The Nature of Social Narrative

A Cure for Diva Capitalism?

22 October 2011 – 10:25 am

Occupy Wall Street Can Now Turn From Identifying the Problems, to Tractable, Easily Understood First-Iteration Solutions

Reality is broken. Our financial and compensation system is busted. I don’t want to see the Occupy Wall Street movement, which I feel is essentially a beautiful and powerful activator, crumble illogically into class warfare. Being an entrepreneur, I believe in a capitalist meritocracy—I believe it is the right of every entrepreneur to make a boatload of dough—and I’m quite certain I’d make a great billionaire. That entrepreneurism part exists—an innovator creating a new product that lots of people want and use can strike it rich. But these people account for a very small percentage of the folks who make up the so-called 1%.

The financial industry and corporate compensation games are rigged to “tip” in favor of those with the most money. Most of the folks that have earned the bulk of the last 30 years of gains are the super-rich. Look at the “Winner Takes All” graph compiled by Mother Jones here (http://d.pr/tRBH). Productivity has surged in the last three decades.

Income of Top 1% has outpaced Productivity 3-to-1, which inverse is true for Average Household

Income of Top 1% has outpaced Productivity 3-to-1, but inverse is true for Average Worker

The income of the top 1% has *outpaced* it by triple, but the median household income has underperformed by triple. That’s hardly fair. If the average household income—I’m not talking about the wanton jobless, or welfare recipients—the average, family woman and/or man working their ass off to make it work *should* be making over $90,000 per year if one projected economic growth from 1979 till now, but they’re not. Their average household income is $50,000. Entrepreneurs and top executives can’t make it to the top (or stay at the top) without these hardworking folks. The gap is too wide. Entrepreneurs know it, and regularly give those working under or beside them a meaningful piece of the pie.

We live in an age of diva capitalism. Top execs in established industries and companies make nearly 200 times their average worker. People with high net worth make higher interest rates off their money, or get access to invented “financial instruments” to maximize capital gains returns, making money off their money (not products or services they create). The financial industries are skewed to punish the lower income strata (know anyone who’s tried to get a bank to loan money lately, or re-fi their house?) and reward those with big money. Banks have dreamt up all manner of obscure and ridiculous ways to “make money off of money”, far removed from actually making a tangible product or service rooted in providing value to the world—that is, more than just providing monetary value to those who’ve attained elite levels of net worth. I wouldn’t care about this, and let these bankers living in rarefied social and commercial atmospheres do their deeds, if what they were doing wasn’t endemic to the overall economy. I’d be happy to let these creative financiers come up with any scheme they want, but the downside to all this gambling affects *everyone*, and effects the less fortunate substantially more profoundly than those with very high net worth.

It’s not like if it were creative finance in, say, the furniture industry or consumer electronics industry or the entertainment industry. The financial industry pervades *everything* and these people simply shouldn’t be allowed to invent ways to create profit for themselves and their clients, create risk for everyone else, nor privatize gains and socialize losses like they’ve done three times over the last several decades, claiming they’re *so* important that taxpayers need to keep them solvent. That ain’t capitalism, unless one defines it as doing any disingenuous, subversive and self-serving thing to preserve your phoney-baloney job and grotesque bonuses. Remember folks: we can collectively survive and flourish *without* the banking industry, they cannot do so without us.

I’ll go further: I don’t believe in “making money off of money” unless it is:

(1) simple-interest,

(2) direct investment in companies or people—venture or operating capital betting on the “success” of companies, not their failure, or

(3) a simple stock market—simple, first-degree derivatives where again one can only invest in the success of a company… not leaps, shorts, credit swaps, and all the other gobbledee-gook invented by superficially-creative quant-brains with a cool algorithm and too much time on their hands.

Why do we as a society *need* any more than this?

If we abolished the more exotic financial instruments, perhaps those with big capital would be more inclined to seek out more innovative investments in products and services focused on creating a more equitable and sustainable society and planet.

