gravel beds in the rivers, changing.our ways of irrigation and energy production with hydroelectric within those rivers and streams, etc..
The other thing is that if everybody that eats fish ate the same amount of fish that they normally do today, those fish could not all come from the river. Of course, I'm sure that you know that.
But that would mean allot of people don't live near the ocean or stocked lakes, (which essentially means fish farming that would be in direct competition with the wild fish populations in many of those places) would no longer have the availability of the good quality omega-3 fatty acids in their diet. At least not from fish. That would also mean making and being able to enforce major changes in international waterways as far as the ocean is concerned; for those wild fish populations to come back to a reasonably sustainable level. I think also that you probably know that too.
By saying...
Quote:
I don't agree that if everyone fished that there would be less fish.
...so the gist of what you're saying, (I think) is that if someone owns or lives on property that goes up to the riverbank, that, then, it's okay for them to fish the river every weekend , (or some approximation thereof)?
If that's what you mean if it's not an absolute necessity for sustenance where they actually must catch a fish or two every weekend for survival; that may be factually true, but I think, that such a generalized statement is far too simplified for the actual on the ground so to speak, circumstance we have at this point in time. There are just too many people otherwise. In such simple terms; it would not be sustainable.
Also, you mentioned certain stores by name, which most certainly is okay. I'm sure you are aware about where the vast majority of those fish that are in those stores come from? I'm guessing your answer is an emphatic yes!? They're certainly not locally produced, that is for sure, I would agree with that 100%.
I actually think that "if everybody fished", everybody that was fishing would be upset that "everybody" (else) was fishing!
08-25-2010, 07:05 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
I stand corrected Hotspring44. And I do apologize Mad Miles (who is bristling now?).
Wine tasting is a little different than tube watching in that there are some programs that are definitley worthwhile. As far as changing the original chaparral landscape to hillsides tatooed with the scars of the grape vines, well think about it. A couple of hundred years ago, there was a lot more to be had in these hills. We can't feed ourselves with wine grapes unfortunately and I'm not so sure it's doing that much for the local economy since we have too much wine these days and people don't have as much cash to buy the stuff. I wouldn't support this industry that gobbles up the hillsides and changes the natural landscape that was once home to hundreds more species than there are here today. that's why I'm saying instead of supporting this wine tasting, tourist attracting (who don't know how to drive while intoxicated by the way) industry, let's all go fishing and have us a nice Sunday dinner on Mother Nature, the way it's supposed to be.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by Hotspring 44:
To clarify I'm the one that said: ...in Post number two of this thread.
Also, I do use similes (that's a good point "Mad" Miles; LOL!) more frequently then others do.
That has bothered one or two (well... ...maybe a little more than one or two) people. But to each his own I'm not going to stop using them when I feel that it Works well in the intended overall statement/s and or acknowledgment/s (sometimes they, like pictures and actions; speak better than words I can come up with at the time). But I will attempt to not use them as much replying to certain people that I know detest them. (no guarantees that I won't use them, but rather, affirmation that I probably/{inevitably} will sometimes).
08-25-2010, 07:23 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Mad/Miles:
How do I live up to my screen name? How does what I write resemble what Hunter Thompson wrote?
You live up to your screen name.
Now, did you really read what I posted, or were you just in reaction mode? I didn't say that fish should be our only sustenance, I said that we should try raising vegetable gardens, chickens and goats, and fish on Sunday for our supper. If the big ag companies were stymied, there would be less pesticide and herbicide run-off, also, raising our own livestock would mean less waste and ground water pollution.
Although your credentials in biology are respectable, I'm surprised that you resist the idea that millions of people fishing for their supper in local waterways is a recipe for extinction, of the fish, if not the people, should wild caught fish be their only source of sustenance.
Thank you:
Balancing humility with clear claims about what one thinks to be true, is difficult. I don't always hit the mark, but I try.
I typically don't bristle when challenged-but I do love a good debate! We tend to see our own faults in others. I sense you bristle when challenged. Don't we all.
I'm not sure where you're coming from here, unless it is to use the power of words to persuade your readers and get them to come over to your side, regardless of your stance on the issue. Muckraking I think they call it. I did invite OTHERS to voice their opinions about this issue, I didn't invite a long response from you. But you seem to enjoy writing long, drawn out replies. I like to be concise and get to the point. I detest reading through a lot of gobbledy goop. So a short response to defent yourself (which is your right) would have done.
