Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

[Guest guest]

>Message: 21

> Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2005 12:46:52 -0500

> From: " Suze Fisher " <s.fisher22@...>

>Subject: RE: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>> POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>>

>>

>>

>>I am contemplating my WAPF membership renewal. It seems like the

>>foundation produces some pretty good materials, but I wonder how much

>>outreach effort there really is going on. The magazine and conference:

>>Do they generate interest outside of WAPF, or is it more of a hob

>>nobbing of regulars? I have looked at their finances, and it appears

>>quite a bit goes into the conference, and much comes from it, but in my

>>mind, promoting traditional foods takes serious activism outside of

>>regular channels.

>

>I think there is *tremendous* outreach going on by the WAPF, including

>outside regular channels. Here are some of their outreach activities/venues:

I'm not a member of WAPF. I'm not even really a NN-er, but I'm moving

in that direction. Fiancee and I just bought a 5.75 acre homestead;

we wanted a place between where we both work (Warren and Cleveland),

but she definitely got the better end of the deal. She lost over 50

lbs after I taught her how to eat vegetables. I am diabetic. So

food supply has become an issue for us. We're definitely getting

chickens and are considering goats or a cow, but are unsure about how

we can reliably fit milking into our lifestyle (since in the People's

Republic of Ohio it's easier to buy crack cocaine than raw milk.)

Anyway, what's relevant here to outreach....last Sat. I went to a

presentation on free range poultry organized by a new group, Geauga

Family Farmers with the help of the local OH ag extension agent. It

turned out that the meat-bird presenter, Yoder of Apple Creek is

selling most of his stuff to a buyers group organized by a WAPF

chapter in Copley. They had _Nourishing Traditions_ on the lit table

and were handing out a WAPF flyer. WOW! There were about 100 people

there (1/3 Amish 2/3 English...after the presentation the Amish women

were selling SAD chili and hot dogs in back for their school) Yoder

and this other guy (don't know who he was but he knew his NN stuff)

were telling this other farmer why he didn't need to feed grain with

Yoder saying his 60 dairy cattle had never tasted it. The guys wheels

were starting to turn as he was listening.

Outreach is happening...but look what happened here. WAPF reached out

to farmers (because their members wanted good food), prospering the

farmers. Prosperous farmers started talking up WAPF (more members=

more customers). Those waves are rippling in the pool, folks.

>

>4. The Foundation now has over 250 local chapters worldwide doing outreach

>in their communities. Sally's asked that chapter leaders present her

>traditional nutrition lecture to their communities, which many are doing

So are chapter contacts on the web page? (yeah, I know, I can check myself)

>5. Sally, Bill Sanda and the Foundation have been working ardorously to

>persuade the FDA to incorporate the tenets of traditional nutrition into the

>new FDA food pyramid guidelines and to ban soy infant formula

Aww, they don't have to ban it, just quit paying for it with my

money. " Soy: what food eats...when the farmer gives it no choice. "

>

>9. Sally regularly lectures at the ACRES USA annual confernece, IIRC. At

>their last conference two months ago, I heard that she was the first

>non-agriculturalist to be given an award by them. My memory is a bit hazy on

>it, but I think it was for having such a profound impact on

>eco-agriculture - I think I'd heard or read that they credited her with the

>new growth spurt of farmers going into eco-ag. If someone who was there or

>knows more than I do about this can clarify or correct, please do.

I sub to Acres USA and IIRC, the above is true. I'll try to find the

issue and expand on that,

>

>Well that is certainly debatable, but I'm not sure how it relates to your

>question about the WAPF getting their message out in non-WAPF channels? WAPF

>is not a libertarian organization if that's what you are implying, although

>they take some stances that are libertarian in nature, such as opposition to

>the law banning the transportation of raw milk across state lines. But

>elsewhere they support and even initiate laws restricting freedom of choice

>such as the ban on soy infant formula.

IMO, one of the less attractive aspects of the organization. I tend

not to join groups like AAA, AARP etc for that reason...they spend my

money against me. I mean, what's the difference in principle between

banning soy formula and banning raw milk?

