In baseball, it’s three strikes and you’re out. The raw dairy/food rights movement has had three cases come up for serious judicial consideration over the last three years, and it’s lost each one. And not just lost by a whisker, but lost resoundingly.
The cases are the Meadowsweet Dairy case in New York, the Michael Hartmann case in Minnesota, and most recently, the Morningland Dairy case in Missouri. Three judges, three different areas of the country, and three losses in which the judges issued opinions that were nearly disdainful of the farmers involved, and not only backed the regulators, but seemed to give them more power than what they started with.
In the Meadowsweet case, there wasn’t even an inference of pathogens or illness, yet the original judge indicated that farmers couldn’t even give milk away without the approval of the NY Department of Agriculture and Markets. I’m not sure the Hartmann case deserves to be considered here, since it was pretty much a foregone conclusion which way the judge was going to rule, given that there were illnesses clearly associated with the farm’s milk, but I think it’s worth making the mention because a judge listened to arguments for five days, and couldn’t find a single positive thing to say about the plaintiff’s arguments.
At Morningland, no regulator had ever cited the cheese producer for sanitation problems, yet the judge called the place “unsanitary” because the owners sold 15 of their 65 cows last fall. The “inference” was that the owners were trying to reduce high somatic cell counts brought on by mastitis in some cows. The owners never got the chance to explain that they sold the cows, which were dry, to raise cash, desperately needed because the Missouri Milk Board, with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s backing, had forced a recall and were pushing for destruction of the entire $250,000 of inventory.
And now, smelling blood, the Missouri regulators are pushing for destruction of the Morningland inventory by next week, even though Missouri law and legal precedent allow for an automatic 30-day stay for imposition of sentence.
In a letter to Gary Cox of the Farm-to-Consumer Legal Defense Fund, assistant attorney general Jessica Blome stated that “requesting a new trial does not stay execution of the Court’s Final Order of Permanent Injunction and Judgment and Order, entered February 23, 2011. Accordingly, this letter serves to provide your client with seven days notice that the Missouri State Milk Board will assist your client in the destruction of ‘all of its cheese products condemned by the Missouri State Milk Board on August 26, 2010’…Pursuant to the court’s Final Order, three inspectors from the State Milk Board will arrive at Morningland Dairy of the Ozarks in Mountain Grove, Missouri, at 10:00 a.m. on Wednesday, March 9, 2011, continuing to Thursday, March 10, 2011, to supervise your client in the destruction of the condemned cheese. The State Milk Board has made arrangements with a local, sanitary landfill for the disposal of the cheese.”
The Morningland situation, in particular, has the sounds of a witch hunt, not unlike what occurred in Salem, Massachusetts, during the 1600s. The authorities are treating the cheese, which remains in storage, almost like it’s radioactive. As Doreen Hannes, a food rights activist and spokesperson for Morningland, puts it, “More and more, they’re treating our food as if it’s a controlled substance.”
But maybe the key question is this: What do farmers do to respond, given that not only the regulators, but the judges, are on the warpath?
Since most farmers and consumers aren’t about to engage in civil disobedience, I can see only one answer, and that is to develop food safety plans and be able to demonstrate nose-to-the grindstones in terms of safe food. Yes, I know safety isn’t the real issue in many of these cases involving raw dairy, but farmers need to be focused on it all the same.
In the one significant victory for a dairy farmer–that involving the case of Michael Schmidt in Canada–the fact that there hadn’t been any illnesses or hint of regulatory complaint about sanitation counted for a lot with the judge. Or, to put it another way, if there had been any suggestion of safety problems, it’s a not unreasonable conclusion that the decision would have been different.
I’m not saying that improved attention to safety will get the regulators off dairy farmers’ backs, but it will give farmers a powerful argument in the event they get into a situation like that of Morningland. Let’s not forget how the Morningland situation came about–from the multi-agency gun-toting raid last June 30 on Rawesome Food Club in Los Angeles. It’s clear now that the agencies put the $11,000 worth of food they seized under the microscope, quite literally. They came up empty, except for Morningland.
It’s reasonable to assume more raids and surprise inspections are in the offing. If there are no offending pathogens, there is less likely to be a problem. And improved attention to safety reduces the number of illnesses, which helps the overall regulatory climate.