My goal was to seek reason and point out exaggeration and irrationality. I can take it when others criticize me, with cogent arguments. I'm less tolerant of veiled, and unveiled, insults and absurd claims.
I am only retired from my day job, I have a wonderful occupation that is the love of my life. I promissed this to myself that once I reached a certain age I would do what I wanted to do. I recommend it to everyone, and I'm truly not as old as you think I am.
Enjoy your retirement, and stay out of the sun, it's unseasonably hot today, and was worse yesterday.
08-25-2010, 07:32 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Gonzo,
If you don't like how I write, don't read me. There's a convenient function here called the "ignore list". I suggest you put me on yours. That way I'll only bore you if you click an extra time and open my posts.
I have no interest in getting in a pissing match with you. Been here, done that. It is not interesting, nor is it productive.
"Reaction mode, good debate." Obladee, Obladah. I spend enough time here, and I've joined facebook two weeks ago. Who has the time?
Enjoy your bristling, you know what else has bristles?
P.S. I wrote the above in response to the previous post, # 15, I had not read Gonzo's post # 14, I find nothing objectionable in his earlier one. In fact, I agree with pretty much all of it, except for the last call for everyone to fish.
There are too many people, not enough fish, the fish are being wiped out as you read this. Everybody tending to their own garden in this best of all possible worlds, ain't gonna cut it given the effects of industrial "civilization".
We need to find answers that address the facts "on the ground", and little I see here about sustainability, climate protection, community gardens, permaculture, slow food, etc. are going to cut it. They're not bad things, they're good things that I support. But they are insufficient solutions to the problem of our dependency on industrial agriculture.
Subject, to be continued. And for those who've been around for a few years, you pretty much already know where I stand on this and related issues.
Short enough for you?
08-25-2010, 08:30 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
...As far as changing the original chaparral landscape to hillsides tatooed with the scars of the grape vines, well think about it.
Oh gonzo, I wish you were more correct in that statement.
I used to live in Annapolis in the far northwest part of Sonoma County where they clear-cut lots of redwoods and are now using lots of groundwater some of them from artesian springs that would normally flow into the local streams than a river, and eventually the ocean; to water the grapes, and the grape growers want to put in 10,000 more acres in the area. The area does not have a huge percentage of chaparral; it's mostly evergreens and shady watershed in that area.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
A couple of hundred years ago, there was a lot more to be had in these hills. We can't feed ourselves with wine grapes unfortunately and I'm not so sure it's doing that much for the local economy since we have too much wine these days and people don't have as much cash to buy the stuff.
gonzo, I remember when it used to be called: the "Redwood Empire".... ...Now . It's called the "Wine Country". (P.S. I was going to insert puking smiley, but you said did not like animated GIF's, so you can just imagine that instead)...LOL!
Also by the way there are lots of feral wild pigs around the western part of Lake Sonoma. But that's mostly private property, needless to say hunting those wild feral pigs would be far more environmentally sound than fishing wild fish out of those streams in that area.
Maybe we (or someone I'm not that much into it) should go pig hunting instead! That's something to seriously consider. those feral wild pigs cause quite a bit of damage; particularly to people's gardens and other landscaping, not to mention the environmental damage they cause and they can carry and spread diseases that are transferable to humans, livestock and even fish. anyway, thought for food, food for thought; I think you know what I mean.:-) That would be one way to help protect the food supply and supply food at the same time.
08-25-2010, 09:37 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
No Miles, because you have written 9 paragraphs and not given us a solution.
What we really need are people who are willing to roll up their sleeves, and work, be part of a think tank, support the community and provide solutions to this mess we've gotten ourselves into. I thought a long time ago, when I was younger and had the energy that all the research we were doing would provide some answers and some good solutions. But the solutions aren't going to do a bit of good if nobody is going to listen and they spend their energy spouting off just for the sake of it. Some people just like to hear themselves talk, well we need doers, not talkers.
08-25-2010, 09:51 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
I'm actually not that familiar with your neck of the woods. I've lived in Petaluma, which is largely chaparral or was chaparral and now Contra Costa County which was all chaparral before the ranchers and developers got ahold of it. Livermore is fast becoming the wine country of the dryer, more temperate part of the state. It really depends on WHICH wine country you're talking about. I suppose you're talking about northern Sonoma County and you're correct, that area is more wooded.
I was almost wooed by the vitaculture movement in Davis my second year at UC. I'm glad I stuck it out where I was.