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Laws metastasize where morals atrophy.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 1:36:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, jaq@...

writes:

> >5. Sally, Bill Sanda and the Foundation have been working ardorously to

> >persuade the FDA to incorporate the tenets of traditional nutrition into

> the

> >new FDA food pyramid guidelines and to ban soy infant formula

>

> Aww, they don't have to ban it, just quit paying for it with my

> money. " Soy: what food eats...when the farmer gives it no choice. "

_____

I think the issue is due a lot more thought than simple dismissal. Surely we

do not want the state to take over parenting. But can you seriously advocate

that an *infant* be given the freedom of choice to consume or not consume a

product during its development that could permanently alter her or his hormonal

status and constitution later in life?

Even if we believe as a matter of faith in moral or ethical principles that

private property and freedom of person are sacred rights, what do we do when we

find ourselves in a situation in which they are violated from every

direction, and the resultant playingfield and even the *players* in that field

are

neither the field nor the players that would exist within a truly free society?

What I mean is, it is very, very plausible that if it were not for the state

meddling in the market, we probably would not be growing soy beans in this

country. And thus we would have no soy infant feeding formula.

So, if the insidious government-business partnership has resulted in players

on this unfree playing field that would not even exist, then how can one

justify removing the restrictions on these horrid mutants and calling it a move

towards a more liberal market?

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

At 5:29 PM +0000 2/17/05, wrote:

>Message: 24

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 12:27:23 -0500

> From: Idol <Idol@...>

>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>

>I also sometimes suspect that the foundation's pro-grain stance results in

>part from a belief that NT-style eating would be unaffordable for many

>otherwise.

That could be. Certainly we have an odd market as a minority taste,

and it's hard to predict what things would cost in a NN-majority

world. The cost of grass-fed animals might go down...or would it go

up? And think of the price of liver! (Wait until somebody tried to

peddle grass-fed GMO cattle with multiple livers!).

I suspect that most of the grain issue is this: it's been the staff

of life for millennia, and it's just inconceivable for people to get

away from it. Look at the Atkins movement: everybody rushed low-carb

products to the marketplace so that people wouldn't have to uproot

those habits. Now they say that " Atkins is passe'. " No it's

not...it's just that people refused to eat cardboard pasta made from

" what food eats. " . Since WAP found healthy cultures that ate grain,

there's really nothing to be gained by not dealing with it, and given

that there is enough in NN that veers from the challenging to the

outright culty, a more moderate face is a good thing. It's not a

paleo-diet group. And gradualism is good. If somebody wants to buy

free-range eggs and serve Pop-Tarts with them, hey, it's better than

battery eggs. (Of course, they be better off eating battery eggs and

NOT the Pop-Tarts).

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Laws metastasize where morals atrophy.

[Guest guest]

-

>I mean, what's the difference in principle between

>banning soy formula and banning raw milk?

It's somewhat like the difference between banning murder and saving a life,

or if you prefer a less dramatic and slightly more homologous analogy, it's

rather like the difference between banning vitamin A from the food supply

and banning the addition in quantity of cyanide to the food supply.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>I mean, what's the difference in principle between

>banning soy formula and banning raw milk?

Furthermore, soy formula is meant for infants, who are defenseless.

-

[Guest guest]

-

>And think of the price of liver! (Wait until somebody tried to

>peddle grass-fed GMO cattle with multiple livers!).

Long before liver-enhanced GM cattle arrive (if they ever do) I expect

we'll see GM cattle touted as being " immune " to " Mad Cow Disease " . The

worst possible end result would be a wholesale transformation of the meat

supply to a license-based stock.

>Since WAP found healthy cultures that ate grain,

>there's really nothing to be gained by not dealing with it,

Depending on what you mean by " dealing with it " , I disagree, perhaps

strongly. Many, many people can't tolerate grains, and to the degree that

Price's natives did well on starches, it's highly likely that they were

adapted to the specific starches they ate. Those adaptations were probably

both genetic and symbiotic, which is to say that just because some tribe

somewhere did well on Starch X, today's rank and file shouldn't expect to

automatically experience the same results.

-

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/17/05 8:00:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

wanitawa@... writes:

> > That's a good reason to have laws, and to have laws firmly enforced.

> >

> > had suggested that the cornerstone of law is property rights, with which

I

> > agree.

> >

> > Chris

>

> If it takes trashing the golden rule, at least, to get to make rules, what

> can be expected other than trash back.

____

I don't follow.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

Irene wrote:

> >So Heidi,

> >Why don't you just use a few million dollars of your " mad money " and sue

> >Enron yourself? Sound like a nice summer project to me!

> >BTW, I live in California so I know all about the Enron blues.