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition |

Comments (0)

“Hatch”ing Biased Market Research?

30 September 2011 – 11:13 am

I applaud Senator Hatch for actually *asking* his constituency their opinion on the recent and ongoing debate about the Federal Deficit.

I’d like to shout out to you, Senator Hatch, how appreciative I am that you’re actually ASKING us. That said, you need to go further. The next natural, appropriate and needed step is to SHOW us what we are collectively answering, in a social forum where honest and informed discussion amongst your constituency can take place… ongoing.

Further, the choices you offer–

- Raise your taxes,

- Cut govt spending; or

- Raise taxes and cut spending

… are misleading to the average joe or joanne. How about “simplify the tax code”, which is vastly different than raise taxes. There are many studies and reports that indicate cutting special interest loopholes (like corporate tax write-offs for superfluous expenses, or government subsidies that retard innovation and true market forces) would lower the expenses of the Federal government and fuel innovation. Make companies compete every, single day.

Were I able to influence the offering of choices, my choice would be:
+ Cut Federal Government Spending Across the Board, but especially around anti-Capitalistic and Protectionist practices (like subsidies)
+ Simplify The Tax Codes
+ Remove Federal Government Intervention from True Market Forces (like corporate bailouts, farm subsidies, etc)
+ Stop Waging Wars around the world that benefit Corporations making bank from them– in particular Oil&Gas and Military Contractors– and don’t address our problems at home. Let’s get our own house in-order before we go start re-arranging the houses of others.

Finally, your so-called choices in the drop-down question related to “What do you believe the income threshold should be for raising taxes?” are also misleading. Removing “tax breaks” is not the same as raising taxes, even though the result is indeed the same– more federal tax revenue from higher earners. So would you have provided the choice “Simplify the tax code so higher income earners aren’t getting breaks that lower earners don’t get, or cannot use” would be completely appropriate.

Having been involved in market research for some time, it is common for the pollster or market research to frame questions to channel opinion and results to a predetermined desirable outcome. That is what I perceive you to be doing here. But you are on the right track in directly engaging your consituency. I urge you to do it more, and in a more many-to-many forum so we can see true opinion emerge, and educate the populace along the way.

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition, Social Media |

Comments (0)

A different kind of WTF?

3 August 2011 – 8:29 am

What the frack?

Any knucklehead should be able to discern that drilling tens of thousands of holes in the Earth’s mantle and pumping billions of gallons of water infused with lethal chemicals like benzene and formaldehyde isn’t going to be good for anyone… and especially for groundwater supplies and those of us (read: all of us) who depend on clean water. Have we gone insane?

George W. *exempted* these companies from complying with the Clean Water Act. Now there’s an act of war– purposefully enabling the poisoning our water supply? For profit?

Watch this short video, if you don’t know anything about fracking:

You don’t have to be a geologist, environmentalist, petrochemical engineer or any other “expert” to know that this process of fracturing the earth below us at very large scale and then high-pressure pumping an ungodly cocktail of fluid will have terrifying results– some predictable, some not. It will turn our country into hell-on-earth– especially the arable lands, national parks and rural areas– while making a few more billionaires (living in the cities), and destroying our ecosystems.

As a people, we need to stop it… and pierce the veil of the energy-patriotism rhetoric this fracking program is wrapped in. That disingenuous shroud is simply an expedient and convenient means to an end for the folks reaping huge profits from this blitzkrieg of unsound drilling.

I say again, if energy independence is so damned important, why are we leaving it the hands of folks who care for nothing more than quarterly profits and corporate jets? Really?

If basic human needs– like water, food and energy– are, well, basic human needs, why are we content to let a few manipulate the creation, distribution and consumption, and mostly in secrecy?

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition |

Comments (1)

Amend and Hallelujah, Brothers and Sisters!