I’ve advocated previously for some kind of association of raw dairy producers to take the lead on safety. I don’t know the exact form this association should take–there are all kinds of possibilities and they don’t all have to be threatening to farmers in terms of government involvement. But the time has definitely come to move off of defense and onto offense.
***
Back to baseball…A Vermont food rights organization is stepping up to the plate on the state agriculture department’s intimidation effort to halt classes on making raw butter and cheese. If you’ll remember, Rural Vermont, a separate organization that promotes sustainable agriculture, two weeks ago suspended three classes on making raw dairy products in response to a threat by the state to legally challenge the classes because of a state law that prohibits farmers from selling raw milk to consumers who are planning to make other dairy products like butter and yogurt.
The Vermont Coalition for Food Sovereignty says it is holding “Butter Appreciation Day” next Tuesday from 9:30 – 11:00 am at the Statehouse (Room 10) in Montpelier.
“We will be making butter in a jar, and discussing the unintended consequences of some of the language in Act 62 with state legislators,” the organization says in a press release.
“VCFS believes every Vermonter should be able to grow, process, and serve their own food, sharing meals and know-how with family, friends and neighbors.” Sounds pretty radical. Given that the U.S. Supreme Court just yesterday sanctioned an organization’s right to stand outside military funerals and root for more soldiers being killed, it’s difficult to imagine that instructing people about making butter might be ruled illegal. But the way things are going in the food rights arena, anything is possible.
?
If you are making this much money as a cheesemaker . . . . why do you not have insurance? I raised this question several months ago and I got all kinds of flack about how expensive it was . . . no insurance company would insure . . . yada, yada, yada. If you can't get insurance . . . . then why are you selling this much cheese out of state?
We have insurance on our farm for everything . . . . even for a death of one of our sheep. As a farm with a farm store this is required (my husband has a law degree so he is adamant about this). The cost of our products reflect this and we don't have a problem with it. I am curious if Morningstar actually had insurance then what did the insurance company have to say about this case.
If Morningstar did not have insurance I really want to feel compassionate as a raw milk drinker and an advocate of raw cheese . . . but I am sorry . . . . you sold off 15 of your animals prior to your court date. . . . this makes you look guillty and if I was that judge, I may be inclined to rule the same way.
I went to a sales barn just once many years ago and every animal I saw there was being sold for a reason . . . . mostly because they were sick and the owners did not want to deal with the cost to make them well.
Kind regards,
Violet
http://www.kilbyridgefarmmaine.blogspot.com
you're still in the blinkered mode where you assume there's some kind of logic … when actually, it's a charade
REAL MILK was pulled from shelves by Whole Foods, not for anything to do with actual illnesses it had caused, but because wicked people in high places can pull strings via the insurance racket
David
I disagree that attention to detail will placate the FDA and its handmaidens : you can never grovel low enough to please the devil.
If they get away with this without a fight, we're all done for!
Hello, see this report and video (Kalee). As some say in the food safety world, clean-up your raw milk or get out of business.
http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/51/12/1411.full
http://www.realrawmilkfacts.com/real-life-stories/#RawMilkFactsVideo2
Maybe what we are both suggesting is that small farms and food producers in some cases need to be more businesslike–pay attention to such important details as insurance and safety plans.
Gordon,
I agree there is no placating the FDA and many state regulators. But judges can sometimes be influenced to allow for serious attention to safety, as occurred in the Michael Schmidt case.
Janeen,
Love your idea, shades of Boston Tea Party. But are enough people angry and motivated enough to take action?
David
We could send environmental activists after them to protest the burial of those radioactive-like materials. I mean, if it's that darn bad, it should be sealed in a lead container and buried thousands of miles deep, no? We'll probably need a hazmat team for the disposal process too.
I also like Janeen's idea: steal the cheese.
While I do want standards (and I want the kind that are scaled to make sense for all sizes of farms in their various regions and configurations, not the one-size-fits-all kind, designed to put some respectable farmers out of business), I don't see that as THE solution. The problem is not that there are no standards. The problem is the conspiracy we don't want to talk about: that BigAg and the government really are working in concert to protect BigAg at the expense of individual rights. It is systemic and not limited to the raw milk issue (GMO labeling, finance, corporate personhood come to mind).
