Wink’s Blog

This morning the mercury stands at 17 F.  Four or five warm days in a row and it feels like Spring.  Likely just a January thaw but with the rattle of orchard ladders in the apples next door and the voices of workers, the orchards are reawakening after an all-too-brief rest.  I’m restless to get back outside myself after two days indoors at the annual convention of the Western Colorado Horticultural Society in Grand Junction while the snows melted.

The highlight of the WCHS conference was three impassioned addresses by Dr John Ikerd on the “New American Agriculture” and the “New American Farmer” both of which could be summarized by the term “sustainable agriculture.”  The kick-off was a showing of the new film “Broken Limbs” (which Max and I have ordered for the Farm library; www.brokenlimbs.org); the story of a farm family who are struggling to keep farming despite devastating competition from China and South America as they raise apples in Washington’s fertile Columbia River Valley.  With the smoke from the decimation of their neighbors’ razed orchards as the back drop, the film depicts how these folks apply Dr Ikerd’s message in their effort to continue in the way of life they love.

In person, Dr Ikerd told us that the days of industrial agriculture, including industrial organic, are over.  That the New American Agriculture produces food ethically, for local communities, that is nutritious, delicious, and healthy.  In order to be “sustainable” the New American Farmer stewards the land and preserves and improves the soil; (s)he treats workers and the community alike with respect, kindness, and equitably; and, equally important, finds ways to produce reasonable profits.

This is not a new message to our friends who have been following this blog and web site and who have been purchasing our fruit.  You know that we are working on improving our soils and stewarding our farm ecology.  We acknowledge that we have room for improvement in paying our workers a living wage — a priority for us.  So much of what we can put back into the farm and our workers depends on securing an adequate income.  It is a process of continual improvement.  We have declared this to be the year that we will see if we, and the farm, together can realize the promise of the New American Farm economy.

It was on this last point that we heard Dr Ikerd’s message most powerfully.  And this is where you, the “eater” of food comes in.  He works with sustainable ag groups all over the country and he sees that people want to know where there food comes from; want to know and trust their farmers; and want to know that their food dollar is going to support farmers who care about the land, the quality of the food they produce, and the ethics they live while growing it.  They understand that by supporting local farmers they are supporting rural communities and the health of the society to which they belong.  Through this wholistic understanding, they are willing to pay more for food grown in this way because they know where those dollars are going and that they are supporting values that they respect.

We came away not only reinvigorated in our commitment to making this happen but with references and resources to help turn the vision into food on your table.  So, if you’re in our “food-shed” and want to be part of this movement, don’t hesitate to email (wink@mesawindsfarm.com).  If you’re already part of our network, you’ll be hearing from us directly.  If you’re in another local food region, look for farmers markets, CSAs, farm stands, and u-picks.  Make friends with a farmer who cares about you, your family, and your community.

In recent days Max and I have agreed to serve on the Board of the Western Colorado Horticulture Society (http://www.coloradofruit.org/). We are pleased and honored. Our friend, an organic orchardist and the outgoing President, who made the offer said he expects us to be a progressive voice on the Board. We’re pleased to be viewed in this light and pleased that the Board values a diversity of perspectives. We’ll do our best to be a worthy. As far as this blog is concerned, this role ups the ante; I don’t want to be dismissed as a kook. I’ve begun to regard this blog is a conversation with myself — I’m about the only one who contributes — that I let the rest of the world in on. I’m tasting ruminations that I’ve been chewing-on. I hope you find them worth digesting.

I generally feel that whether I can explain something, even to myself, succinctly and briefly is a measure of how much I understand of it. By this measure I have a lot to learn about soils. Since my last effort to describe what goes on in the soil I’ve been trying to take this discussion further; to review, for my own sake, what I’ve been observing, studying, deducing and intuiting. I find I can’t simplify. It’s not just that there’s a lot of different perspectives and different commentators formulating the challenges differently. Perhaps it also discloses how little is really known about soils. It reminds us that every soil sample is different, every agro-ecosystem is different, every farmer has a different outlook. Moreover, much of what is going on down there takes place in the microscopic realm and is more about relationships, synergies, and competitions than about the indivisible parts.

