I’ve questioned just about everything that has to do with the concocted policy known as Rural Broadband. It’s an entitlement program. It’s a land-grab. It’s too expensive. It’s ineffective. I haven’t changed my mind, but I do have a new perspective, complements of House Resolution 4545. There’s no need to worry. This behemoth will never get off the ground. Already the legislation is chocking the ignornant policy to death. It may be a dark comedy, but if you read closely, it is hilarious. Here’s some of the language from the proposed legislation:

‘(A) conduct extensive, nationwide outreach to rural areas; Translation—talk to people who supported the political aspirations of whoever is in office.

‘(B) foster the development of a comprehensive rural broadband strategic vision; Translation—assist in dreaming up ways to spend taxpayer money.

‘(C) plan coordination of Federal resources for State, regional, and local governments to assist citizens living and working in rural areas; Translation—tell people where to get their free government handout.

‘(D) assess all relevant technologies (including WiFi, WIMAX, DSL, cable, satellite, fiber, and broadband over power lines), as the technologies are able to support in whole or in part rural broadband needs and requirements; Translation—figure out how all this stuff works.

To read the rest, follow the link below:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-4545

Here’s a better solution to the Rural Broadband bureaucracy:

From: info@westonaprice.org
Subject: SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL Take Action

SENATE FOOD SAFETY BILL

Start the New Year off right, by talking with your Senators about safe and healthy food!

Big Ag and Big Food have distributed melamine-contaminated milk from China and salmonella-contaminated peppers from Mexico. Yet Congress hasn’t gotten the message that they need to solve the real problems – the centralized food distribution system and imported foods – and not regulate our local food sources out of business.

In November, the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) approved S. 510, the “FDA Modernization Act of 2009.” Although the Committee members made several comments about addressing the concerns of small and sustainable farmers, S. 510 still imposes many burdensome and inappropriate requirements on local foods, without solving many of the real problems in the mainstream, centralized food system.

The full Senate is expected to vote on it early this year, possibly even this month (January 2010). Please take action now!

TAKE ACTION:

Call both of your Senators. You can find their contact information at www.Senate.gov, or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121 or toll-free at 877-210-5351.
Ask to speak with the staffer who handles food safety issues. Engage that staffer in a discussion about the importance of local, nutrient-dense foods to you and your family, and why your local food sources should not be subject to FDA regulation. If you get their voice mail instead of the staff, leave the following message:
“Hi, my name is _____ and I live in ______. I’m very concerned that S.510, the FDA Modernization Act, imposes unfair and burdensome regulations on local food sources, which are very important to me. The Committee version of the bill does not address my concerns, and I’d like to talk with you about where the Senator stands on this issue. Please call me back at ____________.”

And stay tuned for the next alert! We will be asking you to call again when the Senate is about to vote on S 510. BOTH of these calls are important – the call now educates the Senators on the issues, and the call before the vote lets them know how their constituents want them to vote at the critical moment.

TALKING POINTS
1. The major foodborne illness outbreaks and recalls have all been caused by the large, industrial food system. Small, local food producers have not contributed to the highly publicized outbreaks. Yet S. 510 subjects the small, local food system to the same, broad federal regulatory oversight that would apply to the industrial food system.

2. FDA regulation of local food processors is unnecessary and overly burdensome. FDA has not used its existing authority well. Instead of focusing its resources on the problems posed by imported foods and large processing facilities, it has chosen to target small processors. While approving unlabeled GMOs to enter our food supply, it has outlawed raw milk and interfered with the free choice of informed adults who want access to this healthy food. Simply giving FDA increased authority and power will not improve the food supply because the agency needs to have clear limits set by Congress to prevent it from targeting small producers and raw dairy.

3. Relying on HACCP will harm small processors. Increased regulations and record-keeping obligations could destroy small businesses that bring food to local communities. In particular, the reliance on HACCP (the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point system) will harm small food producers. Although the theory of preventative controls is a good one for large, complex facilities, the federal agencies’ implementation of HACCP, with its requirements to develop and maintain extensive records, has already proven to be an overwhelming burden for a significant number of small, regional meat processors across the country. In the meat industry, HACCP has substituted paperwork review for independent inspections of large meatpacking plants, while sanctioning small processors for paperwork violations that posed no health threat. Applying a HACCP system to small, local foods processors could drive them out of business, reducing consumers’ options to buy fresh, local foods.

