freeman’s interweblogosaur

Been busy lately.  Too busy to write.  Job hunting, apartment hunting, some travelling, etc.

Some fellow left-libertarian bloggers have come up with South Park pics of themselves, and I thought I’d join the fun.  I initially tried to post this a few days ago and wound up looking at some bloggy diarrhea.  Since I can’t seem to figure out how to post a simple entry with a pic at the moment, I’m just posting a link to the pic instead.

freeman in South Park

( cross-posted @ Carnival of Anarchy )

The key here is state subsidization. That would eliminate any examination of Stephen King stories or Grateful Dead anthologies.

The usual big playas (big business & the state) are making a mess of this world. These partners-in-crime, stubbornly focused on institutional preservation and short-term gain, can not be counted on to address problems of their own making. Some problems seem destined to remain and intensify as long as such institutions continue to wield significant power and enjoy the faith of people blind enough to accept the continued institutionalization of life.

While myriad problems stem from increasingly centralized industrial agriculture, a food production model catered to and made possible by state intervention, the creation of dead zones seems pretty much off the radar. This needs to change, especially as the powers-that-be push the biofuel alternative to fossil fuels.

As topsoil disappears, solutions must be made allowing people to adapt to changing environments. The rigidity and inefficiency of institutions given responsibility over important matters such as food production have led to counterproductive and catastrophic measures being taken to address problems. In the case of topsoil, here’s a glimpse of what the “solution” was, courtesy of Richard Manning and his 2006 essay “The Oil We Eat”:

The common assumption these days is that we muster our weapons to secure oil, not food. There’s a little joke in this. Ever since we ran out of arable land, food is oil. Every single calorie we eat is backed by at least a calorie of oil, more like ten. In 1940 the average farm in the United States produced 2.3 calories of food energy for every calorie of fossil energy it used. By 1974 (the last year in which anyone looked closely at this issue), that ratio was 1:1. And this understates the problem, because at the same time that there is more oil in our food there is less oil in our oil. A couple of generations ago we spent a lot less energy drilling, pumping, and distributing than we do now. In the 1940s we got about 100 barrels of oil back for every barrel of oil we spent getting it. Today each barrel invested in the process returns only ten, a calculation that no doubt fails to include the fuel burned by the Hummers and Blackhawks we use to maintain access to the oil in Iraq.

That’s right - American tax dollars are being used to wreck havoc in the middle east to, among other things, gain control over oil resources that’ll be used to produce the fertilizers that the grossly inefficient and destructive industrial farms need to survive. Oh, and these farms are propped up by subsidies as well. Double whammy!

The relation of all this to dead zones? Simple. Those subsidized farms using those fertilizers subsidized by both taxes and blood are creating the runoff situation responsible for a growing dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico. Here’s a summary of the situation, otherwise known as eutrophication. Here’s a link to Hypoxia, a site devoted to following this issue, complete with numerous links to recent news reports. Here’s a link to the study done by Environmental Working Group on the subject.

I mentioned biofuels earlier, and for good reason. Expect a greater investment toward them, especially corn-based ethanol, in the near future with politicians and firms like Archer Daniels Midland running the show and reaping the harvest of wealth and control. Even a cursory glance at Alice Friedemann’s essay on the subject of biofuels and “peak soil” reveals much to be concerned with, ranging from further eutrophication to (cue alarm bells) civilizational collapse. From “Peak Soil: Why cellulosic ethanol, biofuels are unsustainable and a threat to America”, here’s the “dirt on dirt”:

Ethanol is an agribusiness get-rich-quick scheme that will bankrupt our topsoil.

Nineteenth century western farmers converted their corn into whiskey to make a profit (Rorabaugh 1979). Archer Daniels Midland, a large grain processor, came up with the same scheme in the 20th century. But ethanol was a product in search of a market, so ADM spent three decades relentlessly lobbying for ethanol to be used in gasoline. Today ADM makes record profits from ethanol sales and government subsidies (Barrionuevo 2006).