I was asked to tag along on a wild pig hunting trip with some friends and just didn't have the stomach for it. Some people like pork, I'm just not one of those people. I'm also not so fond of trichinosis, which I studied quite closely for almost 2 years. Undercooked pork, especially wild boar and feral pork is famous for carrying the Trichinella spiralis roundworm. To kill the worm, you'd have to cook it quite a long time, and a dried up pork chop just isn't that appetizing.
08-25-2010, 10:02 PM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Also Miles, you never responded to my question about Hunter Thompson, what is it that I write that reminds you of the original Gonzo?
AND, responding to this:
And for those who've been around for a few years, you pretty much already know where I stand on this and related issues.
'
I have not been around here for years, I only stumbled onto this after a discussion with a friend over a couple of ciders. So please, clue me in. Are you the Wacco God here? Or are you some kind of Wacco guru?
Do tell.
08-25-2010, 10:48 PM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Gonzo,
You show up, four days in, start making broad, ambiguous and reductive statements. I call you on it, in the course of replying to issues raised by others, you start slinging snark. Just like a new guy showing up, looking for a fight in a new pond or watering hole. That's very H.S.T. Especially when resorting to hyperbolic and absurdest rhetoric.
I know male pissing match provocation behavior when it goes down. I'm not into empty macho rituals. But I do know how to play the game, should I so choose.
One basic practice of netiquette, or entry into any new social scene, is to sit back, watch, listen and take some time learning the codes, styles and culture of that scene. You'll find that this isn't your ordinary chatroom or board. We expect a modicum of respect and cooperation.
(And by "we" I don't mean the royal I, I mean the guidelines set up by Barry and the community cooperation that has been practiced here for years. This is, by far, not the first such tussle. It happens. I don't expect it to be the last. It's part of internet culture as it brushes up against the culture of waccobb-landia.)
We expect that people listen before they leap. And that they actually try to contribute only after putting some effort into their thoughts. It's a high standard, often not met. I'm not the enforcer, no one is, unless you count Barry, and he's very tolerant. But when someone who is clearly literate, starts spouting bollocks? I, among others, might mention it.
Seriously, are you really of the opinion that if we just fish our local waters, and grow our own gardens, we can each meet the food needs of ourselves, our families and our friends? What about those without land? Or access to fishing holes? These are not a complicated questions.
You say you have a Ph.D. in Entomology. A knowledge of ecology and population biology, which I have heard are required subjects in Biology and its sub-fields, is not demonstrated by your remarks. That too is a sign of a provocateur itching for a tussle. And you got a minor one from me. I'm over it.
As for my "status" on waccobb.net. I write what and when it pleases me. I expect nothing. I hope to communicate, entertain, inform. If people appreciate it, cool. If not, ignore me.
It's what I do.
As for anything else I've established by my active participation here, I'll let others judge. But no, I don't think of myself as a guru, and especially not a "God". Neither term holds much weight with me.
Re: Boar Hunting. I know someone who does it. He was covered in the Bohemian a few years back. He makes sausage. I don't/won't speak for him. He doesn't participate here.
Just do it, if you want to. Get permission from the land owner first. Know how, so you don't cause unnecessary pain and suffering. Enjoy the bounty of the land.
Doing, not saying. Since you don't know me, haven't followed the discussions here, by your own admission, you're in no position to cast aspersions about my lack of action. And it's a kneejerk anti-intellectual response to dismiss words that cause you discomfort, and then assume they're not backed up by action. Also, words and discussion are necessary preludes to conscious/intelligent action. Don't discount their power.
If you really want to know what I think about numerous matters of social, political, cultural and other portent, just peruse my prior posts. It's easy, find, "Mad" Miles, in the member list (I come first only because of the punctuation of my nomme de keyboard) hit "Find". They're all there (except for the recently, inadvertently deleted "Miles On Movies" thread) in reverse chronological order.
But you don't like my style of writing. Too long winded. So, you should probably save yourself the aggravation and ignore me.
Short enough for you? Because if it isn't, I have numerous pithy phrases of five words or less to summarize what I wrote above much more forcefully. We're asked, and ultimately required, to be respectful here. It's referred to in waccobb.net culture as "conscious" communication. I agree with that request, this culture. But, in another scene with no boundaries of respectful communication, I'm quite comfortable expressing myself in shorter, more accessible and clearer phrases.
I'm done with this exchange.
08-26-2010, 01:05 AM
gonzo
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Miles,
you've got some kind of chip on your shoulder, and I'm not here to get into it with you. I suggest you talk it over with your partner or some kind of therapist.