I think any solution needs to be information-based. Most people don't even know this is going on. Of those who do, most of them don't understand the distinction between raw milk you can drink and raw milk you cannot. Most think pasteurization is benign and don't understand why anyone would even think about drinking unpasteurized milk. Most do not even know what a CAFO is. (Here's where Mark M. might say, "Teach, teach, teach.")
David said in a comment to Gordon:
"I agree there is no placating the FDA and many state regulators. But judges can sometimes be influenced to allow for serious attention to safety, as occurred in the Michael Schmidt case."
That was in a different country. Our country isn't like that right now.
Response to your last post in the previous thread:
1) I was a successful cheese monger for a number of years. I left that job to get my Wisconsin cheese maker's license.
2) I have made quite a bit of raw milk cheese on both the commercial level and the home scale, for several years.
3) I don't appreciate the incessant personal attacks from you and Lola, just because you don't agree with my political views and my conclusions about certain aspects of raw dairy.
I will be the first to admit that I stand on the shoulders of giants — the guy who I learned much of the art of cheese making from is a second generation cheese maker whose father came from Switerzland. He grew up in a cheese factory, and has been making cheese since he was 6 years old. There are very deep dairying and cheese making traditions in southern Wisconsin. They do not even begin to rival the traditions of places like France and Switzerland, no doubt, but as far as North America is concerned, Wisconsin has cheese making traditions that are much deeper than any other. This is a double-edged sword. It certainly has many draw backs, because it is much harder to break into the cheese making scene as an aspiring small artisan producer, but it also gives me an immense body of knowledge, tradition, and experience to draw upon.
How about you cut it out with the personal attacks, alright? I think it says more about you and your insecurities that you feel the need to attack my character and experience. What gives?
Mr. J. Ingvar Odegaard
Your example provides us with a good perspective Ingvar
Hows this for support from the courts, http://www.nvic.org/NVIC-Vaccine-News/March-2011/No-Pharma-Liability–No-Vaccine-Mandates-.aspx
Bill
I the early 1970s I established the belief that free market or free trade systems were a myth and still believe it to be the case to this day simply because there are to many self serving control freaks in this world. All political ideals or systems are highly influenced by such people especially if they have the money to back there controling ways.
That being said however I do believe in the free enterprise system and have to side with Lolas on many of her points.
Ken Conrad
Thats cheese destruction with benefits.
In the mean time you will never be able to appease a state out to destroy you. And its not just raw milk producers. The PMO killed off most commodity milk producers and that was often the intended affect. The only solution is freedom.
Seems to me like there needs to be some 'civil disobedience' on Wednesday. Allowing the authorities to kill a business, without concrete proof, is a terrible precedent to allow. Meadowsweet customers need to show up and make it difficult for the crooks to destroy their company.
I completely agree with every word you just said!!
"Seems to me like there needs to be some 'civil disobedience' on Wednesday. Allowing the authorities to kill a business, without concrete proof, is a terrible precedent to allow."
DO IT!!!!!!
"are people angry enough"?? they SHOULD be!!! I"M angry and I'm in Canada!!
If I ever have people try to take my business down( just because they can), they're will be a MOB that's got my back! 'Herd Effect" is not only good for the grass… 🙂
Lola has continually launched personal attacks on many people on this blog, people who have been important leaders in the raw milk movement. Lola's agenda is not the free market. Her agenda is nihilism. As far as I can tell, she has absolutely nothing to contribute to our understanding of milk microbiology or animal husbandry practices.
No one has proposed making a set of standards that are forcibly imposed. If a farmer does not want the advice, help, or certification of people who have spent a great deal of time and resources researching the issues surrounding raw mik safety and quality standards, that is their decision.
I sympathize with the class issues Lola has brought up about how these standards may effect the more impoverished segments of the rural economy. However, this issue runs much deeper than raw milk. The solution to the poverty and destruction of rural communities, created by our economic and political system, is to liquidate the assets of the ruling class and abolish corporate personhood. This requires collective mass struggle of the sort going on in Madison, WI right now — a movement which Lola has repeatedly attacked and criticized. The "free market" will not accomplish this goal, because the powers that be are too politically entrenched.
It is in the interest of all advocates of raw milk to have microbioligists and food scientists working on our behalf. The way we accomplish this goal is to have a strong voice about our desire to promote food safety and quality within the raw milk movement.