The Department of Energy hopes to have biomass supply 5% of the nation’s power, 20% of transportation fuels, and 25% of chemicals by 2030. These combined goals are 30% of the current petroleum consumption (DOE Biomass Plan, DOE Feedstock Roadmap).

Fuels made from biomass are a lot like the nuclear powered airplanes the Air Force tried to build from 1946 to 1961, for billions of dollars. They never got off the ground. The idea was interesting — atomic jets could fly for months without refueling. But the lead shielding to protect the crew and several months of food and water was too heavy for the plane to take off. The weight problem, the ease of shooting this behemoth down, and the consequences of a crash landing were so obvious, it’s amazing the project was ever funded, let alone kept going for 15 years.

Biomass fuels have equally obvious and predictable reasons for failure. Odum says that time explains why renewable energy provides such low energy yields compared to non-renewable fossil fuels. The more work left to nature, the higher the energy yield, but the longer the time required. Although coal and oil took millions of years to form into dense, concentrated solar power, all we had to do was extract and transport them (Odum 1996)

With every step required to transform a fuel into energy, there is less and less energy yield. For example, to make ethanol from corn grain, which is how all U.S. ethanol is made now, corn is first grown to develop hybrid seeds, which next season are planted, harvested, delivered, stored, and preprocessed to remove dirt. Dry-mill ethanol is milled, liquefied, heated, saccharified, fermented, evaporated, centrifuged, distilled, scrubbed, dried, stored, and transported to customers (McAloon 2000).

Fertile soil will be destroyed if crops and other “wastes” are removed to make cellulosic ethanol.

“We stand, in most places on earth, only six inches from desolation, for that is the thickness of the topsoil layer upon which the entire life of the planet depends” (Sampson 1981).

Loss of topsoil has been a major factor in the fall of civilizations (Sundquist 2005 Chapter 3, Lowdermilk 1953, Perlin 1991, Ponting 1993). You end up with a country like Iraq, formerly Mesopotamia, where 75% of the farm land became a salty desert.

Fuels from biomass are not sustainable, are ecologically destructive, have a net energy loss, and there isn’t enough biomass in America to make significant amounts of energy because essential inputs like water, land, fossil fuels, and phosphate ores are limited.

That’s just the beginning. It’s a long and detailed essay that provides plenty of food for thought. Dead zones at sea are bad enough, but further greasing of the petroculture wheel by the state appears primed to accelerate many more problems.

Lawrence J. Goldstein, a board member at the Energy Policy Research Foundation, was quoted in the Friedemann essay as saying “Once we have a corn-based technology up and running the political system will protect it,”. Of course it will.

Continued reliance on institutional answers to problems seems to be the sure path to creating a nightmare that would make Stephen King soil himself. Anarchists and other activists looking to wake people up and focus the eyes of the world upon the nakedness of so-called leaders promising answers are planting seeds of resistance sprouting an alternative path, one based on decentralization and sustainability.

Eutrophic dead zones are among the externalities of a system deadlocked into a paradigm promoting death in so many other ways. Promoting alternatives to the system provides a way to help institute a much needed shift towards institutional die-off. Better agribusiness and the state than the water and soil that keeps us from dying off.

I posted this video over at the Carnival of Anarchy as part of the ongoing ecology theme that is coming to a close this weekend. Inspiring stuff!

If it has a seal from the guvmint, it must be trustworthy, right?

sigh…

( from USDA Broadens Interpretation of `Organic’ for Some Foods )

The U.S. Department of Agriculture gave interim approval Friday to a controversial proposal to allow 38 nonorganic ingredients to be used in foods carrying the “USDA Organic” seal.

…

The list approved Friday includes 19 food colorings, two starches, hops, sausage casings, fish oil, chipotle chili pepper, gelatin, celery powder, dillweed oil, frozen lemongrass, Wakame seaweed, Turkish bay leaves and whey protein concentrate.

To all those who believed that the state needed to step in and create a uniform set of standards: I hope you’re happy! Enjoy those factory “farm” sausage casings!