I do want to have a positve debate. You seem to want to hone in on one particular subject, fishing one day a week for one's own sustenance. That I can tell you will not cause fish extinction, period.
It looks like I've edged into some kind of territory of yours and I am not about that, I like to believe that we share this place we call Earth, whether it's in cyberspace, Sonoma County, or the Milky Way. I will excuse myself and fly off to greener pastures, whiter clouds or rockier shores. I can tell this is not a free space-you've paid for the right to police this space, so have at it. I'm sure you're enjoying every minute of it.
08-26-2010, 11:16 PM
The Moose
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Hey Everyone,
I'm not usually one to post on these things, but I thought I'd step in and stick up for Gonz, since nobody else was.
The guy has been a friend for more years than I care to remember right now. I'm getting up there these days, and just thinking about how much closer I am to being a senior citizen is weighing heavy on my mind. He's been a teacher, a mentor and a shoulder to cry on when times were tough. I met him a long time ago when he took some time off to co-teach a class at Hampshire College: Agriculture, Food and Health I think it was, or it's equivalent about 25 years ago. Even then, he had some great ideas and I think it bodes well for you to at least give him a listen.
I saw him asking this guy Miles (who was talking him down) for his credentials, but Miles wasn't coming forward with anything but a bunch of double-talk. I think that was what he was getting at. Gonz has always been a disarming type of person. He never talks down to anyone. When he speaks in front of a class, he makes sure that everyone understands. He even asks if he's going too fast, and if people are getting what he's talking about. He doesn't try to use a lot of three and four syllable words to get a point across when he can use simpler language so that everyone understands and stays engaged in the discussion. That I think is important. Some people start reading something like what Miles wrote and get lost after the first two sentences, and give up. We're all adults here, some with more advanced degrees than others. I read that Mad Miles taught at a prison, if this is the case, you'd think he'd understand this concept.
Anyway, I just wanted you all to know that Gonz is a good man, a great man. He retired so he could contribute more to the community. There's a vegetable garden at the elementary school around the corner from where he lives that wouldn't be there if it was for him. Now all the kids are learning to grow their own food so they keep doing it when they're on their own. Start them out early, that's what Gonz always said. I've been trying to do it with my own kids, and now my grandkids. Now that's a solution. It may be small, but it's a start.
08-27-2010, 11:41 AM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
I'm actually not that familiar with your neck of the woods...
...It really depends on WHICH wine country you're talking about. I suppose you're talking about northern Sonoma County and you're correct, that area is more wooded.
Just to clarify what I was referring to (Redwood Empire):
Now it sporadically includes other places that are not mentioned in the above article, such as for example Forestville and Annapolis as well as others in parts of Mendocino County.
I may possibly add more to that in regards to the fish population, but for now, I will leave it as it is in this conversation at this point.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
I was asked to tag along on a wild pig hunting trip with some friends and just didn't have the stomach for it.
Personally I too would rather go fishing than pig hunting. But environmentally, it would probably be more beneficial to go pig hunting (or at least have somebody experienced enough and safe enough, do it for the proverbial "everyone") if "everyone" is going to do one of those; then maybe it would be more protective of the food supply to have a big pig roast somewhere and there also could be some other dishes that may include locally caught or farmed fish, vegetables and fruits from, local farms and gardens.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
Some people like pork, I'm just not one of those people.
Honestly neither am I but, a well done (and of course thoroughly cooked) Polynesian style pit cooked pig is nothing to shake a stick at it if you like meat. Even I like that!, and I almost never eat any red meat.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by gonzo:
I'm also not so fond of trichinosis, which I studied quite closely for almost 2 years. Undercooked pork, especially wild boar and feral pork is famous for carrying the Trichinella spiralis roundworm. To kill the worm, you'd have to cook it quite a long time, and a dried up pork chop just isn't that appetizing.
BTW, there are other types of roundworm that are in fish:
The fish roundworm , Anisakis simplex is acquired by eating raw or undercooked fish, including any pickled, marinated, and salted marine life. They are large, bright red worms that can be seen with the naked eye in the flesh of any type of fish -- freshwater, marine, or brackish water. They can remain very active, even after the death of the fish. The larvae normally mature in wading birds, especially after they eat minnows. It takes only one larva to cause an infection in humans. Misdiagnosis is common since it mimics such other diseases as acute appendicitis, Crohn's disease, gastric ulcers, or gastrointestinal cancer. Some chronic cases have lasted a year. Some have had a tickling sensation in the throat and have coughed up the worm and manually removed it before being swallowed again. Symptoms of nausea can persist after the expulsion of the worm (no doubt after something like that!) because the parasite can leave lesions containing remnants of the worm. If the parasite is able to penetrate the intestinal wall, peritonitis can result, leading to death.