> >Irene

____

A class action suit would seem more practical. Additionally, a watchdog

foundation would be a worthwhile project.

____

Then Heidi wrote:

> Heh heh. It's tempting! I do like hearing from our local PUD in their

> lawsuit though. I actually like our PUD. Our house is super insulated, to

the

> point it doesn't need heating and it's year round 74 degrees, and THAT was

> done with PUD money, a no interest " super good sense " loan. You see, being

a

> public utility, they can actually spend money to try to get people to buy

> LESS of their product, which is one of the problems with privatization.

> Privatized energy has no reason to want folks to be efficient, any more

than

> privatized hospitals want folks to be healthy.

_____

Huh. Why is it, then, that private land trusts will spend money to buy land

and just have it *sit there* doing no economically productive thing but sit

there? Also, please explain the obvious counter-evidences to your hypothesis

such as Dr. Mercola's private practice. It would appear he's doing everything

in his power to prevent disease.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

I think we also need to keep in mind that there might also be other

factors. Price's natives also did not have to deal with the toxic assaults

that modern people do. Toxins, pollution and pharmaceuticals might also

play a role in who can and cannot tolerate foods. I read an article a while

back (sorry I didn't save it) that implicated frequent use of antibiotics

with developing crohn's disease. It is not a huge leap to think that there

are similar cofactors in developing other bowel diseases and digestive

problems.

Irene

At 11:48 AM 2/17/2005, you wrote:

> >Since WAP found healthy cultures that ate grain,

> >there's really nothing to be gained by not dealing with it,

>

>Depending on what you mean by " dealing with it " , I disagree, perhaps

>strongly. Many, many people can't tolerate grains, and to the degree that

>Price's natives did well on starches, it's highly likely that they were

>adapted to the specific starches they ate. Those adaptations were probably

>both genetic and symbiotic, which is to say that just because some tribe

>somewhere did well on Starch X, today's rank and file shouldn't expect to

>automatically experience the same results.

>

>

>-

[Guest guest]

Hi Tom,

[i (Chris)had written:]

> > Huh. Why is it, then, that private land trusts will spend money to buy

> land

> > and just have it *sit there* doing no economically productive thing but

> sit

> > there? Also, please explain the obvious counter-evidences to your

> hypothesis

> > such as Dr. Mercola's private practice. It would appear he's doing

> everything

> > in his power to prevent disease.

> >

> > Chris

[Tom responded:]

> I see no such counter evidence. Private land trusts...I don't see how

that's

> material here.

____

It's relevant because it's an example of a private organization that spends

money for causes that are not monetarily profitable.

____

> They obviously see some current or future benefit from the

> simple possession of their lands. This is not counter evidence.

____

I agree this is obvious: no one would do anything if they didn't see some

current or future benefit in doing it.

It is counter-evidence, because it shows that some private organizations see

benefits other than monetary profit, and act accordingly. Heidi had implied

that public organizations can pursue public interest while private

organizations pursue only private profit and eschew long-term thinking.

Private land trusts often secure the development rights to land so that the

land will be conserved and not developed. Often they buy the development

rights without even buying the land, so that the land is economically useless to

them, except that they desire, along with much of the public, to maintain the

traditional landscape of the area in which they operate. Many such land trusts

and other forms of conservation groups are privately owned.

It is also true that governments engage in horrendously short-term planning

and also have profit incentives, and often act for their own material benefit

rather than in some supposed public interest. A recent example would be the

millions of tons of sewage that was deposited in the public waters of Milwaukee

by the municipal government.

My point is that the dichotomy between short-term planning and long-term

planning, and the dichotomy between public interest and private interest, simply

do NOT correspond to the dichotomy between public and private, which in itself

ignores the important further dichotomy between private for-profit and private

not-for-profit.

____

> Dr. Mercola's private practice's economic success is neatly aligned with

his

> positive mission to promote better health.

____

That was precisely my point.

____

> He can educate people via the web

> and rack up profits when they buy recommended products from his website.

____

Dr. Mercola does not profit from anything he sells on his site. Besides

that, I wasn't pointing to his " economic " (monetary?) success, but merely his

motivation to engage in such a practice, and his continuous doing so, despite

being a private owner.

____

> There is no conflict

____

No conflict between *what*?

____

>(theoretically...it does bother me that he peddles the

> very wares he touts).