27 July 2011 – 4:34 pm

This proposal for Congressional Term Limits has been circulating around email of late. Totally solid logic, deserved, and sadly will never happen unless we crowdsource an undeniable movement. Even then, it feels like Senators and Congressfolk are acting more like feudal lords instead of elected representatives. Getting elected is now a guarantee of a lifetime without want of anything. Hard for them to empathize with their constituencies under those circumstances.

We already have an amendment (#22) enacted in 1951 limiting a presidency to two terms… why in God’s name don’t we have the same (or similar) for Congress. Oh, right… they’d have to approve it.

Congressional Reform Act of 2011

1. Term Limits.
12 years only, one of the possible options below.
A. Two Six-year Senate terms
B. Six Two-year House terms
C. One Six-year Senate term and three Two-Year House terms

2. No Tenure / No Pension.
A Congressman collects a salary while in office and receives no pay when they are out of office.

3. Congress (past, present & future) participates in Social Security.
All funds in the Congressional retirement fund move to the Social Security system immediately. All future funds flow into the Social Security system, and Congress participates with the American people.

4. Congress can purchase their own retirement plan, just as all Americans do.
5. Congress will no longer vote themselves a pay raise. Congressional pay will rise by the lower of CPI or 3%.
6. Congress loses their current health care system and participates in the same health care system as the American people.
7. Congress must equally abide by all laws they impose on the American people.
8. All contracts with past and present Congressmen are void effective 1/1/12.
The American people did not make this contract with Congressmen. Congressmen made all these contracts for themselves.

Makes sense. Though #8 as it relates to retired congressfolk may be a stickler, even though I agree with it. The crafter of the email also went on to say:

The 26th amendment (granting the right to vote for 18 year-olds) took only 3 months & 8 days to be ratified! Why? Simple! The people demanded it. That was in 1971…before computers, before e-mail, before cell phones, etc. Of the 27 amendments to the Constitution, seven (7) took 1 year or less to become the law of the land…all because of public pressure.

Serving in Congress is an honor, not a career. The Founding Fathers envisioned citizen legislators, so ours should serve their term(s), then go home and back to work

Could not agree more.

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition |

Comments (0)

Congressional Feudalism and Social Media

13 July 2011 – 10:01 am

I’m registered as a Libertarian and I live in Park City, Utah. Turns out I cannot see my way *ever* to vote along party lines, because I believe that individual issues should be considered in their own light, untainted by momentum, political party vectors or especially corporate interest (which is never in the best interest of the majority IMHO).

I care about my representation in Washington. I choose to receive Senator Orrin Hatch’s regular missives to his so-called constituency. Here’s the latest, which is typical in tone and content:

Fellow Utahns-
It has now been over 800 days since Senate Democrats have passed a budget. Since that time, our national debt has risen over $3.2 trillion. America has now accumulated about $14 trillion worth of debt. What is the White House’s solution to our debt crisis? Raise Taxes! Raising taxes isn’t the solution; it’s the problem. Raising taxes on hardworking Utah families and small businesses will only throw our country and economy further into decline, and prevent economic growth in America and Utah.

Last week I spoke on the Senate Floor, outlining the need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to our Constitution. I am convinced more than ever that a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is essential if we are to right our fiscal ship. Our amendment is not just an amendment for fiscal balance. It is an amendment that takes on the root cause of our current debt crisis – government spending.
That’s why I had a hard time understanding what the Obama Administration meant when it said a Balanced Budget Amendment would be “bad for the economy.” Getting government spending under control is bad for the economy? Considering this statement comes from the same people who brought us the failed economic policies that have led to 9.2 percent unemployment, I guess we shouldn’t be surprised.

Notwithstanding the partisan liberties he takes with stating some of the facts, does this come across as a solicitation to his constituency– a “tell me how you want me to act, my loyal consituency” kind of note? Not a chance. His paternal, I-know-better-than-you, broadcasting mode is actually kind of offensive. Especially so in the age of social media.

