Well, folks: the blog has had a good run. But it's time for the curtains on this show, so to speak.
Just a little loot from the garden: with homegrown potatoes from Kent's folks, Mike and I crafted a couple batches of gnocci. And with six pounds of bursting Sungold cherry tomatoes (plus a handful of other 'maters for color and texture), a few onions and a fistful of just-snipped basil, Kent simmered an amazingly sweet sauce.
Funny, I'm getting hungry right now ... Buon appetito!
Apparently the Senate is considering a tax on sugar-laden swill as part of their attempt to finance health-care reform. Ignore for a moment any of the health arguments against soft drinks like Coke and Pepsi ... or sugared-up waters like Vitamin Water and Gatorade. And ignore the environmental benefits when consumers think seriously about buying processed beverages typically packaged in single-serving containers (that, even if they are recycled, take vast energy and resources to produce in the first place).
Yep, ignore all that for right now. The noise about the issue whose din has increased most dramatically is the noise from the processed-beverage manufacturers, plastics industries and fast-food chains who stand to lose out if consumers--God forbid--start to drink tap water. Big industry's claim against the tax: it increases the economic "burden on working families."
To say their claim is bullsh*t is, I believe, a serious understatement. It's like saying a tax on beer is a burden on working families. Heck, nutritionally, beer and soda aren't too far off: a 12oz. bottle of New Belgium (wind powered!) Sunshine Wheat has 145 calories. So does 12ozs. of Coke Classic (though Coke's high fructose corn syrup shoots its carb content through the roof). But somehow, soft drink makers have managed to position their products as "food", a categorization most consumers would see right through if it were applied to beer--despite the fact that beer's ingredients resemble food much more closely than the contents listed on the side of a soda can.
So what's my point with all of this? It's this: the REAL tax on working families is the assault on truth that's being waged at the expense of our health, our environment and on producers of real food (you know, the stuff in the produce aisle). You hear that Senators?
Just a quick afternoon excursion and breath of fresh air. It is the rose city, after all ...
Kent's been making barrels of dust in the shop, though you wouldn't guess it by my lack of updates about it. Most recently, Kent duplicated a bent wood tray he made at the beginning of the year. It's not exactly version 2.0--maybe more like version 1.1: the new tray has a different bottom material and the sides were made from wood that was much more highly figured than the original. While the figured wood isn't an experiment he's likely to repeat, the detail in the wood is remarkable.
Prior to the tray was another project using wood with amazing figuring and color. The slab bench is all about the materials: an Oregon myrtle top with incredible variation in color and intense figuring and maple slab legs with similarly beautiful detail. Both retain the natural live edges (the live edge on the myrtle gives particularly distinct contrast to the mostly light colored-top) and were machined to achieve a flat surface before being hand-planed.
New pieces are on the way. Stay tuned ...
... and why a boycott of Whole Foods doesn't make sense.
First, though: Ted Kennedy's passing yesterday is such a great loss. The world lost a great and patriotic American. And the United States lost a powerful and important voice, especially in the fight for better and more inclusive health care.
If our country needed an additional kick in the pants to reform health care, provide a strong public option and ensure uninsured residents were no longer uninsured (and we shouldn't have needed any additional motivation, but ...), perhaps we can do it in Senator Kennedy's honor so he may truly rest in peace. (Note to Congress: thanks for getting right on this.)
Now, about Whole Foods: if you haven't heard, there's a whole brouhaha stirring about a recent Wall Street Journal op-ed written by Whole Foods CEO John Mackey. If you're arguing for a boycott of Whole Foods, but haven't read the editorial, stop right here and go read it. You know, so you have an idea of what the heck you're talking about. Plus, aside from misleading claims about Canadian and UK health systems, Mackey actually does have some worthwhile ideas about how to improve the system and make it more accessible and affordable.
Now that you've read Mackey's, ahem, insights ... let me say this: I vehemently disagree with his assertation that health care "is best provided through voluntary and mutually beneficial market exchanges." The skyrocketing costs of health care and insurance coverage as well as the increasing numbers of persons without insurance are evidence that this is simply not the case.
I will also acknowledge that we as consumers wield amazing power by voting with our pocketbooks. While I think a boycott of Whole Foods because of one claim in an editorial is short-sighted, I do think where we choose to spend our money can strongly influence the sort of civilization we want to see around us.
Which brings me (finally) to my point about why boycotting Whole Foods doesn't quite make sense: despite my above-mentioned criticisms of Mackey (and some other inconsistencies in Whole Foods' mission), is the store you're going to shop at in place of Whole Foods a better solution? Think about it. Does your "replacement" store provide no-cost health benefits and/or contribute to HSAs for the same quantity of their team members that Whole Foods does? And even though Whole Foods is criticized for not offering more local produce, what commitment does your "replacement" store have to sustainably produced products? And are the employees you're supporting at the "replacement" store likely to spend their hard-earned dollars supporting the same cause you're fighting for?
Here in Portland, I'll argue that the local folks at New Seasons ARE a good alternative (the 3guys routinely shop there anyhow, so boycotting Whole Foods would make about zero difference). But look at "liberal" San Francisco. What's the alternative there? The only market I can think of that might be a better option is the co-op Rainbow Grocery (which, by the way, is unfortunately inconvenient via public transit). And if you're looking for meat or fish ... well, better head back to Whole Foods, 'cause Rainbow doesn't sell it.
In the end, we all should shop with our dollars. But before we sign on to a boycott, it's important to think through the scenario to determine that our actions really achieve the goal of the statement we're trying to make. Largely, I don't think a boycott of Whole Foods achieves this.
I've griped before about greedy jerks who take advantage of programs set aside to help those who really need it. Well, as I'm leaving the hardware store yesterday, I spotted this one. And my disbelief should come as no surprise:
To be fair, I did not see the driver of the gawd-awfully tacky Hummer pickup. Still, I can't fathom how someone limber enough to haul themselves into the cab of a jacked-up 4x4 can't walk the extra 20 parking-lot steps from a normal parking spot. The fact that it's a Hummer just adds insult to injury (but that's another post).
And, for the record, it I were disabled and had to unload my wheelchair from a normal-sized parking slot or had to push my walker from the outer reaches of the lot, I would be really pissed.
Posts
All Comments