If we’re going to intervene in our soils, how are we going to measure the results? Size and quantity of fruit? Taste? Resistance to disease and pest pressures? Believers say “yes” to all of the above. These results are hard to quantify and are largely subjective. Maybe we can perceive success in the size and hue of the leaves, the appearance of the trees and the overall orchard. The bottom line results aren’t in until harvest when we can measure fruit size and tonnage. But even this is, at best, an indirect measure of the health of the soil. What about the confounding variables such weather, irrigation skills and challenges, pruning and thinning, pest cycles, the progressive maturation of the plants, climate change, phases of the moon, and my own mood? Our scientist friends can try to tease apart the interconnections of the subterranean world; but as far as I can tell, we do what we do less on the basis of empirical data, than on what seems to us to most closely comport with our observations and what feels right: Our belief system.

So, what do we believe? We believe in helping Mother Nature succeed. We try to work in harmony with the ecology of the farm to produce delicious, healthful fruit. This does not necessarily mean the biggest or most tonnage. We also believe that, by reducing the interventions and off-farm inputs, any potential loss of quantity can be compensated by reduced costs. And that fewer tractor trips into the orchard the better for the soil ecology. We’re focussed more on quality, health and flavor than on sheer quantity.

Consistent with our beliefs, we are moving to use cover crops exclusively to provide the nutrients our trees and vines need. Certainly we won’t accomplish this in one year; it is a transition that will take at least a few years and thereafter it will be a way of life. Beginning in the vineyards, in the vine-rows, we’ll plant a mixture of low-growing (so we don’t need to mow them and they don’t overly compete with the vines) plants including dwarf white clover for nitrogen, alyssum and other flowering plants for the beneficial insects, etc. This ground cover will out-compete the weeds and eliminate the costly and time-consuming tilling we now do with the Weed Badger. It will help hold moisture, reduce erosion, and lower summer soil temperatures. The beneficial insects which predate on the pests will have a supportive home right next to our valuable plants. Next, using a no-till seed drill, we’ll plant the alleyways with a mixture (yet to be determined) of buckwheat, hairy vetch, etc to produce a lot of organic matter. This we’ll mow or simply knock down according to Bob Shaffer’s theories to provide organic matter and lignin.

We’ll do pretty much the same in the peaches: We’ll apply commercial organic nitrogen this year because the trees need it. And we may have to shallow rototill in the tree rows in order to control the existing orchard grasses and enable the cover crops to get established. By tilling we run the risk of damaging the tender, shallow, feeder roots from the trees, breaking down soil aggregates, and disrupting the live flora and fauna of our soils. But we probably have to break that egg on our way to an omelet. In an alive soil, these qualities will reestablish themselves. And the critical thing will be to beat the weeds by seeding the cover crop immediately. Also, similarly, we’ll establish a more diverse cover crop in the alleys as time and resources permit.

Likely, by the time we get all that accomplished, the apples, which seem hardier than the peaches and appear plenty healthy at this point, will speak up for their share of the attention. By then I may have refined my belief system with more understanding of the capacity of healthy trees to repel insects and disease simply by virtue of being strong and healthy. This is an attitude that I can appreciate, in that I apply it to myself, so I’m predisposed to apply it to our friends, the trees. More on that in the future.

Too much palaver! By now you’ve likely concluded that these ideas are hopelessly naive, far too simplistic, that I’m out of my mind, or all of the above. Possibly all true. Please weigh-in with anything you care to share so we can all benefit the better.

Friends Nancy and Alan remind me that I’ve not been upholding the promise of keeping “in touch” through Wink’s blog.  Thanks for the nudge; it’s great to know that folks out there are watching!  We are back on the farm after a ten-day post-Thanksgiving road trip to Saint Louis to attend the Acres USA (”the voice of eco-agriculture”) annual conference and trade show and a visit with our new grandson, Roman, his parents Nik and Julie, and aunty “Cioca” Aniela.

With our ecological footprint in mind, and after determining that the Amtrak schedule simply wouldn’t work, we chose to drive.  Our aging Volvo (220K miles) ran like a top and averaged better than 30 mpg, but more important, the enforced sociability gave us a chance to talk, dream, and plan for Mesa Winds Farm’s year ahead and beyond.  The conference provided a lot of nutrients for the soil of this conversation.