It is not an either-or proposition. We can be advocates for food freedom, while also being advocates for food safety. Ultimately, we are not going to have food freedom if we cannot produce safe food. With great freedom comes great responsibility.
I agree the powers that be are to politically entrenched, hence we do not have a free enterprise system. It as well can be added to the myths of this world and why is that the case?
Greed!!! An imperfection that drives mankind to manipulate and control for personal glory and gain, in support of an idea, ideal or wealth.
Im impressed and respect both your and Lolas passion, perhaps someday we will achieve this utopian dream world where all people can agree and get along with each other. If such is the case it wont be of our making.
I see food safety as a fundamental issue based respect for the natural ecosystems that we so desperately rely on. This is certainly not the case at present with currently accepted belief surrounding the above issue.
The freedom of choice is fundamental as well and it to has to be factored into the process of food safety at both the production and consumer levels in order to provide for an important check and balance to the system. This is imperative due to fact that people and their systems have a tendency to monopolies ideas that are considered right or wrong. This could be devastating if the wrong idea is monopolized and self righteously imposed on the populous.
We do not live in a perfect world and as I see it respect for freedom is the only way to constructively deal with imperfection.
Ken Conrad
Boy, is he ever right, and desire for trust in food producers is just the tip of the iceberg.
Humans are a relational species. That is so, and it can be no other way, because humans cannot survive on their own. No man is an island. We are dependent creatures.
Were we perfectly loving, we would of course have no problemswe would care for each other like ourselves. But we are instead self-centered, fearful, and greedy, so have no choice but to chain ourselves up a bit. That is the ideal of governmentnot to create perfect beings, but to prevent each from hurting the other. Of course we are a clever species, so even the most noble system designed to protect, eventually (usually quickly) becomes a tool used to express the self-centered greed that it was invented to control. That is our shame.
At this stage of world history, systems both corporate and government are bigger than ever, and have overwhelmed individuals as never before. It is no surprise then that rebellion is brewing, as natural men attempt to regain what controllers have taken away. Only time will tell if those humans desiring human-scale interdependence can cause devolution of our systems. It's a pretty bleak prospect I'd say, since most everybody under the age of 80 is by now a fully fledged member of the vast, homogenized culture of corporate sales and government controls, and have not really experienced community. Most folks have never felt truly dependent upon their neighbors, nor felt that their neighbors truly depended upon them.
Really, why should they? Corporate America has convincingly promised us all happiness through material acquisition, and government just as effectively promised a financial safety net should material acquisition fail. Those who know and trust only systems are a huge majority of America, and likely wouldn't dream that human-scale interdependence is possible, let alone desirable.
Food and farming, however, now seem well-placed to trigger a run at devolution. We can only work at it, and hope, and trust.
Now allow me to add a true story to this already long-winded comment:
A farm couple in a nearby small town had been in the maple sugar business for decades. Well, perhaps "business" is the wrong word—Bob did tap trees, and boil and bottle, and his wife Clesta made maple candies in the kitchen, and boxed and sold them, but the dollars associated with their efforts were so minimal as to barely qualify in this great big world as "business." Anyway, the syrup showed up in local markets; the candies were sold here and there and through the front door of the farmhouse, and the locals regularly patronized the "business" such that Bob and Clesta's product was, from their perspective, a success. It was a virtual staple in the tiny community where they live.
Then one day an inspector knocked on the door of the farmhouse and told Clesta (then something like 80 years old) that she was in violation of the law, and must immediately purchase a federally-inspected scale to weigh her candies. A surprised Clesta explained that she used a "regular" scalea household scale, which she calibrates every year with a pound of store-bought butter. "He was a nice man," said Clesta, "but the scale is so expensive!" The cost of the scale, I learned from Bob, was roughly equivalent to their candy gross for more than a year.
Clesta thought about buying the scale, but in the end figured she just couldn't justify it. "We're getting old now," she said. "Maybe it's just time to quit." I asked Bob if there wasn't some alternative. He thought they could still sell the candy if they wrapped each piece individually, but that that just wasn't reasonable. ("It's a pain in the ___," Bob explained.)