Finding food that is actually organic can now be challenging, and it’s only gonna get worse thanks to inevitable assaults on food integrity and farmers who actually care by USDA and it’s cult of centralization. Some are wise to what’s going on, even if the typical “progressive” prefers to keep head buried in sand while chanting the mantra “if only the RIGHT people were in charge…”

Two voices of dissent against the continued institutionalization of food can be heard from Eliot Coleman and Michigan-based Eden Foods. Here’s Coleman’s take on the subject:

My opinion on this topic is the same today as it was when this national process began. There is a better way of achieving cleaner, more nutritious food for consumers than imposing a national definition of “organic.”This better way, letting individual labels define themselves, was the practice in Europe during the ’70s and ’80s. The various European “organic” organizations — Nature et Progres, Lemaire-Boucher, Soil Association, ANOG, Bio-Organic, Demeter — each defined and published standards to which their food was grown, based on their different theories of how to produce the best quality food. There was even a Swiss supermarket chain, Migros, with its own line of low-chemical-input foods called “Migro-sano.” Migros contracted with Swiss farmers to grow food to specific standards which banned the chemical inputs Swiss consumers were most concerned about, while allowing the less toxic products.

This open system offered numerous advantages to European consumers. Not only was there a range in price and quality, there was also the power to continually upgrade the standards. Whenever new agricultural research raised flags about a previously acceptable input or practice, the consumer shift to the labels not using that input or practice forced the other labels to shape up. This was a system driven to become ever better in response to the concerns of astute consumers rather than, as with any politically controlled system, ever more watered down in response to the influence of the powerful lobbyists.

Consumers should be aware that the virtues of this successful European model are presently seen as its fatal flaws. Such a wide range of consumer opinions and flexibility for improvement is unacceptable now that “organic” is big business. The expanding “organic” industry needs one simple, lowest-common-denominator definition for international trade. That is what the new Organic Standards are. But my question is this: Shouldn’t the “organic” food option place the benefit to consumers ahead of the needs of corporations?

Such an arrangement could have thrived here in USSA if it weren’t for those seeking food industrialization and/or political privledge. It is illegal to market produce as organic without a state permission slip if more than $5000/year is earned by the farmer. Thankfully, one can always wage a war of words against USDA and corporate “organics” by not only condemning the national certification and the growing uncertainly surrounding the word organic, but also by promoting alternative certification that simply chooses another word to associate with truly organic food. The latter tactic is being employed by those seeking certification through Certified Naturally Grown.

While Eden Foods needed to comply with the state to be allowed to continue marketing their products as organic, they weren’t happy about it. Eden refuses to dignify USDA by placing that infamous seal of theirs on food packaging. Here’s an excerpt of Eden’s statement regarding USDA “organic”:

In the first draft released to the public, the USDA announced its intention to allow food grown in city and industrial sewage sludge, genetically engineered food, and irradiated food to be certified organic. This became infamously known as the ‘Big Three.’ As deafening public outcry caused the USDA to ‘cave,’ Eden issued a press release that the struggle to save organic standards was still very much alive. We recognized the ‘Big Three’ as a common negotiating tactic: Make an offer that is so ridiculously unacceptable that all future offers would seem good by comparison.Our concerns have been realized. Under USDA it has become cheaper and easier for manufacturers to market ‘organic’ food that is not organic by any reasonable definition.

The most serious degradation of national organic standards occurred in October 2005. In a back room deal the Organic Trade Association lobbied Congress to legalize the adulteration of organic food with basically any toxic additive a manufacturer may want to use, including substances that do not need to appear on ingredient panels. More than 400,000 consumers contacted their government representatives asking them not to weaken organic standards in such a way, but agribusiness influences prevailed.

As a result, food bearing the ‘USDA Organic’ seal no longer needs to be natural food.

As a company that has worked for decades alongside salt-of-the-earth organic family farmers to grow and make food by the highest possible organic standards, we cannot in good conscience add a symbol to this food that essentially cheapens it.

Read their entire statement here.

I fail to see how anyone can in good conscience continue to support USDA’s “organic” racket in any way.

