Generic Update #1
We had a fairly packed weekend. We got our Christmas tree, and after some minor modification to the trunk, it is up and seems pretty much unlikely to fall over. It's even decorated! We discussed finally breaking down and buying a new tree-topper, but so far we've not done it. We currently have the good ole cardboard star covered in tin foil on top (it's even attached to the tree with twist ties). Truth be told, I'm a little edgy about getting a new, cool tree topper. Have you ever noticed that in like every movie about divorce or family problems the tin-foil tree topper becomes the symbol of all that was lost, or traded in, or given up for the sake of careers, or.... You know the ones--the divorce papers are about to go through, and the soon-to-be-ex husband & wife start packing their things, and one of them finds *sniff* the tree topper that they made *sob!* when they were in college/just married/in their first apartment/etc. *cry* It reminds them of how they used to be, what they used to value *whaaa!*. Then, with tears in their eyes, they take down the ultra-cool, $150 tree topper they had and re-attach the tin-foil star (why do these things always happen over christmas?), and then they tear up their divorce papers and LIVE HAPPILY EVER AFTER!!!!! Oy vey. So, by extension, if we buy a new tree topper we are consigning ourselves to at least one decade of unhappy, loosing-contact-with-each-other-and-our-values, probably will try to divorce, trauma. We can only hope to find the tin-foil star in time to save our marriage! I don' t think I'm ready for that sort of thing....
I've also noticed a recent, and to me disturbing, spate of media relating to organic farming and related practices. These have all been terribly skewed against organic farming, IMO. Now, I don't expect much from the Today Show's coverage ("Look! It has *more bacteria on it* than conventionally grown food!"), but the article in The Economist really worries me. Those people are supposed to be smart, and as such I have to assume that whoever wrote about food politics for them was actually trying to present biased information. Or, and maybe just as likely, s/he is suffering from the same sort of economist tunnel-vision we see in other areas--like the popular economic assumption that we have an infinite supply of energy (no, I'm not making that up). So, for example, the Economist article complained that by offering a guaranteed minimum purchase price for coffee, Fair Trade coffee is propping up a system of coffee overproduction--that is, the farmers are currently overproducing coffee, and they'd be able to get by if they would diversify their farming. There are only three HUGE problems with that analysis, which any economist ought to be able to detect with a minimum of effort:
*sigh* Well, anyway...
In other news, Ian had his 2 year checkup, and he's golden, if BIG. He's barely off the charts on weight, although as she pointed out in about 10 days he'll be back on the charts. He doesn't seem to be overweight, though, so no one's really worried. I think it's his thighs--you should see them, they're gargantuan! Which made it easier for the RN to give him his vaccinations (man, I hate those... I wish I'd ever heard of delaying vaccination when Alex or Ian were born). I'm expecting some crankiness and fever soon, but so far he's doing fine. Anyway, time for lunch, as my eldest keeps politely reminding me. PB&J today, I think.
R.
I've also noticed a recent, and to me disturbing, spate of media relating to organic farming and related practices. These have all been terribly skewed against organic farming, IMO. Now, I don't expect much from the Today Show's coverage ("Look! It has *more bacteria on it* than conventionally grown food!"), but the article in The Economist really worries me. Those people are supposed to be smart, and as such I have to assume that whoever wrote about food politics for them was actually trying to present biased information. Or, and maybe just as likely, s/he is suffering from the same sort of economist tunnel-vision we see in other areas--like the popular economic assumption that we have an infinite supply of energy (no, I'm not making that up). So, for example, the Economist article complained that by offering a guaranteed minimum purchase price for coffee, Fair Trade coffee is propping up a system of coffee overproduction--that is, the farmers are currently overproducing coffee, and they'd be able to get by if they would diversify their farming. There are only three HUGE problems with that analysis, which any economist ought to be able to detect with a minimum of effort:
- Coffee has a regular 5-year boom/glut cycle, and has for at least the past 200 years. Farmers might be overproducing coffee this year, but they will be underproducing coffee in 3-4 years, and that's just how it works. So, the complaint that farmers are overproducing is spurious at best, since we'll need them to be producing at these levels in a few years. This brings us to--
- Farmers want to diversify, but they can't because they don't have the resources. This is where schemes like *gasp* Fair Trade come in, because they often offer training in diversification, and even occasionally small or micro loans with low interest. The Economist article claimed that guaranteed minimum pricing is a disincentive for farmers to diversify, but in practice this seems to be nonesense. These farmers know what will happen to them if Fair Trade ever disappears for any reason--they're toast. They want and need the skills to protect their farms from hostile purchasing when coffee is on it's high cycle. And, of course, there's the final problem of--
- The main reason farmers can't get a decent price on their crop has far more to do with the 18,000 middlemen the coffee goes through to get to market than anything else. Fair Trade is doing nothing more than removing the middlemen, allowing them to purchase coffee at a fair price directly from the farmers, rather than after a hundred price markups between the farmer and the distributors.
*sigh* Well, anyway...
In other news, Ian had his 2 year checkup, and he's golden, if BIG. He's barely off the charts on weight, although as she pointed out in about 10 days he'll be back on the charts. He doesn't seem to be overweight, though, so no one's really worried. I think it's his thighs--you should see them, they're gargantuan! Which made it easier for the RN to give him his vaccinations (man, I hate those... I wish I'd ever heard of delaying vaccination when Alex or Ian were born). I'm expecting some crankiness and fever soon, but so far he's doing fine. Anyway, time for lunch, as my eldest keeps politely reminding me. PB&J today, I think.
R.