Now in the many, many years that candies have gone from Clesta's kitchen to local residents there was never suspicion that Clesta might be shorting her customers. My goodness, if she did, and was told about it, she would likely have been terribly embarrassed and given away candy to make up for it. But that never happened. After all, it's Bob and Clesta and their neighbors we're talking about. Purchasers figured it was more likely they got more than they paid for than less, and who cares anyway. There was always more at stake in each purchase than a few pennies worth of candy. But rules are rules, aren't they? And the nice inspector was just doing his job, which is to protect us.
But what exactly was he protecting when he stepped between neighbors and said, in essence, "You can't trust each other." At that point the rule was not protective, but destructive. The cost of the scale was bad enough; the cost of fomenting distrust was far worse. In fact it was incalculable.
Now how is it that the federal register grows every year while global businesses have their regulations withdrawn? How can a government "for the people" decide that the people cannot be trusted to care for each other? How can the destruction of a kitchen "business" be considered a success story?
A reasonable person might wonder if there wasn't a plan afoot…
She stated in the previous thread that Mark McAfee performs the amount of testing that he does because his customers demand it and are willing to pay the price.
I don't want to speak for Mark here, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this is obviously incorrect. Lola is clearly very niave about some of these matters. It is not the customers that are demanding the amount of testing he does, it is his liability insurance company.
Regardless, I think that the Morningland case is a perfect example of why we need food scientists & microbiologists, not attorneys. I mean no disrespect towards Pete Kennedy and FTCLDF, but I think their case would be much easier to make if we had thorough microbioligical examinations of each batch of cheese conducted by professionals. Believe it or not, many dairy scientists are quietly sympathetic with the raw milk movement, they just have to be careful what they say because they might lose their jobs. Follow the money…
It would be in our interest to enlist such professionals into our cause.
"I don't want to speak for Mark here, but I can say with a fair degree of confidence that this is obviously incorrect. Lola is clearly very niave about some of these matters. It is not the customers that are demanding the amount of testing he does, it is his liability insurance company."
Actually, I thought it was the state that demanded the degree of testing he does. I don't doubt that the insurance company has their say, too, and undoubtedly Mark's customers appreciate it and are willing to pay for it. You are taking this item, however, out of context, as I was using the testing Mark does as an example of different choices different farmers in conjunction with their customers could make under a free market system, and how the amount of testing Mark utilizes would not necessarily work in my community due to economic and cultural reasons.
"…but I think their case would be much easier to make if we had thorough microbioligical examinations of each batch of cheese conducted by professionals."
Seriously, Bill, go take out a $1,000,000 loan, buy a farm, buy the equipment, buy a milking herd, hire employees to milk your herd, put up a cheese plant, make your cheese, hire the testing you advocate, and try to sell your cheese for the price you'd have to charge per pound to pay for all of that, and in this economy. If you have all the answers, you go out and do it and report back at how successful you are.
Dave Milano:
Your post was brilliant. The world Bob and Clesta live in (or used to) is the type of world I envision – family run, community oriented, and direct accountability. Maybe I've had a hard time explaining that, but you captured it perfectly, and also what I believe is the problem with regulators – it pits neighbor against neighbor and takes trust and accountability out of the equation.
I believe that Wisconsin's small dairy farmers will be able to accomplish this same goal if given the opportunity. I would hope that our raw milk movement is not torn apart by infighting, competition, nihilism, and cynicism . It would be a grave mistake to perpetuate this "I'm in it for myself" attitude. I would hope that we could promote cooperation and dedication to safety and quality within our raw milk community, and a healthy respect for small farms and raw milk dairy products within our research, laboratory, and scientific community.
http://filterednews.wordpress.com/2011/03/05/20-lies-and-counting-told-by-gov-walker/
Also, next weekend will be another historic protest here in Madison, against the corporatization of our state by Governor Scott Walker and his friends at Koch Industries. This protest is the "Farmer-Labor Tractorcade" and will feature family farmers driving their tractors around the capital in support of Wisconsin's workers (that is if we can figure out a way to get all the tractors into town! The farmers will be here either way…)
http://www.prwatch.org/cmd_event/2011/03/10290/farmer-labor-tractorcade
And for those on facebook:
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=191135844260755
The Wisconsin Farmer's Union, Family Farm Defenders, and Land Stewardship project are sponsers of this protest. (The first two organization have also been major advocates of raw milk legalization) The cuts Walker has proposed to Medicade and BadgerCare will disproportionately effect rural communities.