IMHO, Hatch’s approach consistently smacks more of a feudal lord trying to instill indignation and fighting-spirit into the serfs in his fiefdom to support his warring campaign on an invisible enemy about which he distorts facts and imbues his own agenda in order to garner that support. It’s so middle-ages.

We live in the age of social and mobile media where building social constructs to engage groups of people, large and small, in issues ranging from the trivial to those of greatest importance, and activate those people through transparent, honest and open discussion, is normal and easily doable. And we can do it in a way where *everyone* can lobby everyone else within that construct, not just Mr. Hatch trying to frighten and cajole us towards what he feel suits him.

I don’t know about you, but I’m thoroughly disenfranchised with congress– both houses– and their less and less veiled obeisance to corporate influence and their pandering to their respective constituencies.

Senators and Congressfolk: Build MODERN, SOCIAL CONSTRUCTS where all of us can see who’s saying what. And use contemporary gamification techniques to recognize and reward appropriate behavior (versus what you consider “appropriate opinion”). No command-and-control. No editing. No moderation. Scary, huh? Build the constructs in a way that the constituency as a whole can moderate and instill the tone, subject and social morays.

This is the current response I get from my Mr. Hatch to my responses to him:

As you might expect, I receive a large volume of correspondence. I want to assure you that I will respond to your specific concerns as quickly as possible.

Webforms? For real? This is not acceptible, sir. No hidden, isolated singular response channels your staff can control. No pollsters. No contrived surveys to bolster the opinion or position you seek to perpetuate for reasons we can’t and don’t see. How about letting your constituency discuss and debate both your opinion and my opinion and everyone else’s opinion openly so you can more accurately derive the will of the people and act on it appropriately and on our behalf. Otherwise, you’re no better than a feudal lord.

cumulusguy |

Gamification, On the Human Condition |

Comments (0)

Congress is in Secession

9 March 2011 – 5:18 pm

Congress continues to further distance themselves from their constituencies. The internet, social and mobile media *are* their constituency… yet they continue to make moves to take it from us, and hand it to corporations to mete out as they see fit.

Are we *still* talking about this? I mean, really…

The House is pushing a “Resolution of Disapproval” that would strip the FCC of its authority to protect our right to free speech online. If it passes, the FCC would not just be barred from enforcing its already weak Net Neutrality rule, but also from acting in any way to protect Internet users against corporate abuses.

What *good* law has ever been passed by corporate influence? I mean, good for me, the average citizen. I’m listening.

By definition, any lobbying is done to preserve or perpetuate a point of view. Profit, and profit-only when it comes to corporate influence. There is little (if any) regard for innovation, or what’s best for us as the collective consumer base for those corporations.

Innovation Engine
The guiding principle for anything related to internet, mobile and social media should be innovation, not protectionism. And what *we* want as users/audience/consumers… not what *they* want to protect existing and antiquated business models. That doesn’t preclude profit. Only demands creativity, innovation and a conversation with consumers by those companies… something phone companies and cable companies are short on, yes, but we shouldn’t suffer for it. Writes the HuffPost:

The fight against Net Neutrality has nothing to do with “market failure” or “government control of the Internet,” or any of the other lame catch-phrases that opponents use. It is, instead, a simple policy of turning what had been a free and open Internet environment over to AT&T, Verizon, Comcast and the rest of the Internet access providers to do with as they wish, and can get away with.

Never mind that most other companies would suffer in a regime like this, and it’s not simply the big companies who do business online like Amazon, Google or eBay. Those others don’t have the DC clout that the big telecoms do. Small businesses are excluded entirely from the discussion, and could suffer the most. Consider the case of Joseph Olesh, a filmmaker who won the America’s Got Net video contest with a simple explanation of how an open Internet helps him.