If you do consume raw fish/shellfish make sure it's not a freshwater species. Believe it or not parasitic infections from freshwater fish/shellfish are very problematic in some parts of the world (e.g. Southeast Asia.)...
...So what are some rules of the road to avoid some of these infections/conditions? Try these:
1) Make sure your fish has been handled correctly (prevents Scombroid poisoning). If possible freeze the raw flesh to decrease the likelihood of ingesting viable parasites. Stay away from raw salmon unless it has been frozen, smoked or farm raised (I rarely eat raw salmon). Don't experiment with consuming new types of raw fish, especially freshwater fish-you may
regret it later.
2) Be careful with homeguard or reef fishes, especially the larger individuals. If you do consume these fishes remember the symptoms of Ciguatera poisoning. A kit to check for Ciguatera is commercially available.
3) Consuming fast growing fish species or smaller individuals might be safer overall. If you have to consume bigger fishes just be aware of the symptoms.
4) Remember symptoms may occur many hours or days after consumption. If you do seek medical attention it's always advisable to tell the health care provider about your consumption of fish/shellfish.
5) Remember most of these conditions are unusual. But remember this knowledge may help you, a family member or a friend in the future. 6) Does knowing all this stop me from eating sashimi/sushi or other cooked fish? In a word: NOPE.
Hope this info helps. Again this info is not necessarily to be considered complete. Be careful out there and consult your own physician if you have any questions.
Of course Trichinella spiralis roundworm is a different kind of roundworm, but nonetheless good reason not to eat sushi and take certain precautionary measures regarding the consumption of fish caught or trapped in the "wild" and even some of the Ocean farmed fish particularly salmon.
08-27-2010, 11:55 AM
"Mad" Miles
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Gonzo wrote, "a little self rightous and arrogant", (Post # 9 in this thread) about me when I disagreed with him on his claim that if everyone just caught a few fish for their dinner, that would not, over time, deplete the fish population. This after I gave an overview of what is happening to the fish stocks in the oceans and fresh waters of our world. I did not personally attack him in any way, nor anyone else here. His petulant and dismissive response, indicated above, but which also can be found in his subsequent posts, is pretty clear.
By the way, "petulant and dismissive," is my description of his behavior, it is not intended to be an insult, although I can understand if he takes it that way. For anyone in doubt, just reread the thread, carefully, if my interpretation is off, I'd be happy to hear alternative takes.
Moose just wrote, "Miles wasn't coming forward with anything but a bunch of double-talk ... Some people start reading something like what Miles wrote and get lost after the first two sentences, and give up. We're all adults here ..."
I do not produce my credentials on the internet, nor do I defend myself with them, when challenged and they are demanded. I don't need no stinkin' credentials. Nor does anyone else. It's a democracy here in waccolandia, run by a benevolent dictatorship, in the person of Barry.
Making what I have to say clear to whoever reads me, is paramount in what I think about when writing. But some ideas cannot be clearly expressed in three syllable or less words. Five word sentences. Three sentence paragraphs. And I won't try. To do so would be disrespectful to an adult audience. Which is who I write for.
Anyone who says they don't understand me, is either not reading carefully, is not very well educated, or has an axe to grind. I write a lot here, probably more than anyone else. That's both good, and bad. But anyone who's been around wacco-land knows where I stand, on many issues, how I think, what my "credentials" are and what the benefits and disadvantages of my writing style are.
Newbies like Gonzo, if they took the time to look at people's profiles and their posts, wouldn't need to ask. In not doing so, and then complaining through a friend that someone didn't produce their bona fides on demand, they both show a sore ignorance of the conventions of internet discussion. And of public debate in a culture that values equality and respect for every individual. I don't talk down to people and simplify things for them, because I respect them, as I hope they will respect me. When someone says something that is not clear to me, or uses words that are unfamiliar, I ask them to explain it to me. That's what adults do. That's what students do. And we're all students of life, unless we've given up the idea of learning.
This isn't a panel of experts testifying to Congress, it's the public arena, where what and how someone says something is what matters. Not what expertise they claim. That's important, expertise, I respect it, but I weigh that against other factors, like: does what he/she is saying make sense in terms of what I know? What is their interest in this matter? etc.
