I'm almost embaressed to have expressed such outrage in my last entry over the legislation granting meat and poultry producers government-approved permission to lie about being organic if the cost of organic feed gets too expensive. After all, it's not like we aren't lied to constantly. Still, I think it's going a bit too far when the government actually enacts legislation explicitly saying "go ahead and lie if it costs too much to be honest."
Lying to protect the bottom line is commonplace nowadays. It is what Enron and all the other corporate accounting scandals are all about. And a recent report revealed a rise in the number of labs testing air water and soil samples for the Environmental Protection Agency that have been caught falsifying test results. According to an Associated Press story in the Philadelphia Inquirer on January 22, 2003 (I'll provide a link to the story if I find one that doesn't lead to a charge-to-view archive), "the fraud has caused millions of people to fill their cars with substandard gas that may have violated clean-air standards or to drink water that was not properly tested for safety....In addition, officials making decisions at hazardous-waste clean-up sites have relied on companies that fraudulently tested air, water and soil samples." One of the major reasons cited for this lab misconduct in falsifying results is "efforts to cut costs."
I don't imagine that Republican Congressman Nathan Deal of Georgia, who sponsored the law allowing meat and poultry producers to say their products are organic even when they aren't, eats much organic chicken himself. But he may very well be filling his car with substandard gasoline, drinking water with a high arsenic level and eating food contaminated with feces, thanks to corporations and laboratories that aren't bothering to wait for him to sponsor legislation legalizing their lies about their ingredients and standards.
And you also start to think: why should the little guy get left out? Suppose someone has a big credit card debt that's hurting their bottom line. Why shouldn't they simply start to lie, claim that these credit card charges aren't theirs, that they are a victim of fraud? Nothing wrong with that, is there? It's the American way....
Friday, February 21, 2003
Wednesday, February 19, 2003
Paying the Price for Organic
Representative Nathan Deal, Republican of Georgia, has won himself a place on my people-who-are-idiots-at-best-and-evil-at-worst list. Last week, he snuck in a last-minute addition to the 2003 federal spending bill that will totally subvert the Federal Organic Foods Act, which had finally passed last year after more than a decade of work.
You can read in detail about his sneak attack HERE, but in a nutshell, here's what Deal's underhanded deal means: If the price of organic feed for livestock and poultry rises to more than twice the price of conventional feed, then beef and poultry producers can have their products labeled "organic" even if they have been fed conventional pesticide-, herbicide- and hormone-laden feed. In other words, they can feed us a federally-approved lie if it costs too much to be honest.
What a great idea! But why stop there? Let's make everything dependent on price. If the price of beef goes above a certain level, let Oscar Meyer put dog meat in their hot dogs and still be able to call them "all beef." If the price of oats goes too high, let Quaker put sawdust in their oatmeal but still be able to call it 100% oats. If the price of cleaning up a toxic waste site is too high, then allow the government simply to declare it environmentally safe. This revolutionary concept could eviscerate all those pesky government regulations in one simple step.
This all matters to me because I prefer to buy organic for both health reasons and political beliefs. With a $23,000 credit card debt, I don't really have any "disposable income" in the full sense of the term. Whatever money is left over after making my monthly minimum payment could and probably should be applied to further paying down the debt.
However, I daily make choices to make certain things a priority over paying off the debt. I send money to such groups as Amnesty International, National Public Radio, the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and the International Campaign for Tibet. And I buy organic whenever possible even though it usually costs more and thus means my debt is paid down more slowly. I make these decisions because I want to live a life that follows my political beliefs to the greatest extent possible.
If I am willing to pay the price for organic, then I want what I buy to be be organic, subject to specific standards. And if food growers and processors want me to pay extra for food they label organic, then they must be willing to pay the price as well, even if meeting the standards sometimes costs more. To their credit, many organic producers have protested Deal's deception.
If you'd like to call or email Representative Nathan Deal and tell him to take a belly flop into a cistern of organic fertilizer, click HERE for his Congressional website. And after that, please contact your own Senators and Representative to urge them to repeal this gutting of organic standards. Find them at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov.
You can read in detail about his sneak attack HERE, but in a nutshell, here's what Deal's underhanded deal means: If the price of organic feed for livestock and poultry rises to more than twice the price of conventional feed, then beef and poultry producers can have their products labeled "organic" even if they have been fed conventional pesticide-, herbicide- and hormone-laden feed. In other words, they can feed us a federally-approved lie if it costs too much to be honest.
What a great idea! But why stop there? Let's make everything dependent on price. If the price of beef goes above a certain level, let Oscar Meyer put dog meat in their hot dogs and still be able to call them "all beef." If the price of oats goes too high, let Quaker put sawdust in their oatmeal but still be able to call it 100% oats. If the price of cleaning up a toxic waste site is too high, then allow the government simply to declare it environmentally safe. This revolutionary concept could eviscerate all those pesky government regulations in one simple step.
This all matters to me because I prefer to buy organic for both health reasons and political beliefs. With a $23,000 credit card debt, I don't really have any "disposable income" in the full sense of the term. Whatever money is left over after making my monthly minimum payment could and probably should be applied to further paying down the debt.
However, I daily make choices to make certain things a priority over paying off the debt. I send money to such groups as Amnesty International, National Public Radio, the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy and the International Campaign for Tibet. And I buy organic whenever possible even though it usually costs more and thus means my debt is paid down more slowly. I make these decisions because I want to live a life that follows my political beliefs to the greatest extent possible.