We had already resolved that 2009 is to be our year to focus on farming better.  It is propitious that, in our fourth season on the farm, we give our trees, vines, and garden the attention they deserve.  We are focused on understanding and improving the health of our soils.  An axiom that was oft repeated at the conference is that the farmer’s job is to nourish the soil and the soil will take care of the plants.  You, dear reader, will appreciate the departure this represents from the “cheap food” mentality that has predominated wherein the soil is regarded as no more than a matrix to hold the roots while the farmer adds petroleum-based synthetic “nutrients” the plant requires.

Ecological agriculture understands that nutrition and human health, as well as quality and delicious flavor, start in the soil.  Soil, microbes, water, sun, and air work in concert to create the vitamins and minerals that are transferred to the grains, vegetables, and fruits we eat.  When soils are rich with life through this beautiful and complex process they support good health and disease resistance for land, plants, and people.

We followed a “track” of lectures and workshops that helped us refine our understanding of a healthy soil.  It’s an incredibly fascinating study that defies full explication here (or anywhere):  Soils vary with the locality and the history, both geologic and human, of every shovel-full of soil we turn.  It is written that there are more organisms in a half-cup of organic soil than there are human beings on the entire earth.  The synergies, competition, cooperation, and ecologies of this teeming mass is what we mean by “soil life.”

It has also been said that we know more about the soil on the moon than we know about soils here on Earth.  I don’t know about that but, clearly, important discoveries are still being made and yet to be made.  Within the complexities and variability there are, nevertheless, broadly applicable principles and similarities, so study and discussion remain relevant.  One division represented at the conference is between those who believe that, for the plants to get all they need, farmers need to help by providing external additives and those who would rely on the soil itself to “grow” these crucial attributes.

We arrived with this very question on our tongues.  Most of our organic fruit-growing neighbors apply some kind of fertilizer to their orchards.  And they till the plant rows to reduce weed competition and open the soil to accept the organic matter.  They admonish us to do likewise.  In our first year we applied organic nitrogen pellets, composted chicken manure, and natural sulfur (to lower pH and release minerals bound up in our alkaline soils) — external, off-farm additives all.  We kept an open mind on tilling even though we didn’t actually put the rototiller to work in the orchards.

Miro’s eco-agriculture class took up the question and designed a survey protocol and tests that they applied to our orchards and to those of our neighbors.  The conclusions were incontrovertible: tilling breaks down the hard-won soil structure and soil aggregates which, in turn, reduces the soil’s permeability to oxygen (soil organisms breathe, too) and water, and soil life is impoverished as a result.  What was a true surprise is how many more earth worms we have.  Worms do much of the heavy lifting in building soil organic matter and are an accepted measure of soil health.  We shelved our thoughts of tilling.

Last year we didn’t apply the nitrogen, sulfur, and compost — but for reasons unrelated to the needs of the trees — and our Crest Haven peaches were disappointing.  Why?  Was it the hot, dry summer (driest on record)?  Was it the lack of nutrients?  The expert opinion is that the trees “ran out of gas” and need nitrogen fertilizer.  We have a lot of the stuff left over, so we’d already decided to give ‘em another “fix” in hopes of a better crop this year.  That’s fine for this year.  But what about the future?

Can we grow the nutrients and organic matter the peaches need right there next to the trees?  Our vision is to nurture cover crops that feed the soil and its denizens and provide, from below, all that the trees and vines need and, from above, the flowers and habitat for our bees and beneficial insects.  After sitting through any number of presentations by consultants bent on selling their services and proprietary products, at the very last session I finally heard a spirited presentation that confirmed that this is not only possible but ideal.  Bob Shaffer put it all together for us.  Plus he was applying these principles to perennial crops, especially grapevines, applicable to Mesa Winds Farm.

That’s more than enough for today’s bloggage.  I hope to further explicate Shaffer’s teachings next time I find the impulse to write.

Dear Senator Ken Salazar.

My wife and I are small family farmers, and confirmed Democrats, raising certified organic peaches, apples, and grapes in the North Fork Valley of the Gunnison River. Our friend, Rebecca Elder forwarded us your letter expressing your reservations about the national animal identification program (NAIP). We appreciate that you are trying to protect small farmers from a poorly conceived and implemented program.