Gonzo, without anyone asking for his papers, volunteered that he has a B.S. in Biology, and a Ph.D. in Entomology. Compare that to his broad, sweeping suggestions about fishing, and his straight up denial that the current population in this area, and by extension around the world, is not too large to deplete fishing stocks if everyone just went fishing for their Sunday supper, and something doesn't jibe.
I pointed that out, he didn't like it, he came back with some more personalizing, I told him he was out of line, that I wasn't going to engage in an empty macho pissing match ritual. I told him he was not acting in a respectful manner as is expected here.
He asked me who I was to be in a position to tell him that. I did not respond to that demand for my "credentials", other than to point out that I've been active here for quite a while and that if someone is new to a scene it would behoove them to learn the lay of the land before spouting off and beating their chests. He quit in a huff.
Moose turns up a day later to defend his friend and continue the baiting. Hey, it's no big deal. Part of the landscape here on the internet.
But before somebody is going to get my ear, my respect and my patience, they need to can the personal crap when I disagree with them in public, and when I, or anyone else, point out the contradictions in their assertions.
If this was another internet discussion site, we'd have been trading F-Bombs days ago. There's a reason I don't spend time on such boards. But poorly veiled egocentric one-up-man-ship and wounded pride behavior, isn't all that different from in your face barnyard insult behavior. It just takes more words to express.
You don't like how I write? Don't read me. You don't understand what I'm saying? Ask questions. You don't agree with what I'm saying? Tell me and everyone else why. But be respectful, don't get personal, don't dismiss and diminish the other person. Those are the rules in my classroom, whether it's prison, public school or the public arena. Those are the rules here on waccobb.net.
Gonzo reacted emotionally, threw some insults, got dealt with respectfully, threw some more, got dealt with respectfully again, and quit in a huff. Moose shows up defending him, but but also adding more insults.
Guys, you're obviously older than me. You claim to have oodles of experience and good intentions and good acts. I respect that, but you're engaging in playground turf behavior, I would have thought you'd have left that behind decades ago?
Clear and simple enough for you? Cause as I told Gonzo, I can make it very, very clear in strong, simpler language. We'd just have to do it somewhere else, cause cursing and obscene insults aren't kosher on this board.
Since I doubt you both will bother to drop your high dudgeon and do a little research, I'll give a little precis of my bona fides.
Over thirty years of environmental and social justice grassroots activism. Seventeen years of reading political philosophy (up until 1987 more or less, I still monitor theoretical developments, but don't avidly read it as I once did.). Avid news and current events reader and discussant of the same. Credentialed single subject clear professional teacher of English and Social Sciences. An active interest in biology, ecology, environmental issues, alternatives to the industrial destruction of our planet, member of the Green Party since 1989. I'm on the side of everyday people and my fundamental values are egalitarianism and reciprocity. If the latter two words are hard for you, look them up. I use a dictionary all the time.
When grown men get their panties in twisted uproar, because someone calls them on the contradictions in their assertions, start throwing dismissive insults, and when the challenge continues quit the scene in a huff and send, or allow, their friend to come back to defend them, vouch for them, and get a few licks in on their behalf. What does that remind you of?
Finally, whether I'm doing a good job of it or not, I also happen to be the volunteer moderator of WaccoTalk and WaccoReader. At Barry's invitation, and appointment, several months ago. I'm not a cop, I don't pull out my badge of authority (such as it is) willy nilly, especially not to assert my opinion in a debate. But I suppose, in the context of this argument, it has some bearing on the matters at hand.
Are those enough credentials for you? Because if not, I can go into lots more detail, as anybody paying attention here, already knows!?
(Jeez, this has taken me almost three hours to compose! I write because I care, perhaps sometimes I care too much!?)
08-27-2010, 01:23 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by The Moose:
Hey Everyone, I'm not usually one to post on these things, but I thought I'd step in and stick up for Gonz, since nobody else was.
Moose, that is quite a noble gesture on your part.
I think that gonzo and "Mad" Miles just rub each other the wrong way so to speak. sometimes that just happens, sometimes it smooths-out over time, and sometimes it doesn't smooth out.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by The Moose:
The guy has been a friend for more years than I care to remember right now....
...I met him a long time ago when he took some time off to co-teach a class at Hampshire College: Agriculture, Food and Health I think it was, or it's equivalent about 25 years ago. Even then, he had some great ideas and I think it bodes well for you to at least give him a listen.
I can't speak for anybody else other than myself, but I have been listening.