Really, Congress shouldn’t even be *in* this… let market dynamics take their course, don’t let corporations legislate protectionism. THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT’S BEST FOR US. We’re in the midst of the most explosive age of innovation and value creation in history, which would have never happened (nor will it continue) if the reins are handed to these so-called gatekeepers. Please keep their mitts off the internet, social and mobile media. There are puh-lenty of ways to make money on consumer-driven opportunities… and yes it means they need to *change* their approach to business. They need to listen and react to a truly free-market… not lobby for legislation to give them paternal control and undeserved influence over something that isn’t broke.

“The Internet works pretty well; it’s the government that doesn’t,” Rep. Greg Walden of Oregon

cumulusguy |

Networked Media, On the Human Condition |

Comments (1)

Feminine Media

5 February 2011 – 4:57 am

An excerpt from my book “Word of Mouse: The New Age of Networked Media” (written in 2001, published in 2004).

I continue to maintain this insight to be true. Ladies– start your engines. It’s your time (as if *I* need to tell *you*

(Note to reader: “Networked Media” is the class of media that includes “social media,” “mobile media” and the internet, in general)

The Feminine Touch

Contrast social media with television: television is a masculine, paternal “take what I give you” medium; whereas the Internet is non-linear, mutable, multi-tasking, interactive and community-oriented, and infinitely deep and mysterious. Social media are “feminine” in nature. Programming each requires a different composition of literacy.

When I make these observations at conferences there is often the occasional mutterings about sexism. I quickly explain that I am not talking about sexuality or sexual identity, but masculine and feminine sensibilities. We all—men and women— possess elements of the masculine and feminine in our psychological makeup. This is the point. Media in the 20th century (and before) were dominated by a masculine, paternalistic, “I’ll tell you what’s good for you” mindset. Networked and social media are shifting the balance back toward the feminine, where it should be, where it must be for its native programming to be effective and successful.

This evolution is reflective of a shift in the culture from the profoundly masculine to the sublimely feminine—a swing in the balance of power between the different halves of human nature; and one that businesses and media programmers will have to be heed, consciously or accidentally, to be prosperous in the networked age. The change has nothing to do with political correctness. It’s something much broader and authentic. This shift in viewpoint will likely be as profound a human development as the transition from the Middle Ages to the Age of Enlightenment, and may take just as long. We were ready for the Internet and its ilk long before they appeared on the scene. While still predominantly a male-conceived construct, the Internet and social media, in general, have inherently strong feminine natures; and literacy in programming networked media must reflect this fact.

The truth is, networked media can express both masculine—paternal, command-and-control, linear—constructs as well as feminine—motherly, capture-and-nurture, non-linear, chaotic—construct. The advent of these new media are pulling society back to more of a centrist position—a balance of the two sets of characteristics. Institutions would like to re-linearize our behavior, and the media itself. It is in their nature to do so. They were borne from a masculine template. Counseling them on how to modify their organized efforts is no easy task. From the standpoint of literacy in programming networked media, the two tenets most important to take away from this chapter, for both individual and institution, are that networked media efforts should employ an effective mixture balance and choice: balance between masculine and feminine traits, and always provide users a choice of behavior within the programming itself.

Balance
All of us have masculine and feminine traits. The feminine side, in general, is more about nurturing, communicating, and listening, whereas the masculine has more of a focus on point-of-view, more aggressive and paternal. Networked media programming requires a balance of the two.

Networked media like the Internet are capture (masculine) and nurture (feminine) media, not a “take what I give you” media like television, film and even print. In traditional media, for example, an oligarchy has controlled the programming. In networked media, oligarchies don’t work. Networked media require programmers to listen to and engage individuals, whether that programmer is another single individual, or representative of a supernode (institutional collective, like a company, government or religion).

Choice
Choice is an inherently feminine trait. Networked media should employ a spectrum of choice from the passive to the active. One must remember, though, that people can’t be forced to interact on a periodic or episodic basis- that would be like homework and people will resist complying. It’s important to provide people one reason to come, and dozens of reasons to stay engaged with the brand or franchise—within a single networked medium, or across multiple media. And whatever the one reason that compels them to come, there should be either a very low barrier to entry, or an inversely high motivation to come.