____

It should comfort you that 100% of the proceeds go into expanding the website

and he doesn't reap any profits.

_____

> There is, however, a conflict in the case of a private utility (or any non-

> diversified company whose business involves any amount of public harm).

_____

A conflict between what and what?

______

A

> company that owns a bunch of power plants has no incentive and indeed, a

> disincentive, to promote energy efficiency. That would conflict directly

with

> its economic success.

______

Energy efficiency at what level? Obviously unless the company has a

subsidiary coal mine that is selling the coal to itself the company has an

incentive,

not a disincentive, to promote the efficient generation of electricity from

the raw materials it uses, because if it pays for the, say, coal, then

increasing its output for a given unit of coal will increase its revenues in

proportion

to its costs and therefore its profits.

The other level of energy efficiency that I see would be in the end-user. My

energy company doesn't make my light bulbs, so its incentives for what kind

of light bulbs I use are irrelevant, and if *I* am sufficiently long-sighted

*I* will buy more energy-efficient light bulbs, and turn them off when they

aren't in use. Light bulb companies have an incentive to produce both

inefficient

and efficient light bulbs. Some light bulb producers will prefer to sell

cheap crappy light bulbs that need to be replaced often so people will buy more,

while other companies will improve the product in order to compete with the

first company by means of having a superior product. That's why there are both

relatively efficient and relatively inefficient light bulbs on the market.

The same, of course, goes for any other appliance that uses electricity.

____

> In this case, the utility is relying on the fact that

> most of its customers don't know enough or care enough to pursue or demand

> energy efficiency on their own.

____

Well I don't really know what you mean by " energy efficiency " but as far as I

can tell, my home is not insulated by an electric company, nor is what brand

of light bulb I use selected by an electric company, any more than the type of

car I drive is chosen by the gas company.

_____

> In the world today, private groups are very

> often able to get away with shortsighted behaviors that harm the public

good,

> thanks to ignorance and misinformation.

_____

That's quite true, but there are two other things that are equally true:

1) Public groups are very often able to get away with shortsighted behaviors

that harm the public good thanks to ignorance and misinformation

2) Private groups are very often able to accomplish wonderful things and

offer alternatives to the nasty things that other private groups are doing.

I would also note that in my state since " deregulation " (really a moderate

deregulation with a cesspool of other government crap) of the state-enforced

monopoly, we now have the opportunity to opt for wind power and other renewable

resources as a portion of our electricity, and we also have folks a bit west of

my area that last I knew were moving forward with plans to develop an

electricity cooperative that uses " green " (environmentally friendly, renewable)

energy exclusively, which is a *private* organization that under the

state-enforced

monopoly would not have been allowed to compete in the non-existant market.

Chris

____

" What can one say of a soul, of a heart, filled with compassion? It is a

heart which burns with love for every creature: for human beings, birds, and

animals, for serpents and for demons. The thought of them and the sight of them

make the tears of the saint flow. And this immense and intense compassion,

which flows from the heart of the saints, makes them unable to bear the sight of

the smallest, most insignificant wound in any creature. Thus they pray

ceaselessly, with tears, even for animals, for enemies of the truth, and for

those

who do them wrong. "

--Saint Isaac the Syrian

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/17/05 1:04:45 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> heidis@... writes:

>> In theory, yeah, folks would care about the long term and would be more

>> prosperous etc. etc. History has shown though, that humans are, in

>> general,

>> very poor at caring about the " long term " and adopt short term strategies

>> that backfire. If you don't believe me, listen to the Enron tapes.

> _____

>

> That's a good reason to have laws, and to have laws firmly enforced.

>

> had suggested that the cornerstone of law is property rights, with which I

> agree.

>

> Chris

If it takes trashing the golden rule, at least, to get to make rules, what

can be expected other than trash back.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

[Guest guest]

>So Heidi,

>Why don't you just use a few million dollars of your " mad money " and sue

>Enron yourself? Sound like a nice summer project to me!

>BTW, I live in California so I know all about the Enron blues.

>Irene

Heh heh. It's tempting! I do like hearing from our local PUD in their lawsuit

though. I actually like our PUD. Our house is super insulated, to the point it

doesn't need heating and it's year round 74 degrees, and THAT was done with PUD

money, a no interest " super good sense " loan. You see, being a public utility,

they can actually spend money to try to get people to buy LESS of their product,

which is one of the problems with privatization. Privatized energy has no reason

to want folks to be efficient, any more than privatized hospitals want folks to

be healthy.

