Texans have a real option in the Ag Commissioner race

The Texas Green Party's best candidate this year, by far, is Ken Kendrick, running for state agriculture commissioner.

Kendrick rose to fame through exposing salmonella problems at two Peanut Corporation of America facilities. He knows food safety, and as a whistleblower, he knows the need to protect other people telling the truth on food safety.

But, his campaign is far more than that.

Friend Perry, about 10 days ago, did an excellent blog interview with Kendrick.

As Perry notes, Kendrick has a broad-ranging campaign that covers:
1. Water safety
2. Water conservation
3. Corporate accountability
4. Food labeling

And more. 

Don't even think about other names, whether they've got a fake D with a camouflage R after their name, or a bright red R.

Just look at Ken Kendrick.

Cesar Chavez, hugely flawed hero

The Crusades of Cesar Chavez: A Biography by Miriam Pawel

My rating: 5 of 5 stars

(Addendum, outside the review, and expansion of it, itself. Noting the one retweet of this, despite Chavez' numerous flaws, I reject the idea that organizing farmworkers was bad, and I also reject the idea that Chavez' later Hispanic political empowerment, even at the expense of farmworker neglect, was all bad. So, to anybody dedicated to following the ideas of Hayek, or beyond, or other doctrinaire conservativism, no soap from me, and I'm putting that right up front.)


Miriam Pawel, author of a previous book on farmworkers, offers us an in-depth, totally honest must-read, based on thousands of hours of audiotapes, notes and more.

Pawel, in the first "critical" biography of Chavez, gives us the good, the bad, and the ugly in the life of the man who gave California's farmworkers their first union, then, due to stubbornness, wrongly-directed singlemindedness and authoritarian leadership, essentially wrecked that same union, to the point that farmworkers today are little better off, in a number of ways, than they were before Chavez founded the United Farm Workers.

Where to start? Here: Pawel quotes Chavez talking about that "singlemindedness." That was part of his genius in getting the United Farm Workers started. So, too, was his recognition that, because agricultural workers were largely uncovered by US labor law, there were few rules to play "outside of." Related to that, he was an outside-the-box thinker in early tactical and strategic moves.

If only we could end his life, or freeze it, in the early 1970s, then the Chavez of myth — a myth largely perpetuated by Hollywood-type liberals, which in turn adds to the degree of truth in generalizations about that subculture — would closely match that of reality. But, we don't end there.

Pawel shows that recognition as a union, especially on larger contracts, meant that the UFW was no longer "outside the system." That became even more true in the mid-70s, after California passed into law the bill creating the Agricultural Labor Relations Board.

It was at this point that, as Pawel shows, Chavez essentially went off the rails. He decided the UFW needed to be a social movement, not a union. He decided his single-mindedness needed to be more authoritarian. And, to bring this all together, he decided to borrow some "control" tools from the notorious 1970s cult, Synanon, even working with its founder. The result? Longtime Chavez supporters were accused of being traitors to the cause, Communists, or whatever, and booted out. Besides Synanon, Chavez also borrowed ideas from Mao and the Cultural Revolution.

All of this was new to me, the stuff related to Synanon, Chavez turning UFW headquarters into something akin to a cult, and his refusal to focus on union development issues because that would force him to delegate authority.

Meanwhile, because he wasn't a good administrator, but was too much of a "controller" to delegate administrative tasks, maintaining and renegotiating contracts fell by the wayside. Expanding the union outside of California did the same, with Chavez even crushing independent organizing efforts. (Austin having a "Cesar Chavez Boulevard" could be considered a bit laughable for this reason.) And, the UFW wound up owing a bunch of back taxes.

At the same time, Chavez began intervening a lot more in California politics, an idea he once rejected. He also began marketing the UFW as a brand, especially to the likes of those Hollywood-type liberals, even as more and more contracts with growers were lost and the union was shrinking.

This isn't to deny that things like pesticide use in the fields weren't important issues. It is to say that things like that were secondary to renewing efforts at organization of union locals, getting new contracts signed with growers, etc. It is also to say that many of them were "pitched" at appealing to those Hollywood-type liberals. And, as Chavez because more and more of a national political star and icon, that, the elbow grease work of maintaining a union, appealed to him even less as the 1970s moved into the 1980s.

However, as a result, he was able to expand the political power of "la raza." And, to do so somewhat outside of California. So, Austin's commemoration of him isn't totally wrong, either.