For new programming, it is desirable to create an experience in which participants are required to make a small initial commitment of attention. Often that is accomplished through a passive element, like audio or video that requires a low investment of time and effort to sample. But programming must be created in the context of the medium and allow a deeper experience should the participant choose it, or should a programmer/marketer be successful at drawing them more deeply into the experience through marketing or up-sell.

Have you ever been to an Ikea store? IKEA is a huge home furnishing and accouterments store with massive offerings—multiple floors and deep inventory. If you’ve been to one you know they have a little yellow line or directional arrows that walk the customer through the store, ensuring that one sees all the items the Ikea’s marketing folks want you to see if you see nothing else. The marketing department has programmed the yellow line. But (and this is the key), you can wander from that little yellow line any time you want and find a plethora of other products. You can take their path, programmed with their point of view (masculine), or you can create your own path, making your own shopping experience (feminine). Either way, they stand to make money from a purchase.

IKEA’s yellow line is a great analogy for social media programming. Give the participant a point of view that can be consumed with a low investment of time and effort. But always give the visitor the choice to delve deeper into the world of programming—content, community and commerce—created for them or that you’ve allowed other participants to create within the framework you’ve constructed.

The rise of feminine-dominant “visual media” during the last century and a half is recalibrating 5000 years of imbalance. It’s no coincidence that the suffragette movement appeared during the rise of photography and film as a media. The development of feminism was interrupted by World War II, but was re-awakened by the first generation of women to grow up on television – the women who became the foot soldiers of the feminine movement of the 60’s. Image literacy has been re-introduced into our culture, and is bringing balance by re-awakening a side of our nature that has, by and large, been culturally submerged. Forget about whether TV programming is good or bad; exposure to decades of television images has changed the way we’re wired and the way we function. Perhaps the idea of dyslexia – the notion that some people have neural wiring that prevents them from being lexically literate – shouldn’t be considered a handicap. Dyslexics are often facile with image, audio or video based arts and sciences.

Networked and social media is catalyzing that swing back towards a balance of masculine and feminine social dynamics. Technological, it [has evolved] to a point where it can deliver television quality audio/video and imbue that programming with the elements of content, community, commerce and code, giving programmers the ability to provide both point-of-view and freedom-of-choice to individuals. This evolution of the technology of media will accelerate the rise of imagery and portends a true balance of left-brain/right-brain, passive/active, logical/intuitive and masculine/feminine.

As social media matures from its technical infancy into adolescence, it is likely that women will become more than just the dominant users of these media. Women will also likely become the most fluent programmers (and the most brilliant aspect of that statement is that it’s completely intuitive and based in the right brain, so it doesn’t have to be submitted to logical, left-brain thinking for validation). It’s a fundamental fact that programming for networked media is complex; and consequently so is the literacy necessary to master it… for now. Tools have emerged, are emerging, and will continue to emerge, to make it easier; but the fact remains that a different set of skills is required to excel in this regard. Our children grow up with it naturally, as the only environment they know is one that is networked. If one wishes to understand the coming generations, and the changes in media preceding, paralleling and affecting their emergence, one had better seek to master the literacy of a new age.

cumulusguy |

Networked Media |

Comments (1)

Sarbanes-Oxley for Community Supported Agriculture

18 November 2010 – 12:20 pm

My previous blog on this subject didn’t exorcise my anger about this so-called “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act” which seems to be moving surreptitiously through our legislative system. It is wholly unnecessary and expensive act that essentially puts the Fed– and particularly Homeland Security(!) in charge of what we get to eat. Lunacy.

We don’t need oversight of our food. We need more local, community-vetted food… and we need systems (not laws!) in place to enable *eaters* to self-police food producers. Not the federal government. No offense Feds, but the only thing you can do well is collect money and spend it.