I also think that "Mad" Miles has also listened and actually, at least before the so-called 'Boar-Bristling' took root. On post number 16 of this thread "Mad" Miles stated:
Quote:
P.S. I wrote the above in response to the previous post, # 15, I had not read Gonzo's post # 14, I find nothing objectionable in his earlier one. In fact, I agree with pretty much all of it, except for the last call for everyone to fish
I think that the main gist of the foundation to the primary disagreement is the generalized statement that gonzo made that everyone should go fishing on Sundays.
The secondary potential contentions: not everybody can have chickens and/or goats of their own where they live. Which I did address in previous posts.
The tertiary contentions: which has been minimally addressed is; the conundrum of
industrialized food and the human population that depends upon it; (and) also, it's affects on the wild ("mother nature") environment, particularly in this discussion regarding the whole fish issue.
I don't think that just because somebody disagrees with what appears to me to be a very generalized statement (or any which way a statement may appear to be for that matter) is any reason to get upset and leave the thread or the website. I think it's gives reason to clarify the meanings of what was actually said rather than picking an argument about the disagreements from assumptions and gouging into personalities or trying to push somebody's button/s. Just my two cents worth. Note, I would have used a GIF (the two cents worth one) at the end of the last paragraph, but I refrained out of consideration of gonzo stating not liking them.... ...(that in itself is another conundrum for me because, if I use the GIF;s. It might have been considered a dig; but because I stated what I would have done {the too Cents worth GIF} could have been considered a dig also.); BTW, neither is meant to be a dig; my apologies to anyone who felt that it was. I am just attempting to recognize a sensitivity that may or may not exist; and in doing so, I may have stumbled into a potential personality land-mine area; hopefully not.
Some of us here have a thicker skin , and are more tolerant when it comes to disagreements and digs than others. it took me a couple of years to get used to it and not get upset when somebody was terse (or sometimes even downright nasty) about their disagreeing with what I had to say.
I'm glad I have grown a thicker skin so to speak, over the years.
08-27-2010, 11:26 PM
The Moose
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Three hours? You've got way too much time on your hands brother. Just think what you could have done with those three hours if you were out in the sunshine digging in the dirt, or out in a canoe bringing home your supper. You'd have one happy woman on your hands right now!
(Jeez, this has taken me almost three hours to compose! I write because I care, perhaps sometimes I care too much!?)
[/QUOTE]
08-31-2010, 12:36 AM
wang
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
hmmmm, he definitely said maybe we could all go fishing on the weekends instead of wine tasting. Not that everyone should go fishing on Sundays. But let's just let that ride.
What scientific evidence do you have that fishing to feed one's family will cause extinction of a species? I don't believe that there is scientific evidence that any particular species has gone extinct through non-commercial/non-sport fishing. I believe that there is scientific evidence that fish are going extinct for other reasons. Lack of habitat, pollutants, climate changes, commercial fishing, disease, mutations caused by contact with carcinogens, radiation, etc. If more people showed an interest in protecting this food source, cleaning up their habitat because this is where we get our dinner, then I think that fish populations would be healthier. I think there was actually a study done at Bowdoin College and the University of Maine about this.
Maybe if we don't live in a place where we can gather and raise our own food, we should restore our habitat to the point where it is possible to do this?
I should say that Crabtree is a place I have in common with some of the newbies here. Big Kahuna, was sort of a religion in the old days for us.
08-31-2010, 09:33 PM
Hotspring 44
Re: Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
hmmmm, he definitely said maybe we could all go fishing on the weekends instead of wine tasting....
in post number one that is correct. But if you keep reading the thread, you would notice that in post #5 that is exactly what gonzo said in response to my comment, #2...
“I don't agree that if everyone fished that there would be less fish.”
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
...Not that everyone should go fishing on Sundays. But let's just let that ride.
Apparently you missed and or overlooked; that part of post #5 from gonzo.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
What scientific evidence do you have that fishing to feed one's family will cause extinction of a species?