A notable blog I discovered recently is Magister Ludi’s Generational Helots. Here’s an idea, in Ludi’s words, of what the blog’s focus is:

The Helots were the enslaved people on whom the Ancient Spartans relied so that they could devote themselves full-time to military training. Others created wealth so they could serve the god of War. It seems that in the 20th century the two generations most assured of their greatness -the G.I.s who saved the world from evil, and the Boomers who made perpetual adolescence a philosphical movement- had also voted themslves a leisurely retirement, not to be paid for by slaves but by their descendents. In the 21st century, on the backs of the youth it seems that the Boomers will serve Bacchus. Generational Helots tries to explore this dynamic…

Should make for some interesting reading, eh?

It was through his blog that I learned of NYC Mayor Bloomberg’s intention to run for prez in ‘08. (link) I wonder if he’ll end up exploiting 9/11 somehow, just like Guiliani Uber Alles has and will assuredly continue to do ’til this latest political soap opera comes to an end.

Bloomberg’s entry means that at least three Empire State hoodwinkers are pursuing papacy the crown the presidency, with Hillary being included since she represents the Empire State in Congress.

Speaking of Hillary, Magister Ludi called the former Wal-Mart executive a communist, since we all know that Wal-Mart is the Arkansas auxiliary of the “International Communist Consipiracy”…

Seriously though, it isn’t really a big deal. Karl Hess , when asked during the Plowboy interview about whether or not big business and Soviet collectivism had any similarities, gave the following reply:

Certainly. They’re much the same. In the Soviet Union, the economy is developed under the ownership of a bureaucracy which shot its way to power, while in the United States exactly the same pattern exists except that our collectivists just buy their way to power. In either instance, the final result is the same: You owe your loyalty to the collective unit the corporation or the state, as the case may be. You’re subordinated to its plans and processes.

There’s no essential difference in the kind of world that either the large corporations of the U.S. or the collectives of the U.S.S.R. would impose on us. Back in the thirties, in fact, Jim Burnham wrote a book, The Managerial Revolution, in which he said that a DuPont bureaucrat could join a planning commission in the Soviet Union and never even know he’d changed jobs!

from Po Moyemu & lowercase liberty :

Grab the nearest book.
1. Open it to page 161.
2. Find the fifth full sentence.
3. Post the text of the sentence along with these instructions.
Don’t search around looking for the coolest book you can find. Do what’s actually next to you.

Here’s my entry:

“Rational technologies of the future would not discard everything about contemporary systems but rather evolve from them, leaving aside the dangerous and destructive aspects, absorbing the humanistic and communitarian ones.”

Human Scale by Kirkpatrick Sale

As much as I liked the previous look, it just had to go. It wasn’t very reader-friendly, and it wasn’t user-friendly either, which was both a surprise and a pain in the rear.

Expect more changes of the minor variety in the near future. Also expect some writing for once. I began tearing Paul Krugman a new one in a draft, and it expanded into something bigger which should be done real soon.

In libertarian news, I thought I’d send a really late shout out to the Alliance of the Libertarian Left and to the blog aggregator site Leftlibertarian.org. The latter, created by Jeremy Weiland, may morph into something more in the future as interest in left-libertarian ideas continues to rise.

Oh, and the search function for this new theme is broken for some reason. Don’t ask me how. Unless others step up with suggestions, it may be awhile before I figure out what to do about it. I never use the search function on other blogs. Do any of you readers out there use it on any blogs?

*UPDATE: The comments portion of the blog is out of whack, as you’ll notice if you attempt to read the ones written thus far. It’ll be a day or two before I fix that. I took a quick glance through the blog’s style.css page, made a couple of changes, and nothing happened. I’m not exactly a css whiz.

Two blog entries of note from the left-libertarian blogsosphere pertaining to labor issues:

First, Rad Geek presents good news concerning the ongoing struggle for improved wages and conditions for Florida’s tomato pickers being carried out by the Coalition of Immokalee Workers, a union quite unlike the typical NLRB model.