Given that the farm workers' movement really started in my pre-school days, that the slide of the union and Chavez' move to becoming a cult leader happened before the end of my high school days, growing up in a politically quite conservative household, and that his next move to political icon and final abandonment of original unionization efforts happened before I had started escaping that background, let alone gone beyond more stereotypical versions of liberalism, I never had understood what had happened to the farm workers' movement. And now I know — Cesar Chavez happened to it — the good, the bad, and the ugly.

This just catches the tip of the iceberg of a must-read book. And, should lead a reader asking, was the expansion of political power worth it for the price that Chavez eventually left farmworkers to pay?



View all my reviews

Idaho dairy farmers want socialism!

Beyond current dairy price supports, these rock-ribbed Republicans want guaranteed profit margins, regardless of herd size:

Some of the changes include shutting down the Dairy Product Price Support Program and the Milk Income Loss Contract, or MILC, in the next Farm Bill. Both programs have funneled billions of dollars into the coffers of struggling dairies, but the federation argues that it has been largely ineffective.
MILC makes payments to dairymen when prices fall, but benefits are capped after the first 3 million gallons of milk produced, the annual output of perhaps 200 cows.

The average herd size in south-central Idaho in 2008 was more than 1,100 cows, according to the Idaho Dairymen’s Association.

“These prices are not relevant to farmers in 2010,”said Jerry Kozak, president and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation, “and it only works when producers sell to the government and get the product off the market.”

The federation also proposes to establish a new program called the Dairy Producer Margin Protection Program, which would support producer margins — unlike current federal programs that support prices. The program would act as form of insurance which pays producers based on the price per hundredweight of milk, minus the cost of feed needed to produce the milk.

What bullshit, both literal and figurative.

And, these aren't even new tea-party based Congresscritters, whom you expect to be hypocritical on things like congressional perks.

No, these are "rugged individualualist" libertarian Westerners, whom you expect to be hypocritical on things like government handouts. Nonetheless, the ramped-up level of hypocrisy is a bit surprising.

But, to be honest, if there are any "family" dairy farmers still in Idaho, they're not behind this ... this is all "big boys." It's clear from the push to remove caps on herd size and supports, and the out-of-state backing for this.

I'm sure Idaho potato farmers are next in line. Rock-ribbed-conservative Mormons looking for a government handout.

Nothing corny about global warming

Literally, that is. Due to corn’s temperature sensitivity, global warming could severly hit US corn harvests, barring some lucky new round of genetic engineering.

’Roo — it’s what’s for dinner in a hotter climate

Well, instead of beef, it should be, at least Down Under, Australian governmental climate change advisor Ross Garnaut says.

Why? The farting of European-origin livestock and their contribution to global warming, compared to the low-methane digestion of kangaroos.

Climate change will leave Texas drier and Southwest worse yet

About 10 percent drier, according to this New York Times map of watersheds.

Of course, Texas should be thankful it’s not the Colorado River basin, projected to be 20 percent or so drier.

Since much of eastern Texas is non-irrigated agriculture, this has major farm and ranch fallout. If it’s four degrees warmer, and you also have four fewer inches of rain a year, well, plus more evaporation from higher temperatures, you’re looking at more crop failures.

That’s still better than the lower Colorado River basin. Since the river itself could be at 500-year low flow and Lake Mead could disappear by 2020, Southern California and Arizona farmers may not have ANY water for their crops by then.

Back in Texas, in west Texas to be precise, without more stinting use of water (and setting aside nuttery like transporting water to east Texas) the Ogallala Aquifer will probably be about played out at about the same time.

But, Ed Abbey told them 40 years ago that the desert ultimately wins. Heck, John Wesley Powell halfway said that more than 100 years ago.

The full report’s home page is here, with PDF links to individual sections.

Bee colony deaths increase

Colony collapse disorder hit 29 percent of commercial honeybee hives, in a survey of 19 percent of commercial beekeepers.

CCD and other problems knocked off 36 percent of hives last year, something that is obviously unsustainable.

So, if you see honey and fresh fruit prices continue to rise, you know why.

The meat-guzzler, as well as the gas-guzzler, needs to be tamed

The meat guzzler being, above all, Homo sapiens Americanus.

Among the reasons why, as this article attests, is that:

An estimated 30 percent of the earth’s ice-free land is directly or indirectly involved in livestock production, according to the United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization, which also estimates that livestock production generates nearly a fifth of the world’s greenhouse gases — more than transportation.