We want to know that you understand, however, that the REAL threat to public health comes from the confined animal feeding operations (CAFOs) where the diseased animals that NAIP seeks to track originate. The health and environmental damage from CAFOs is incalculable, including surface and ground water pollution and the routine use of growth hormones and sub-therapeutic doses of pharmaceuticals which find there way into public water supplies, contaminating the public at large. The conditions in which these animals are kept are tragic and call into question the very humanity of their keepers and those who would defend CAFOs. We trust you are not one of these, despite the ample funds their lobbyists might offer.

A system to track diseased animals back to the source would do little to protect the public health because, after all, someone (or many) would have to get sick or die before the system could be used. Better to outlaw CAFOs. Better to end the wasteful practice of fattening these animals since we know that animal fat is a contributor to the national obesity epidemic. At the very least, you should add to your list of amendments a provision to exclude from NAIP any animal that has not seen the inside of a CAFO.

On another topic: as a “super delegate” to the Democratic National Convention, we urge you to cast your vote with the clear majority of Colorado Democrats, as expressed at the precinct caucuses. Thank you.

Sincerely,

Philip Winship Davis and Maxine Eisele
http://www.mesawindsfarm.com
wink@mesawindsfarm.com
970-250-4788

The letter that engendered the emial above:

Subject: A message from Senator Ken Salazar
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 21:21:50 +0000

Dear Rebecca:

Thank you for contacting me regarding a national animal identification
program. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and
industry groups have been working to establish a national animal
identification (ID) program with the goal of improving animal health and
protecting public safety. I am certainly open to being supportive of a
thoughtful animal ID system.

Though the USDA has already implemented pilot animal identification
programs and has articulated a set of principles that will guide a national
animal identification program, there are a number of outstanding issues
that must be resolved before moving forward with a program.

For example, it is essential that producers not bear the burden of
increased cost or overly burdensome regulations. I am also concerned that
a poorly implemented or managed program could unfairly provide some with a
liability scapegoat, negatively affecting small or medium-sized producers.

It is essential that we thoroughly address these issues before a program is
implemented. Please be assured that I will keep your thoughts in mind as I
continue to work with my colleagues and the USDA on this important
legislation.

Again, thank you for contacting me.

Sincerely,

Ken Salazar
United States Senator

In the last year, the major TV networks asked the presidential candidates 2,679 questions. Pop quiz: How many were about global warming?

A) 514—after all, it’s one of the top issues facing the country
B) 165—as many as were asked about illegal immigration
C) 3—the same number asked about UFOs

If you guessed 3, you’re right: Reporters asked as many questions about UFOs as they did about the climate crisis—the biggest threat to our planet.

I signed a petition urging top TV reporters to ask the presidential candidates about global warming. Can you join me at the link below?

http://pol.moveon.org/climatequestions/?r_by=11909-5268052-opw8VA&rc=paste

Thanks!

I strongly recommend you try the new interactive game at: http://sustainability.publicradio.org/consumerconsequences/. It’s an entertaining and simplified spin on the “ecological footprint“  which has been used to evaluate the sustainability of individuals, cities, and nations (see also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint).

In this “consumer consequences” version we can answer the question: “What would the world look like if everyone lived like me?” Interesting and disturbing. I found that it would take two Earths to support the population of the globe in my lifestyle. This, despite Max and my relatively low-impact lifestyle: small home, no commuting, no airplane flights, significant renewable energy. This, too, not including the impact of our farming activities. The sustainability of the our lives and of the Farm is a major goal for us. But we hope to build a more comfortable, spacious, and energy efficient home some day which will only increase the size of our footprint.

For comparison: According to Wikipedia, “in 2003, the average biologically productive area per person worldwide was approximately 1.8 global hectares (gha) per capita. The U.S. footprint per capita was 9.6 gha, and that of Switzerland was 5.1 gha per person, whilst China’s was 1.6 gha per person.” Which means that, for the global population to live the way the US lives would require 5.3 Earths; and for the world’s capacity to be equally distributed we’d all have to live more or less as the average Chinese does. This is indeed dismal!