4. FDA does not belong on the farm. S. 510 calls for FDA regulation of how farms grow and harvest produce. Given the agency’s track record, it is likely that the regulations will discriminate against small, organic, and diversified farms. The House version of the bill directs FDA to consider the impact of its rulemaking on small-scale and diversified farms, but there are no enforceable limits or protections for small diversified and organic farms from inappropriate and burdensome federal rules.

5. The bill’s requirements apply to all food, not just food in interstate commerce. On its face, the bill applies to any farm or food producer, regardless of location, size, or scope of distribution.

6. S. 510 favors foreign farms and producers over domestic. The bill creates incentives for retailers to import more food from other countries, because it burdens family farms and small business and because it will be practically impossible to hold foreign food facilities to the same standards and inspections. The bill will create a considerable competitive disadvantage for ALL U.S. agriculture and food production (see analysis at http://ftcldf.org/news/news-20Oct2009-2.html).

A reader writes:

I was reading the Scarecrow Chronicles and read Jeri’s entry about the Greens and Browns, and I just had to send an email thanking her for her thoughts. I whole heartedly agree with her opinion of the authors words who wrote that letter.

While reading that letter, I kept getting an uncomfortable feeling about what was being said, but couldn’t really put a finger on what was bugging me. And Jeri just coined it!!

We as humans need to be tolerant of everyone!! And tolerance is not a one way street! I also feel that so many people in this country feel divided, that putting more fuel on the “thems verses us” is NOT going to get anyones agenda moved forward!

I look forward to my magazine every other month and am so glad that I get to read everyone’s perspective! I always “take what I want and leave the rest”, and know that everyone’s voice is important. Even if it’s different than what I believe. ~ S.H. from California

I’ve long held that industry and government have co-opted the concerns of people who want to live as healthy as they can. First, the USDA, at the behest of big agri-business eviscerated the term “organic” so that it doesn’t mean what consumers believe it means. For instance, organic producers are allowed to spread anti-biotic contaminated manure from CAFOs on certified organic land, even though there is plenty of research to show that there is significant uptake of anti-biotics and other industrial chemicals in the crops grown on land where imported, conventional manure has been applied. Most consumers have no idea. They just want to do what’s right.

Now, besides industry and government, we are seeing an almost evangelical type of dogma evolving among those who consider themselves “green.” The writer of the letter was struggling with whether or not she had sinned against her greeness by attending a wedding in Hawaii, and enjoying herself. This is the same sort of self-loathing that religious zealots (and dieters) engage in: am I holy enough? Have I committed a sin? Did I eat too much? Along with this comes extreme self-debasement.

The author resorted to the same tactics as religious fanatics and fat people: she justified her beliefs and actions by condemning someone else–the “Browns.” Fat people, especially women, do the same thing. I know. When we enter a room, we immediately look to see who’s fatter than us. It’s a dangerous and limiting way to identify ourselves.

It seems to me, no matter what your agenda is, the environment or the budget, the simple solution to both is to consume less, not to consume politically correct things. I know people who feel good when they buy “environmentally friendly” products, but they dont’ stop to think that they may not need the product in the first place. It’s simply a way to feel better, just like fat people who buy packages of fat-free fudge because it makes them feel like they’re doing the right thing.

People are shocked to learn that I have been part of the “organic” movement for decades (I’m fond of telling people that I was “green” long before the Gore and Moore show happened on the scene). While I am an advocate for small-scale sustainable farming, I’m decidedly not “green” in my ideology. This has gotten me in hot water more than once. People assume just because we own an organic farm, we have certain political leanings. They take great umbrage when they learn I’m not the ideologue they would like me to be (not that I’m an ideologue, just that I’m not their sort of ideologue).

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Jerri