Point, and counterpoint:
This video shows the difference between public and private unions, how many teachers and politicians put their own children in private schools, and breaks down the economic realities many of our states are facing.
Oh, and…
"The Wisconsin Farmer's Union, Family Farm Defenders, and Land Stewardship project are sponsers of this protest."
Guess they didn't get the memo that it's Wisconsin farmers' ever increasing taxes that pay for the salaries and benefits of those very regulators that are out to ruin our businesses. Nice.
Speaking of the government regulators, I couldn't help but notice that one Gwen Borlaug who is an infection control epidemiologist with the state Department of Health Services, is speaking out IN FAVOR of Scott Walker's proposal to end collective bargaining rights for public sector workers:
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_7aba1f46-4854-11e0-b468-001cc4c03286.html
A google search on Ms. Borlaug reveals her attempts to increase vaccination rates, which should raise the ire of the WAPF health oriented people here:
http://pubget.com/search?q=authors%3A%22Gwen%20Borlaug%22
Also, of interest, is an editorial entitled "Perverting the Progressive Wisconsin Idea", which tallks about how corporate control of our public institutions is pervetting the high-minded pubilc service ideals which once made "America's Dairyland" great:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/article_ff2f3e9d-e05c-58f8-b5fe-3dd85e575b1e.html
I will add to this, on the raw milk front, the University of Wisconsin has one of the premier dairy research stations in the U.S., but sadly, because of lack of public funding, it has to rely upon corporate sponsors to fund its research.
If we could have full public funding of this institution, through progressive taxation (taxing corporations and the ultra-rich, NOT SMALL FARMERS) we could dedicate research efforts to better understanding the microbiology of raw milk and raw milk cheese. In its current state of minimal public funding, however, the UW-Madison Center for Dairy Research will continue to be at the beck and call of corporate agri-business, and so research into raw milk and raw milk cheese will be minimal and will primarily be directed towards demonization of raw milk.
Such are the consequences of this neo-liberal reagaonomics philosophy that Lola advocates. Is it any wonder that the state tried cracking down on raw milk farms, when our food science research is so utterly controlled by big business? We need science and academia working in the public interest, not in the interest of corporate agri-business.
The fewer local inspectors we have in the field, the more the centralized command-and-control model becomes the norm. It is important to have local inspectors who understand your farm and are part of your community. The alternative is to have distant prosecutors who do not understand your farm and are only interested in shutting you down, not helping you.
Does Wisconsin really have a budget crisis? What does their CAFR reveal? Is there any politico willing to discuss the CAFR funds???
Farmers pay property taxes and also sales taxes on the (non-farm) goods that they buy. Both forms of taxes are used to fund public salaries.
"…tax the rich and the corporations…"
These "rich" are oftentimes the small business owners that create jobs in the private sector. If you tax them too heavily, they tend to move out-of-state. Plus, the top 50% of wage earners already pay 96% of the taxes. Heres an analogy of what that looks like, in restaurant terms.
http://www.timnerenz.com/2011/02/madison-wild-wings.html
You know those Koch Boys who are hosting a corporate takeover of Wisconsin? The public employees pension fund is invested in Koch Industries, to the tune of $5.5 million in corporate bonds.
http://lonelyconservative.com/2011/03/wi-teacher-pensions-invested-in-koch-industries-what-about-that-boycott/
Bill, the upper echelons at DATCP may not be union (Id expect theyre management), but am I to expect that they would be immune to layoffs? Kathleen Anderson stood in my doorway and said that she and a bunch of other honchos were due to retire in the next five years. I'd think theyd be likely candidates for termination, as undoubtedly the state can find someone to do their jobs cheaper and, just perhaps, more ethically (Walker hates the bureaucrats and their abuses, I hear, and he may want to do some housecleaning.).
Bill, you need to stop referring to this as some sort of "workers revolution", as there is a great distinction between public-sector workers and private-sector workers. Private-sector workers produce goods that are bought, sold, and traded within a community and thus drive the economy. This sector is where you find the true middle class. Public-sector workers produce no goods, but instead derive their income solely on the backs of the production of the private sector. The public sector does not contribute to the economy from an economic point of view, but parasites off of it.