¡Si Se Puede! The CIW Wins a Groundbreaking Wages and Conditions Agreement With McDonald’s

Speaking of the NLRB model of unionism, Kevin Carson has provided a thorough critique of modern labor relations, promotes a radical alternative model, and attempts to keep vulgar libertarian responses at bay by preemptively pulling the rug out from underneath them.

The Ethics of Labor Struggle: A Free Market Perspective

An excerpt:

It was probably easier to build unions by means of organizing strikes, getting workers to “down tools” and strike in hot blood when a flying squadron entered the shop floor, than it is today to get workers to jump through the NLRB’s hoops (and likely resign themselves to punitive action) in cold blood. And it certainly was easier to win a strike before Taft-Hartley outlawed secondary and boycott strikes up and down the production chain. The classic CIO strikes of the early ’30s involved multiple steps in the chain–not only production plants, but their suppliers of raw materials, their retail outlets, and the teamsters who moved finished and unfinished goods. They were planned strategically, as a general staff might plan a campaign. Some strikes turned into what amounted to regional general strikes. Even a minority of workers striking, at each step in the chain, can be far more effective than a conventional strike limited to one plant. Even the AFL-CIO’s Sweeney, at one point, half-heartedly suggested that things would be easier if Congress repealed all the labor legislation after Norris-LaGuardia (which took the feds out of the business of issuing injunctions and sending in troops), and let labor and management go at it “mano a mano.”(18)

If nothing else, all of this should demonstrate the sheer nonsensicality of the Misoid idea that strikes are ineffectual unless they involve 100% of the workforce and are backed up by the threat of violence against scabs. Even a sizeable minority of workers walking off the job, if they’re backed up by similar minorities at other stages of the production and distribution process on early CIO lines, could utterly paralyze a company.

No, they’re not seeking out the protection services of Tony Soprano, but what do you think corporatist bureaucracies such as the FDA exist to do? Ensure public safety? Please…

Even though I haven’t written about them as much as corporations like Walmart, Monsanto probably tops my list of corporations that deserve nothing but scorn. I consider Monsanto to be one of the most dangerous institutions on Earth. Without massive subsidies and other forms of state intervention, Monsanto would be nonexistant, which is why you can count on Monsanto opposing free enterprise.

Their latest antics — asking the FDA to threaten and impose violent measures against dairies seeking to label their milk “rBGH-free”. Monsanto doesn’t want people to be fully informed about the food available in the marketplace. Monsanto wants everyone to just blithely purchase and consume “milk” tainted with their toxic tentacles.

No thanks. Personally, I’d rather take my chances diluting my piss with water and drinking that rather than shelling out money for puss and drug infested “milk” coming from sick and abused cows.

People seeking to improve their health and/or limit their financial support for life-threatening institutions should consider seeking alternative sources of food, whether through “legitimate” or counter-economic means.

Seems like it may be, if you ask me.

For starters, the LeftLibertarian Yahoo group affiliated with Movement of the Libertarian Left, although still running, is no longer worthy of praise nor attention. If you are a member or are interested in a left-libertarian list, then check out the new list graciously created by Kevin Carson: LeftLibertarian2.

Why the change? Long story, one that involves someone tuned in to the dark side - I’ll just call him Darth. I knew the list was in trouble once I found out that Darth had become moderator, and the past few days have shown that my senses were accurate.

It’s bad enough having to associate with a warhawk, but the past few days have seen a hilarious array of authoritarian behavior emanating from Darth, including the censorship of entire posts and portions of posts made by people with viewpoints that stray from the Darth party line.

On top of all that, Darth now sees himself in a role akin to “The Decider” regarding MLL.

I’m too tired to go on about all this, and Darth really isn’t worth the effort. He will not destroy the growing left-libertarian consciousness with his sickening defense of statist slaughter, and he will not do it with his petty authoritarian antics. As long as he is affiliated with MLL, I want nothing to do with it. Darth and his sci-fi groupies can wallow in the past, albeit without the man whose legacy is being violated.

A positive note in closing: Kudos to Jeremy from Social Memory Complex for adding a new site to the left-libertarian web community - Leftlibertarian.org. It’s a blog aggregator for now, but may evolve into more in the future.