And, as for the global warming equivalent of this worse-than-transportation problem?

Gidon Eshel, a geophysicist at the Bard Center, and Pamela A. Martin, an assistant professor of geophysics at the University of Chicago, calculated that if Americans were to reduce meat consumption by just 20 percent it would be as if we all switched from a standard sedan — a Camry, say — to the ultra-efficient Prius. Similarly, a study last year by the National Institute of Livestock and Grassland Science in Japan estimated that 2.2 pounds of beef is responsible for the equivalent amount of carbon dioxide emitted by the average European car every 155 miles, and burns enough energy to light a 100-watt bulb for nearly 20 days.

So, eat about 2 ounces less of meat a day. You’ll do yourself, and the world at large, a world of good. Or, at least, eat more pork and poultry, which are more efficient converters of plant material to animal material than cows are.

Also, if we stopped subsidizing the beef industry as much as we do the oil and transportation industries, the price of meat would go up enough people would automatically cut back.

(Disclosure: I eat about 2 ounces or so a day, most days.)

Mechanization an answer to illegal immigration?

Robotic fruit pickers could be just that in the agricultural industry:

Vision Robotics, a San Diego company, is working on a pair of robots that would trundle through orchards plucking oranges, apples or other fruit from the trees. In a few years, troops of these machines could perform the tedious and labor-intensive task of fruit picking that currently employs thousands of migrant workers each season.

The robotic work has been funded entirely by agricultural associations, and pushed forward by the uncertainty surrounding the migrant labor force. Farmers are “very, very nervous about the availability and cost of labor in the near future,” says Vision Robotics CEO Derek Morikawa.

The trick to avoiding robotic single-mindedness that would usually flunk a task like this? Two robots — hence the two mentioned above — differentiating the labor. One hunts the oranges or whatever, the other actually picks.

When mechanization was first proposed decades ago Cesar Chavez strongly opposed it. But, he’s dead and the United Farm Workers is little more than a money-solicitation machine today, trading on his legacy.

Nonetheless, it has weighed in:

The United Farm Workers' leaders say they aren't worried about the robots, because they don't believe the machines will ever be able to do the job as well as people. Spokesman Marc Grossman predicts that mechanical hands will damage the fruit and make it unappealing for supermarket shoppers. "There are already machines that will pick wine grapes, but the high end wine growers don’t use them, because they want the quality," Grossman says.

Farmers, and growers’ groups, strongly disagree. In fact, interest is spreading beyond California:

The Washington Tree Fruit Commission started investing in the project last year, and Vision Robotics is talking to other agricultural groups with crops ranging from cherries to asparagus.

I think it’s a good idea, overall. And, in most the Southwest, the robots should be able to be solar-powered, eliminating fossil fuel issues.

That said, this won’t reduce pressures south of the border, just one area of incentives on our side.

The answer down there, or part of it? Two words: Birth control.

Anyway, given the immigration bill being back on the Senate’s platter, I wonder if this is going to get any airplay. It needs it.

Brazil: World No. 1 beef exporter

In a 2004 post, I noted that Brazil was already reportedly the world’s biggest exporter of chickens, orange juice, sugar, coffee and tobacco.

Add beef to the list, according to the January 2007 National Geographic. With soybeans soon to follow.

Somebody didn’t inform our state’s ranchers about losing top beef honors, I’m sure.

Two months ago, in a related post, I noted that the U.S. had become a net food importer. That’s right, the “breadbasket” is not an overflowing cornucopia.

In comments for that post, Jeff Melcher said he thought it was all “luxury foods” that we were importing. I personally don’t consider out-of-season fruit that much of a luxury. Is the imported beef in your hamburger or on your grill a luxury? The sugar on your cereal? The orange juice at your breakfast table? The chicken breast that’s the “healthy” alternative to the steak?

But, as the NG story points out, it’s coming at a huge price: the increasing deforestation of the Amazon. This has implications for global warming, world weather patterns, species diversity and more.

U.S: Net food importer

Yes, you read right.

Due in part to globalization, I’m sure, and in part to Americans continuing to eat beyond their means, we are a net food importer, as the Sierra Club reports.

Last year, for the first time in U.S. history, we imported more food from other countries than we ate from our own fields, streams, orchards, and bays.

It doesn’t get much more graphic than that, sadly. Unfortunately, most of what we do grow here is flavorless, fiberless, sugar-laden crap forced on the country by Big Ag.