But we’re a more advanced, not to mention more powerful, society and therefore we deserve to consume more than an equal share. Right? How ethical is that? Does inequitable consumption necessarily indicate exploitation? How can we know what is fair? What is ethical? (Forget for the purposes of this discussion that China is rapidly buying up our largest financial institutions and financing our war. “The times they are a-changing…”)

But seriously, once we know the extent of the unsustainability of our life-style, how do we feel then? Because we have to know that who’s really paying for our careless luxury is our children and our grandchildren and their children. They will bear the consequences. They will deal with climate changes that mean rising sea levels, more violent weather events, reduced agricultural productivity, and resulting mass migrations of disrupted peoples. They will inheret the violent clashes between civilizations, between the haves and have-nots, between the placed and the dis-placed. They will live with increasing insecurities. It is hard to conjure a positive result from the inequities that we have come to regard as our right. Our right, it turns out, to exploit our own children.

Do we have the curiosity and courage to confront a cold numerical appraisal of the sustainability of our lives? It’s a private undertaking that doesn’t have to be shared with anyone; no one else needs to know. Do we have the courage to begin, with determination, to change the way we live, to begin to live more in harmony with the carrying capacity of our Earth. Let us begin now.

For a year now I have advocated the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. I have writtem my Congressman, joined Impeachbush.org, and signed Congressman Robert Wexler’s petition (wexlerwantshearings.com). My reasons were ably articulated by George McGovern in yesterday’s Washington Post. I couldn’t say it better:
Why I Believe Bush Must Go
Nixon Was Bad. These Guys Are Worse.

By George McGovern
The Washington Post
Sunday, January 6, 2008;

As we enter the eighth year of the Bush-Cheney administration, I have belatedly and painfully concluded that the only honorable course for me is to urge the impeachment of the president and the vice president.

After the 1972 presidential election, I stood clear of calls to impeach President Richard M. Nixon for his misconduct during the campaign. I thought that my joining the impeachment effort would be seen as an expression of personal vengeance toward the president who had defeated me.

Today I have made a different choice.

Of course, there seems to be little bipartisan support for impeachment. The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans, and a lack of courage and statesmanship on the part of too many Democratic politicians. So the chances of a bipartisan impeachment and conviction are not promising.

But what are the facts?

Bush and Cheney are clearly guilty of numerous impeachable offenses. They have repeatedly violated the Constitution. They have transgressed national and international law. They have lied to the American people time after time. Their conduct and their barbaric policies have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world. These are truly “high crimes and misdemeanors,” to use the constitutional standard.

From the beginning, the Bush-Cheney team’s assumption of power was the product of questionable elections that probably should have been officially challenged — perhaps even by a congressional investigation.

In a more fundamental sense, American democracy has been derailed throughout the Bush-Cheney regime. The dominant commitment of the administration has been a murderous, illegal, nonsensical war against Iraq. That irresponsible venture has killed almost 4,000 Americans, left many times that number mentally or physically crippled, claimed the lives of an estimated 600,000 Iraqis (according to a careful October 2006 study from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health) and laid waste their country. The financial cost to the United States is now $250 million a day and is expected to exceed a total of $1 trillion, most of which we have borrowed from the Chinese and others as our national debt has now climbed above $9 trillion — by far the highest in our national history.

All of this has been done without the declaration of war from Congress that the Constitution clearly requires, in defiance of the U.N. Charter and in violation of international law. This reckless disregard for life and property, as well as constitutional law, has been accompanied by the abuse of prisoners, including systematic torture, in direct violation of the Geneva Conventions of 1949.

I have not been heavily involved in singing the praises of the Nixon administration. But the case for impeaching Bush and Cheney is far stronger than was the case against Nixon and Vice President Spiro T. Agnew after the 1972 election. The nation would be much more secure and productive under a Nixon presidency than with Bush. Indeed, has any administration in our national history been so damaging as the Bush-Cheney era?

How could a once-admired, great nation fall into such a quagmire of killing, immorality and lawlessness?

It happened in part because the Bush-Cheney team repeatedly deceived Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons that were an “imminent threat” to the United States. The administration also led the public to believe that Iraq was involved in the 9/11 attacks — another blatant falsehood. Many times in recent years, I have recalled Jefferson’s observation: “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”

The basic strategy of the administration has been to encourage a climate of fear, letting it exploit the 2001 al-Qaeda attacks not only to justify the invasion of Iraq but also to excuse such dangerous misbehavior as the illegal tapping of our telephones by government agents. The same fear-mongering has led government spokesmen and cooperative members of the press to imply that we are at war with the entire Arab and Muslim world — more than a billion people.