Less energy usage means fewer coal-burning mercury-spewing power plants or

nuclear facilties or dammed salmon streams, so it affects our food quality too.

In Southern Cal, the houses could be roofed with these new solar tile roofing

shingles, and the homes could be energy PRODUCERS for a fairly reasonable costs.

It's already been prototyped, the " zero sum " home.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

:

>People have little difficulty believing in contradictions, and besides, the

>more separated by time the result is from the cause, the more difficult it

>is for people (at least most people, and people in aggregate) to perceive

>the connection.

Too true, unfortunately.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

Tell me more about the solar roofing shingles. We tried to do solar panels

on our house but it was a problem with the shingles that we have and the

way the roof is angled. So we decided to go with a solar array in the yard.

Takes up some room in the yard though. Maybe when we have to replace the

roof we can look into the solar shingles.

Irene

At 05:21 PM 2/17/2005, you wrote:

>

> >So Heidi,

> >Why don't you just use a few million dollars of your " mad money " and sue

> >Enron yourself? Sound like a nice summer project to me!

> >BTW, I live in California so I know all about the Enron blues.

> >Irene

>

>Heh heh. It's tempting! I do like hearing from our local PUD in their

>lawsuit though. I actually like our PUD. Our house is super insulated, to

>the point it doesn't need heating and it's year round 74 degrees, and THAT

>was done with PUD money, a no interest " super good sense " loan. You see,

>being a public utility, they can actually spend money to try to get people

>to buy LESS of their product, which is one of the problems with

>privatization. Privatized energy has no reason to want folks to be

>efficient, any more than privatized hospitals want folks to be healthy.

>

>Less energy usage means fewer coal-burning mercury-spewing power plants or

>nuclear facilties or dammed salmon streams, so it affects our food quality

>too. In Southern Cal, the houses could be roofed with these new solar tile

>roofing shingles, and the homes could be energy PRODUCERS for a fairly

>reasonable costs. It's already been prototyped, the " zero sum " home.

>

>

>Heidi Jean

>

>

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

>>

Idol:

>> Since WAP found healthy cultures that ate grain,

>> there's really nothing to be gained by not dealing with it,

>

> Depending on what you mean by " dealing with it " , I disagree, perhaps

> strongly. Many, many people can't tolerate grains, and to the degree

> that

> Price's natives did well on starches, it's highly likely that they were

> adapted to the specific starches they ate. Those adaptations were

> probably

> both genetic and symbiotic, which is to say that just because some

> tribe

> somewhere did well on Starch X, today's rank and file shouldn't expect

> to

> automatically experience the same results.

Well, yeah...and will people of non-dairying genetic stock do as well

on milk?

It seems to me that if you're trying to establish a mass movement (and

that's really what the original post is about), one needs a public face

that is as inclusive as possible. Of course there will be differences

in individual metabolism, and the beauty of this system is that it

allows for those. Hey, *I* can't pig out on wheat and Succanat, no

matter how NN they are. To the extent that this involves paying

attention to your own body, people will get there, or they won't.

As for the soy formula issue, your analogy of stifled good vs.

encouraged evil breaks down on both ends. IF the government COULD ban

vitamin A, we'd soon all be dead anyway. And cyanide is generally

recognized as poison, whereas soy is not (if it were, nobody would buy

the stuff, and this would be a moot issue). If we're going to ban

things that are developmentally bad but not actively dangerous (and

nothing I've seen from WAPF or anywhere else shows me that " Soy will

kill you " in any immediate sense), where do we draw the line? Sugar

cereal? Watching too much TV? Arresting mothers for not breastfeeding

on demand? We would like to see this stuff because OUR prevailing

wisdom says it's good. THEIR prevailing wisdom says that soy is good,

and raw milk is doubleplus bad. If we load that gun, and give them the

power to define what children should be fed, we should be happy when

they take away our babies or kill our cattle because we've fed the

little ones raw milk, right?

Yes, children are defenseless. That's why they need THEIR PARENTS to

watch out for their health, not anti-soy diet dictocrats. Yes, mistakes

will happen. My parents taught me some good dietary habits and a ton

of really bad ones. I would be healthier today if a whole bunch of

products had been banned from the marketplace. But in the real world,

what products would they be? (Hint: E. coli has been found on lettuce.)