To Don:
Your article describes the net worth of the state of Wisconsin but admittedly does not take into account future unfunded liabilities. As businesses move out of state, the tax base shrinks, and the number of government employees grows, unfunded liabilities become a huge point of consideration. As I understand it, Walkers bill is seeking to curtail this amount somewhat. Please watch the video I posted above if you havent, it discusses the unfunded liabilities of some states.
Its nave to think that public funding of these teaching and research institutions is going to solve the issue of corporate influence. Check out Canada as an example. Corporate influence is a given regardless of a countries political leanings or of whether or not a country funds its secondary teaching institutions.
With respect to inspectors, would you care to comment on the Bob and Clesta scenario from Dave Milanos post? What happened to this couple was a travesty of justice and a violation of human rights.
Human nature being what it is, to suggesting incorporating a greater number of inspectors into community life would temper the atmosphere or lessen the influence of the centralized command-and-control model is simply wrong. Consider the FDAs overall attitude to raw milk as an example. These local inspectors will have no other alternative but to march foot in step with FDA command.
Ken Conrad
So do you wave your middle finger at that parasite of plow driver who clears the road for you when it snows?
Bill, wasn't "beret boy" a kindly local inspector?
You two are killing me!
It isn't just Kathy Anderson who is going to be retiring in a few years.
The state of WI has hundreds of old dairy farmers and cheese makers who are going to be retiring in a few years. Who is going to replace them?
We are talking about the loss of more than just inspectors here. We are talking about the loss of an entire rural economy. Our state is losing its great dairying and cheese making traditions because of the systematic destruction of rural communities by corporate neo-liberal globalization.
Destroying labor unions is not going to stop this tide — it is part of the same trend towards increasing corporate control, and is only going to exacerbate the problems. Trade unions are imperfect, no doubt, but at least they provide some glimmer of hope for the masses of people to excersise democratic control against the sinister combinations of state and corporate power which threaten our basic human rights.
FYI — It was the retirement of Steve Steinhoff (the former cheif of DATCP Food Safety, before Steve Ingham took over) which resulted in the raw milk crackdown in 2009-2010. As Food Safety cheif, Steinhoff had a de-facto "don't ask, don't tell" policy about raw milk –as long as it kept a low profile, he would pretend it didn't exist. After his retirement, the new guard didn't like that approach, and so we saw the crackdown.
You are absolutely right — the people at the top of Food Safety who initiated the crackdown are managment, they are probably not even eligible for union membership.
There are a lot of people at DATCP who drink raw milk, many who grew up on dairy farms and still drink raw milk to this day even though they no longer live on a farm. Why were these raw milk consumers silent throughout the crackdown? Why did they not raise their voices in protest? The answer is simple: THEY WERE AFRAID OF LOSING THEIR JOBS.
If we had stronger protection for labor rights in this country, that wouldn't be such a problem. The resistance from within the rank-and-file at DATCP alone would have been enough to put the brakes on the raw milk crackdown before it even got started.
But instead, we had to wait until the crackdown got to the point of raids on farms before it started causing pain to DATCP management. Such are the consequenes of the general contempt for working people's rights in the ruling circles of this country.
It saddens me greatly that someone such as yourself decides to go along with this agenda, and support the war on working people for such narrow-minded ideological reasons. There are many farmers and private sector workers who are standing in solidarity with the public sectors unions throughout these protests. Why do you side with the elites on this question, Lola?
I agree with you. Public funding alone isn't the solution to the problem.
A robust grassroots movement is critical to hold the powers that be accountable. And raw milk rights is just one part of the puzzle. We need to take on corporate control of our food supply from as many angles as possible — rBGH, GMOs, factory farms, etc…
My central point remains — We need to have dairy scientists working in the public interest, not the interest of huge dairy processing corporations. Morningland's case would be a heck of a lot easier to make if we knew the exact microbiological makeup of each batch of cheese in question.
Surely you are intelligent enough to see there is a difference between public and private unions, pubic and private-sector jobs, but you continually sidestep the issue in favor of lumping everyone together as "workers".
Could you please address the differences between the two, the public unions and the private unions, and what effect they have on the economy (seriously, watch the video I posted above, it's only 10 minutes and address this very issue)?