Another shocking perversion has been the shipping of prisoners scooped off the streets of Afghanistan to Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and other countries without benefit of our time-tested laws of habeas corpus.

Although the president was advised by the intelligence agencies last August that Iran had no program to develop nuclear weapons, he continued to lie to the country and the world. This is the same strategy of deception that brought us into war in the Arabian Desert and could lead us into an unjustified invasion of Iran. I can say with some professional knowledge and experience that if Bush invades yet another Muslim oil state, it would mark the end of U.S. influence in the crucial Middle East for decades.

Ironically, while Bush and Cheney made counterterrorism the battle cry of their administration, their policies — especially the war in Iraq — have increased the terrorist threat and reduced the security of the United States. Consider the difference between the policies of the first President Bush and those of his son. When the Iraqi army marched into Kuwait in August 1990, President George H.W. Bush gathered the support of the entire world, including the United Nations, the European Union and most of the Arab League, to quickly expel Iraqi forces from Kuwait. The Saudis and Japanese paid most of the cost. Instead of getting bogged down in a costly occupation, the administration established a policy of containing the Baathist regime with international arms inspectors, no-fly zones and economic sanctions. Iraq was left as a stable country with little or no capacity to threaten others.

Today, after five years of clumsy, mistaken policies and U.S. military occupation, Iraq has become a breeding ground of terrorism and bloody civil strife. It is no secret that former president Bush, his secretary of state, James A. Baker III, and his national security adviser, Gen. Brent Scowcroft, all opposed the 2003 invasion and occupation of Iraq.

In addition to the shocking breakdown of presidential legal and moral responsibility, there is the scandalous neglect and mishandling of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe. The veteran CNN commentator Jack Cafferty condenses it to a sentence: “I have never ever seen anything as badly bungled and poorly handled as this situation in New Orleans.” Any impeachment proceeding must include a careful and critical look at the collapse of presidential leadership in response to perhaps the worst natural disaster in U.S. history.

Impeachment is unlikely, of course. But we must still urge Congress to act. Impeachment, quite simply, is the procedure written into the Constitution to deal with presidents who violate the Constitution and the laws of the land. It is also a way to signal to the American people and the world that some of us feel strongly enough about the present drift of our country to support the impeachment of the false prophets who have led us astray. This, I believe, is the rightful course for an American patriot.

As former representative Elizabeth Holtzman, who played a key role in the Nixon impeachment proceedings, wrote two years ago, “it wasn’t until the most recent revelations that President Bush directed the wiretapping of hundreds, possibly thousands, of Americans, in violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) — and argued that, as Commander in Chief, he had the right in the interests of national security to override our country’s laws — that I felt the same sinking feeling in my stomach as I did during Watergate. . . . A President, any President, who maintains that he is above the law — and repeatedly violates the law — thereby commits high crimes and misdemeanors.”

I believe we have a chance to heal the wounds the nation has suffered in the opening decade of the 21st century. This recovery may take a generation and will depend on the election of a series of rational presidents and Congresses. At age 85, I won’t be around to witness the completion of the difficult rebuilding of our sorely damaged country, but I’d like to hold on long enough to see the healing begin.

There has never been a day in my adult life when I would not have sacrificed that life to save the United States from genuine danger, such as the ones we faced when I served as a bomber pilot in World War II. We must be a great nation because from time to time, we make gigantic blunders, but so far, we have survived and recovered.

With the upcoming Iowa Caucuses, Morning Edition is asking just-plain-folks to express their top issues. Maybe its that I don’t live along a sun belt interstate but for whatever reason they haven’t asked ME. Those they do ask are concerned about their taxes or the prospects for their auto-industry-dependent businesses. Pretty personal and individual concerns that resonate only marginally for me. This morning, though, the just-plain-folks seemed to agree that we need to break the lock that corporate interests have on our so-called democratic process; I agree.

Just in case anyone cares to ask, I’m ready with my top issues:
> The Iraq War.
> Global Climate Crisis.
> Renewable Energy.
> Food and agriculture policy, organics, sustainable food systems, GMOs.
> Universal, single-payer health care.
> The federal deficit, debt, and the financial burden we’re leaving future generations.
> Foreign policy.
> Tax inequities — the rich and corporations don’t pay their fair share.