Since 95% of parents want the best for their children, and the other 5%

want to want the best but are too screwed up to make it happen, I'd

sooner educate their judgment and let them make the call on formula.

Asking government to protect our babies from soy is like giving your

ADHD 5 year old a loaded pistol and asking him to protect you from any

burglars that might happen by.

www.users.en.com/jaquick

Evolution's a real bitch...and she's back in heat.

--Mike Schneider

[Guest guest]

>

> Huh. Why is it, then, that private land trusts will spend money to buy land

> and just have it *sit there* doing no economically productive thing but sit

> there? Also, please explain the obvious counter-evidences to your hypothesis

> such as Dr. Mercola's private practice. It would appear he's doing everything

> in his power to prevent disease.

>

> Chris

I see no such counter evidence. Private land trusts...I don't see how that's

material here. They obviously see some current or future benefit from the simple

possession of their lands. This is not counter evidence.

Dr. Mercola's private practice's economic success is neatly aligned with his

positive mission to promote better health. He can educate people via the web and

rack up profits when they buy recommended products from his website. There is no

conflict (theoretically...it does bother me that he peddles the very wares he

touts).

There is, however, a conflict in the case of a private utility (or any

non-diversified company whose business involves any amount of public harm). A

company that owns a bunch of power plants has no incentive and indeed, a

disincentive, to promote energy efficiency. That would conflict directly with

its economic success. In this case, the utility is relying on the fact that most

of its customers don't know enough or care enough to pursue or demand energy

efficiency on their own. In the world today, private groups are very often able

to get away with shortsighted behaviors that harm the public good, thanks to

ignorance and misinformation.

Tom

[Guest guest]

>Tell me more about the solar roofing shingles. We tried to do solar panels

>on our house but it was a problem with the shingles that we have and the

>way the roof is angled. So we decided to go with a solar array in the yard.

>Takes up some room in the yard though. Maybe when we have to replace the

>roof we can look into the solar shingles.

>Irene

I don't know much about them: I saw an article in one of the science mags a few

years ago and was thinking " wow, that is PERFECT " (esp. since reroofing a house

costs so much anyway). I Googled and there seem to be some out on the market

now:

http://www.oksolar.com/roof/

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

> My point is that the dichotomy between short-term planning and long-term

> planning, and the dichotomy between public interest and private interest,

simply

> do NOT correspond to the dichotomy between public and private, which in itself

> ignores the important further dichotomy between private for-profit and private

> not-for-profit.

I agree with most of your response. But would you disagree that in practice

today, the vast majority of private organizations are overwhelmingly

self-serving and not interested in the long-term public good, whereas the vast

majority of public organizations serve the public with good intentions, however

misguided, wrongheaded, poorly run, or corrupted by the influence of private

organizations they may be? This is the generalization that I'm trying to make.

Heidi made a similar generalization to which you responded with two specific

counter examples. Two examples don't magically discount a generalization any

more than a generalization doesn't magically hold true with no exceptions.

I'm in way over my head here and I have no time to seriously attempt to discuss

an issue with which I'm only superficially acquainted, sorry.

> Dr. Mercola does not profit from anything he sells on his site. Besides

> that, I wasn't pointing to his " economic " (monetary?) success, but merely his

> motivation to engage in such a practice, and his continuous doing so, despite

> being a private owner.

....

> It should comfort you that 100% of the proceeds go into expanding the website

> and he doesn't reap any profits.

I was not aware of this. I'm a bit skeptical. Give me your source, please. What

about his bestselling books? You're saying that he puts all the royalties into

the website? What about his private patients at his Illinois clinic? I would

guess that many of them come in after reading his website, and surely his

physician fees are not going to www.mercola.com. I do think that he's basically

a wonderful guy doing wonderful things and I subscribed to his newsletter for

years, but I'm always wary of people who start amassing power and influence

while maintaining an image of virtue. History tells us that it's usually too

good to be true. It's just tough to do that if you're a human being. If he's

doing it, great!

Tom

[Guest guest]

> Since 95% of parents want the best for their children, and the other 5%

> want to want the best but are too screwed up to make it happen, I'd

> sooner educate their judgment and let them make the call on formula.