(By the way, Walker's bill won't destroy the public unions, but it would make membership voluntary.)
I have no problem chipping in my fair share to have my roads plowed, but other public sector jobs, ones that could be done more cost effectively in the private sector, ones that I don't utilize, and ones that just plain trample my rights but I'm forced to pay for anyway at the point of a gun and with the threat of imprisonment, yes, I have a problem with them. We need to look at these issues honestly and get our head out of the "government must take care of me because I can't take care of myself" mentality.
Have you ever seen the guys with big trucks and blades that contract out privately to plow things like church and apartment parking lots and private driveways? Do we really believe that things like snowplowing will go away if we don't have the government do it for us? No, private parties would buy their own plows and on a contractual basis (with the consumer paying for the services he uses) plow the snow. Private enterprise breeds competition, and with competition comes better quality at lower cost.
Think Joe Schmo won't buy a big snowplow and create a business for himself?
There is a guy in my area that does custom harvesting for the area farmers. He just bought himself a new combine in the $300,000 range to do the work more efficiently. His cost per hour went up (due to the cost of the combine), but the number of hours he needs to harvest your crop went down. Don't want to pay him for the service he provides? There are others, not as big as him, that do similar work. You have a choice.
Fed Ex and UPS (with other regional carriers) came into the market as a competitive alternative to USPS. Guess what? They're more efficient and do the same job (ever look up a USPS tracking number online? No info posted for 3-4 days after your item was sent. Fed Ex and UPS? You know where your package is at every stop from the moment it was sent. These private businesses are providing better service!). I believe that their drivers are union, too, so they get their say in their pay and benefits (here is an example of where unions are appropriate, in the private sector).
Is it completely unreasonable to expect some of the services our government currently monopolizes to be handled in a competitive and private way?
I'm really not interested in hearing any more of this stuff. I'm bored! Let's get back to the raw milk issuses at hand–not politics.
First, let me get a glass of raw milk–that always makes me feel better. 🙂
Raw Milk Drinker
You are really gullible if you believe this proposal isn't a death sentence to labor unions.
Walker's proposal would require a vote every single year for re-certification of the union, which would require that over 50% of all potential union members vote in favor of the union's existance.
Imagine if politicians had to meet that kind of threshold in order to hold office? Scott Walker wouldn't even be in office! He was elected by a mere 15% of eligibe Wisconsin voters!
Once again, your contentions about competition and privitazation are totally off. Cooperation is more important than competition. To pit private sector workers against public sector workers (as you are doing) only serves to lower the standards for BOTH sectors, while enriching the elites. Instead, workers in both sectors should be cooperating to promote their common interest and liquidate the wealth of the parasitic elite banking and speculating classes that profit massively from our labor.
Note how this privatization scheme is only leading to more corruption and centralization of political and economic power:
http://host.madison.com/ct/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_695e9f87-c2b3-5454-9ad5-282efa4aef82.html
Local officials say Walker plan to privatize assistance programs will hurt poor families
The governor is proposing to move the responsibility for determining eligibility for aid programs including the heavily used food stamp and medical assistance programs from the counties with their accessible satellite offices to the state.
Even more troubling to some, the governors budget also sets the stage to hand over basic administrative functions of the food stamp and medical assistance programs statewide to private vendors, a move the state has already tried on a small scale with troubling results.
and what do you have today, after you let FDR get away with hamstringing your country? a place where the principles stipulated as foundational, are whittled-away, one voting cyle at a time.
I shake my head in dismay as someone reels-off the stages in degeneration as the REpublic goes down the slippery slope to the pigsty, as though those are improvements!!
the FDA's vendetta to destroy America's kulaks = white Christian yeomanry – is only one front in the perpetual contest between producers and parasites
My blog, which I just started, is called The National Fork and is found at http://www.nationalfork.com. It is new, and it covers the topics of politics and nutrition. It does not seek to provide unique expertise on any subject. Rather it seeks to stir discussion of health and political issue in layman's terms. I would love for everyone to check it out.
My blog, which I just started, is called The National Fork and is found at http://www.nationalfork.com/. It is new, and it covers the topics of politics and nutrition. It does not seek to provide unique expertise on any subject. Rather it seeks to stir discussion of health and political issue in layman's terms. I would love for everyone to check it out.