Taxes and corporate influence are sub sets of these issues. If, for instance, I agreed with the country’s spending priorities, I’d feel better about paying taxes. But as long as we spend hundreds and hundreds of billions on Bush’s War and even more by reducing the taxes paid by the rich and corporations and subsidize oil companies to rape our pristine places and spend in support of developing a corn-based ethanol industry while failing to renew incentives for renewable energy, failing to adopt a Renewable Energy Standard, and failing to provide health care for all our citizens (and on and on), I can’t conger much support for taxes either.

Our federal spending priorities express corporate priorities. The Bush War is a boon for weapons manufacturers and dealers, Cheney’s friends in the oil patch, and other war profiteers including so-called “contractors” (who we used to disparage as “mercenaries”) — surprise: they’re one and the same: Haliburton’s KBR and the others. Ethanol is a sop to Big Ag (and by extension the ag chemical and GMO producers), and Detroit dinosaur car companies (who won’t have to do any real innovation).

My late grandmother used to say that it’s a privilege to pay taxes. Presumably she was thinking that the duty to pay taxes means that the family had income; a privilege that not everyone enjoyed during the depression. As a New Englander she also appreciated that those with the privilege of income have a duty to share, through taxes, her good fortune with those less advantaged in our society. Furthermore, she understood that a society has shared priorities and infrastructure to which it is a privilege to contribute and help bring to fruition. The knee-jerk anti tax crowd thinks of us not as a society but rather as a collection of individuals bent on each maximizing our individual self interest. I strongly believe they couldn’t be more wrong. We need to understand and pursue our common interests if we are going to successfully address the complex challenges ahead — and the sooner the better.

This first sunrise of 2008 finds the mercury in the negative range for the first time this winter: Fahrenheit minus 3. The clear sky promises a second-in-a-row “Colorado Day.” We were spared the worst of yesterday’s storm in which new snow, drifting, and avalanche hazard closed Front Range passes, including I-70, for 24 hours. This morning’s wind chill at Vail is minus 25.

Hooray once again to Michael Pollan. His new book: “In Defense of Food” is his latest contribution to the campaign for healthy food! He is interviewed on Morning Edition and counsels a wise New Year’s Resolution: “Eat food, not too much, mostly plants.”
> Eat food: Much of what we see on supermarket shelves is not food but edible substitutes. He says: “Don’t eat anything your great grandmother wouldn’t recognize as ‘food’.”
> Not too much: Small portion size, stop before reaching “full”. Having frequently felt over-full at bed time this season, this is advice I can take to heart (figuratively and literally).
> Mostly plants: But not exclusively: eat animals, too, the ones that have eaten mostly leaves and seeds in pastures. Avoid refined foods.
The interviewer asked: “Won’t this cost us more?” Pollan’s closing point echos one I’ve made in this blog:

“We’re at a fork in the road: either we learn to live in the growing epidemic of chronic disease OR we change our priorities, pay attention to what we eat, and expect that this will cost us more in time and/or in money.”

I would add that the personal and societal cost of chronic disease likely exceeds the cost of eating healthy. It’s the classic pay now or pay (more) later. Wouldn’t we prefer to be healthy all our lives?

Wishing everyone a healthy, energetic, and sustainable NEW YEAR!

Another couple of nights with low temps in the single digits. The air has that metalic flavor that suggests deep cold and the snow crunches loudly under foot. Hibernation is the appropriate response. And eating — Max calls it: “Putting on winter fat.” A warm fire in the wood stove, a couple of good books, and there’s no tire tracks out the gate for days at a time.
Finally Maggie and Derek arrived to share our coziness, bring us out of our solitude, and prolong our season of giving. Good conversation, more good books, and more great cooking ensues. Last night’s desert, for instance, was a delicious pumpkin creme broulee by M&D from a recipe Max found on line. It called for melting the sugar crust using a kitchen blow torch. Since we have “bumpkins” in the larder and I have a torch in my plumbing kit, we decided to give it a try. It was a resounding success except it was also considerably more of the winter fat than any of us needs at this point. Today a hike is planned and gathering more firewood.