I urge each and every one of you to take action HERE; and to send a similar letter to your Senator or Congressman. Hatch is my representative to the Senate, and I found out he wholly endorses this wrongheaded and dangerous bill. Have our governing bodies lost all common sense?

Senator Hatch–

Have you lost your prodigiously endowed mind? I’ve met you. I’ve listened to you. You’re an intelligent man that seems to really care about your constituency.

How in the world… nay… in the universe of possible worlds can you endorse the so-called “Food Safety Modernization Act”?

Particularly, how can you paint local, organic and small business growers with the same brush as Industrial Food and Factory Farming. There is only one context that renders it logical: Industrial Food doesn’t like competition from local Farm-to-Table, organic and community-supported agriculture and are lobbying to squeeze them out of business. Only Industrial Food will be able to afford compliance.

It’s like Sarbanes-Oxley for small and local food production. And I know a bit about how ridiculously onerous SOX is to small businesses, being CEO of a microcap entrepreneurial company here in Utah.

The “Food Safety Modernization Act” may reasonably apply to Factory Foods, but it sure as heck doesn’t apply to CSA or small, local producers. It simply doesn’t. Reputation, transparency and community feedback are by far and away the best set of regulators one can apply. NOT one-size-fits-all legislation. If you simply required Industrial Food to provide transparency to us, their consumers, like local food producers do… I assure you all problems would be solved. Instead, these gigantic food producers are like food gulags, completely opaque to those they are most responsible– the eaters!

We humans are not piglets to be permanently attached to the teet of these piggish mega-corps. What is this? The Matrix?

IT’S… OUR… FOOD. These companies have no right in telling me what to eat, or limiting my choices of what to eat, and government sure as heck doesn’t. The implicit collusion is unethical and ungodly.

I’m continually shocked by how out-of-touch the Senate and the House are from the real-world dynamics of local commerce and small business. It’s kooky. A bizarro world that continues to befuddle those of us who consider ourselves educated, involved and conscious.

STOP MESSING WITH MY RIGHT TO EAT WHAT I WANT, AND FOR LOCAL FOOD PRODUCERS TO PRODUCE AND SELL WHAT I WANT. My entire community demands “individual choice” instead of “federal oversight.” If we need your help, we’ll ask for it.

Please do NOT render our conscientious organic and local food producers economically non-viable. The bill will do that. Messing with our food is a last straw, sir. It’s a road to ruin.

More of my opinion on this here: http://jimbanister.com/?p=423

Regards,
Jim Banister

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition |

Comments (0)

Food Fight

9 November 2010 – 10:04 pm

Or “How to destroy Community Supported Agriculture in three easy steps.”

There is a bill being considered by the Senate that realistically threatens our favorite Farmer’s Market. Imagine being *forced* to buy all our produce, meat and dairy from retail chains supplied by factory farms and consumer packaged goods companies. That is, the choice of buying from local agriculture, dairy farms or small livestock ranches being effectively taken from us for good.

Organic farming is one of the fastest growing segments of the US Agriculture Industry. It’s a direct threat to Industrial Food companies.

The rules and oversights contemplated in the bill are onerous to all, but realistically only big Industrial Food can afford to comply (and they’ll simply raise prices to consumers to cover the costs). Community Supported Agriculture will be economically murdered, forced to comply with rules and regulations that will price them out of business. So we’ll be paying more taxes for more wholly unnecessary oversight, and higher prices for factory food we didn’t want in the first place.

Congressman John D. Dingell (D-MI15) authored this “S. 510,” the so-called “FDA Food Safety Modernization Act.” It is also known as the “Monsanto Owns Your Ass Act.” There is simply no other context that explains the introduction of an act that treats local, community-supported agriculture, dairy and livestock in the same breath as Factory Farming and Industrial Food.