If I am willing to pay the price for organic, then I want what I buy to be be organic, subject to specific standards. And if food growers and processors want me to pay extra for food they label organic, then they must be willing to pay the price as well, even if meeting the standards sometimes costs more. To their credit, many organic producers have protested Deal's deception.
If you'd like to call or email Representative Nathan Deal and tell him to take a belly flop into a cistern of organic fertilizer, click HERE for his Congressional website. And after that, please contact your own Senators and Representative to urge them to repeal this gutting of organic standards. Find them at www.senate.gov and www.house.gov.
Monday, February 17, 2003
Time is Money
Yeah, the credit card companies have my number and know how to keep me hooked, but I am highly resistant to other forms of merchandising and advertising. I have almost no brand loyalty, little status consciousness and find the idea of my lifestyle being either enhanced or characterized to others by the beverage I drink or the shoe I wear to be absurd.
I suppose it is the status-consciousness that is most on my mind at the moment.
Yesterday's Parade Magazine (the Sunday newspaper supplement that is such drivel that it's more embarrassing to admit I look at it than to admit I'm $23,000 in debt), had an ad for a Chronograph watch for $6.95. It told time, the day of the week, had an alarm and a compass and a stopwatch and a light, was water-resistant and shock-resistant. Not only that, but if you ordered it by phone, you could get a second one free (plus shipping and handling of $2.95).
No, I did not get right on the phone and order myself a couple...my debt holds steady at $23,210.24. I have a couple inexpensive watches that have worked fine for years and need no more.
What I did do, however, is go online and do a little imaginary watch shopping. Perhaps a Patek Philippe Perpetual Calendar/Moonphase/Chronograph for $76,800? Or perhaps that is too extravagant, when I can get a Rolex Day/Date Masterpiece model for only $41,500. If I really wanted to be thrifty, I could get a pre-owned Rolex President model for a piddling $23,500. Why, that one would merely double my debt!
These are the things that make my blood boil. I am not envious...if you are wealthy enough to spend $76,800 on a watch, then kudos to you. But I have to ask: Why are you spending that much on something that is at best infinitesimally more functional than something that you can buy at two for seven bucks? Or, if you want to be fancy, can be had with Swiss movement and in precious metal with classic styling for a couple hundred bucks? The seven dollar watch will give you exactly the same information as the the $76,800 one when you glance at it on your wrist. If you believe that wearing an expensive watch gives you status, then your shallow arrogance shows you to be undeserving of any respect.
The act of buying a $76,800 watch serves absolutely no purpose in the world; it is an utter and complete waste of financial resources. OK. You want a new watch. You have $76,800 in spare cash. What kind of selfish, self-absorbed oafishness could lead you link those two facts into such a ridiculous expenditure? How could any thinking, caring human being not prefer to spend as much as even $800 on a watch, and then put the other $76,000 to some useful purpose: , making a contribution to charity, donating to a favorite political cause or helping out a friend?
How can anyone spend that kind of money on a watch and dare to show their face, much less their wrist, in public? How? HOW!?
I suppose it is the status-consciousness that is most on my mind at the moment.
Yesterday's Parade Magazine (the Sunday newspaper supplement that is such drivel that it's more embarrassing to admit I look at it than to admit I'm $23,000 in debt), had an ad for a Chronograph watch for $6.95. It told time, the day of the week, had an alarm and a compass and a stopwatch and a light, was water-resistant and shock-resistant. Not only that, but if you ordered it by phone, you could get a second one free (plus shipping and handling of $2.95).
No, I did not get right on the phone and order myself a couple...my debt holds steady at $23,210.24. I have a couple inexpensive watches that have worked fine for years and need no more.
What I did do, however, is go online and do a little imaginary watch shopping. Perhaps a Patek Philippe Perpetual Calendar/Moonphase/Chronograph for $76,800? Or perhaps that is too extravagant, when I can get a Rolex Day/Date Masterpiece model for only $41,500. If I really wanted to be thrifty, I could get a pre-owned Rolex President model for a piddling $23,500. Why, that one would merely double my debt!
These are the things that make my blood boil. I am not envious...if you are wealthy enough to spend $76,800 on a watch, then kudos to you. But I have to ask: Why are you spending that much on something that is at best infinitesimally more functional than something that you can buy at two for seven bucks? Or, if you want to be fancy, can be had with Swiss movement and in precious metal with classic styling for a couple hundred bucks? The seven dollar watch will give you exactly the same information as the the $76,800 one when you glance at it on your wrist. If you believe that wearing an expensive watch gives you status, then your shallow arrogance shows you to be undeserving of any respect.
The act of buying a $76,800 watch serves absolutely no purpose in the world; it is an utter and complete waste of financial resources. OK. You want a new watch. You have $76,800 in spare cash. What kind of selfish, self-absorbed oafishness could lead you link those two facts into such a ridiculous expenditure? How could any thinking, caring human being not prefer to spend as much as even $800 on a watch, and then put the other $76,000 to some useful purpose: , making a contribution to charity, donating to a favorite political cause or helping out a friend?
How can anyone spend that kind of money on a watch and dare to show their face, much less their wrist, in public? How? HOW!?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)