At this point in time because of the environmental circumstance, the human population, and the fact that we are basically talking more or less about our local area specifically in regards to the salmon and steelhead ourselves, locally; in general, in the Russian River, Sonoma, Mendocino, Humboldt County areas. so to me, in my mind that question is more of a semantic curve-ball which is somewhat subjective. But to answer your question, specifically, as you stated it, without considering any of the other factors that are contributing to the low populations of local wild fish;no I do not have any scientific evidence that fishing to feed one's family will cause extinction of the species. But peoples activities did drive the dodo bird to extinction; albeit not because of feeding their family's from dodo bird meat or eggs. Some of of human activity today compared to the activities in the past regarding the dodo bird, is very similar though.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
I don't believe that there is scientific evidence that any particular species has gone extinct through non-commercial/non-sport fishing. I believe that there is scientific evidence that fish are going extinct for other reasons. Lack of habitat, pollutants, climate changes, commercial fishing, disease, mutations caused by contact with carcinogens, radiation, etc. If more people showed an interest in protecting this food source, cleaning up their habitat because this is where we get our dinner, then I think that fish populations would be healthier. I think there was actually a study done at Bowdoin College and the University of Maine about this.
I agree with some of that, but because there are all those things that you mentioned above which are most definitely happening at a greater scale than ever before in known history.
Because of all of that, if (literally) "everyone" fished on Sundays to "feed one's family" everyone in the local area of the Russian River for example, would just contribute to the demise of the few wild, breeding stock, fish such as salmon and steelhead etc. that are left; hence, that much closer to extinction. albeit not as the sole cause, but nonetheless, it doesn't help regenerate a viable wild fish population any.
BTW, I did also mention that depending upon what gonzo meant by "everyone" could mean something different than literally everyone. I did give a few examples, whereas in a way, I would agree with gonzo under those specific conditions I mentioned in a previous post.
I did previously mention in this thread; (about) without "mitigating" a many or all of the aforementioned factors that are killing off the fish; fishing for ones (sustenance) food in general is a moot point.
Also, about; if everybody were able to have chickens and goats of their own, which I said allot of people would not be able to because of; where they live, etc is separate issue from the fish.
Gardens (and also chickens and goats where people can have them) are a good idea, and more of us including myself should be more involved with doing those things locally than we actually are. And as you did mention...
Quote:
“If more people showed an interest in protecting this food source, cleaning up their habitat because this is where we get our dinner,”...
...there would still have to be enough for all the people that are accustom to it (I am specifically referring to the fish) and for them to have some sort of access to it; and also, (them, us?, and) everybody else that is getting their food from those currently destructive food production sources whom are absolutely dependent upon it for their food supply. Not to mention other things like fossil fuels and fertilizers etc. I think that the "if" that you brought up is absolutely humongous and is something that every active environmentalist would tell you is one of the primary issues that they're trying to get enough others to realize and do something about in a meaningful and successful way... that is the, biggie.
Even though it may be scientifically and semantically correct that "the best thing to do for the environment is to drop dead"... ...however, saying something like that is not a good way to convince people to change, that's for sure! (I'm not saying anybody here did say that in this thread, because nobody here at this point has until I did here, in this paragraph)... ...I'm just trying to make the point that that's what seems to me, what many people think about when environmentalists and advocates of food sustainability mention those things, judging by the way many people in the general public react when "environmentalists" say we should change our ways of feeding ourselves, because of the need to preserve and enhance the environment for "food sustainably" (and of course other sustainability issues also.)....
...Which brings me to the thought of what this thread is called in the first place: (Should we be doing more to protect the food supply?). I think maybe the question could be rephrased to: should we be doing more to protect ourselves from the (mass-produced, fossil fuel dependent, commercial, environmentally destructive, and potentially toxic) food supply?
Anyway I guess that could (and probably should) be a different thread.
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
Maybe if we don't live in a place where we can gather and raise our own food, we should restore our habitat to the point where it is possible to do this?
I think you are preaching to the choir here, so to speak. But what about the hundreds of millions if not billions of other people that don't live on arable land and are not in places where they can fish to feed their family, have chickens and/or goats?
What about the world human population, how is it possible to convince so many not to have any more (or at least, far fewer) children?
What do you think the critical mass of people's consciousness it would take for people world wide to actually treat our habitat to the point where that (sustainability) is possible and likely to happen?
What would initiate a critical mass of human consciousness into successfully changing certain food gathering, production and distribution practices that are so harmful to the environment and our own food supply?
How would or could that happen?
Is there already a critical mass of people dependent upon it to the point where that cannot happen?
Have we already reached that tipping point?:hmmm:
Quote:
Posted in reply to the post by wang:
I should say that Crabtree is a place I have in common with some of the newbies here. Big Kahuna, was sort of a religion in the old days for us.
Do you mean, Crabtree The hot spring in the Mendocino national Forest, or the suds:havinabeer:... ...or??
What do you mean by “newbies”? Kahuna the healer god/shaman from Hawaii?