In Dingell’s own words, in part of a letter to Dianne Feinstein imploring her to send his bill to the floor:

As you may know, I am the author of H.R. 2749, the Food Safety Enhancement Act, comprehensive food safety legislation that will grant the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the authorities necessary to ensure the safety of the nation’s food supply. The case for food safety legislation has been made–each year approximately 76 million illnesses occur, more than 300,000 persons are hospitalized, and 5,000 die from foodborne illness. The urgency for a legislative solution is renewed with each new outbreak of illness from bad food. While not a companion measure, S. 510 includes many of the same authorities included in my legislation. H.R. 2749 passed the House in November

Does Dingell really think he can stop 76 million people from getting an upset tummy on occasion? The FDA can’t regulate that, and why would we want them to. It is statistically and logistically impossible to eradicate mildly unhealthy food in a command-and-control manner. And most of that tainted or unhealthy food is a result of industrialized food production, processing and distribution! We are all much smarter and safer doing our homework with local restaurants and grocers, or buying directly from local food producers who can be personally interrogated by us, the *consumers* of their product, rather than paying more taxes for more government oversight by below-average intelligence people forcing non-viable rules designed to destroy any competition to Industrialized Food.

Of those 76 million cited annual “illnesses,” only 300,000 people were hospitalized? That’s 0.1% of the population. A population that ingests massive amounts of food will get sick for all manner of reasons. A 1-in-1000 chance of being hospitalized for ingesting a rotten ort are pretty good odds, and I’ll bet my bottom dollar the odds drop substantially if I stay away from factory food. And only 5,000 died from foodborne illnesses? That’s it? That’s less than .002% of the US population, and most, again, caused by factory food sources.

The Centers for Disease Control study itself, the authors of the report Dingell selectively quoted, concluded “Overall, foodborne diseases appear to cause more illnesses but fewer deaths than previously estimated.”

Comparatively, more than 30,000 people in the U.S. die annually from auto accidents. And I eat way more often than I drive. And it is estimated that the 2009 H1N1 pandemic resulted in more than 12,000 flu-related deaths in the U.S.

The bill sounds like a solution looking for a problem, and I gotta wonder who stands to benefit from making it harder for local and community supported farming and livestock raising to remain viable. Hmmm…

I can speak anecdotally for myself and my broad circle of friends and colleagues who fervently support community-supported agriculture: we do our homework, have never been sickened by local food sources, nor have we ever heard of someone getting sick, let alone hospitalized or died from community-supported agriculture, dairy or livestock. It self-governs. But we’ve heard many horror stories that stem from the ingestion of Factory Food.

The statistics Dingell cites are not only un-compelling, but they simply must be held to a higher standard and differentiate factory farms, chemical companies and consumer packaged goods companies from the Community Supported Agriculture and Urban Agriculture that feed our local restaurants and Farmer’s Markets. The latter are innocent until proven guilty– that is, there is *lots* of evidence that factory food is bad (on so many levels!) and no evidence that community supported local food is flawed in any way. And consumers are directly involved in remedying any glitches that might arise in the local food supply system! We have no such influence, transparency or visibility into industrial food. We do NOT need you, Federal Government, messing with what we do in our own communities… especially as it relates to what we ingest.

“If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under tyranny.”
~Thomas Jefferson, 1778

You said a mouthful, Tom.

cumulusguy |

On the Human Condition |

Comments (4)

The Nature of Social Narrative

A Cure for Diva Capitalism?

A different kind of WTF?

Amend and Hallelujah, Brothers and Sisters!

Congressional Feudalism and Social Media

Congress is in Secession

Feminine Media

Sarbanes-Oxley for Community Supported Agriculture

Food Fight

LinkedIn

Follow me on Twitter…

Formspring Me!

My GoodReads

Blogs I Like...

WordPress Links

Recent Posts

Categories

my ARTICLES and TUTORIALS

Archives

Meta

Spam Blocked

LinkedIn

Follow me on Twitter…

Formspring Me!

My GoodReads

Blogs I Like...

WordPress Links

Recent Posts

Categories

my ARTICLES and TUTORIALS

Tags

Archives

Meta

Spam Blocked