>

> www.users.en.com/jaquick

If half of product advertising $$ went to full pro con consumer disclosure

the responsibility for the product's quality and use would be equally in

both the producer's and the consumer's laps. Misinformation, disinformation

and no information screws everyone directly, indirectly and eventually.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

[Guest guest]

>Message: 1

> Date: Thu, 17 Feb 2005 18:29:07 EST

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@...

>Subject: Re: RE: POLITICS - Supporting WAPF or Not

>

>In a message dated 2/17/05 1:36:46 PM Eastern Standard Time, jaq@...

>writes:

>

>> >5. Sally, Bill Sanda and the Foundation have been working ardorously to

>> >persuade the FDA to incorporate the tenets of traditional nutrition into

>> the

>> >new FDA food pyramid guidelines and to ban soy infant formula

>>

>> Aww, they don't have to ban it, just quit paying for it with my

> > money. " Soy: what food eats...when the farmer gives it no choice. "

>_____

>

>I think the issue is due a lot more thought than simple dismissal. Surely we

>do not want the state to take over parenting. But can you seriously advocate

>that an *infant* be given the freedom of choice to consume or not consume a

>product during its development that could permanently alter her or

>his hormonal

>status and constitution later in life?

Of course, the infant doesn't have freedom of choice. The parents

do. I'm not denying that there are problems with parents having free

choice. Kids are going to get hurt. I don't like that. But I think

that if you don't treat children as quasi-property of the parents,

stepping in only when there is gross neglect and abuse (and who

decides?), you're going to have MORE kids hurt. Utopia is not an

option. All one can do is minimize risk.

>Even if we believe as a matter of faith in moral or ethical principles that

>private property and freedom of person are sacred rights, what do we

>do when we

>find ourselves in a situation in which they are violated from every

>direction, and the resultant playingfield and even the *players* in

>that field are

>neither the field nor the players that would exist within a truly

>free society?

I think that in that case you have to examine each situation from a

principled ethical standpoint and untangle each separately instead of

as a unit, even if they form a unitary chain of causation.

So....

Right of parents to feed soy formula? Yes, for reasons above.

Parents getting free soy formula with tax dollars? Pretty obviously no.

Right of farmers to grow soybeans? Yes, it's their land.

Government encouragement of soybean production? Uh-uh, absolutely not.

Government " food pyramids " that encourage consumption of whatever

agribiz is pushing? No way!

Would this be as effective in solving the ultimate problem? Probably

not. But it's far less likely to result in unintended consequences.

>What I mean is, it is very, very plausible that if it were not for the state

>meddling in the market, we probably would not be growing soy beans in this

>country. And thus we would have no soy infant feeding formula.

Probably not NO soybeans, but a lot less for sure. Here in OH it

amazes me how few crops are grown. You can grow corn and soybeans, or

you can grow soybeans and corn. And breakfast is Spam Spam Spam eggs

and Spam.

>So, if the insidious government-business partnership has resulted in players

>on this unfree playing field that would not even exist, then how can one

>justify removing the restrictions on these horrid mutants and

>calling it a move

>towards a more liberal market?

Imposing a stick is not the same thing as withdrawing the carrot.

The idea is to minimize initiation of force. Right now, nobody is

forcing me to eat soy, or forcing anyone to grow soy. If we banned

soy formula, we'd be forcing parents to make different choices. If

we forced farmers to not grow soy, that would be wrong too. Now, what

*I* would like is to not be forced to pay taxes for soy formula or to

encourage production of soybeans or to stuff school burgers full of

the crap.

It seems real simple to me. The current system has built up layers

like an onion. You can gently peel the onion, layer by layer, or

take a cleaver to it. Which act will bring more tears?

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

Laws metastasize where morals atrophy.

[Guest guest]

> In a message dated 2/17/05 8:00:09 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> wanitawa@... writes:

>

>> > That's a good reason to have laws, and to have laws firmly enforced.

>> >

>> > had suggested that the cornerstone of law is property rights, with

>> which

> I

>> > agree.

>> >

>> > Chris

>>

>> If it takes trashing the golden rule, at least, to get to make rules,

>> what

>> can be expected other than trash back.

> ____

>

> I don't follow.

>

> Chris

The structures of and to politics and commerce are divisive, us vs. them,

even before any decision making is done. If you look at the decisions that

come as a whole and look at who's interests the decisions mostly serve, it's

doing for one's interest, group of relation to or self protection. Makes a

do onto before you're done onto mechanism.

Do find property as the ultimate determiner of rights interesting. That

doesn't include though any rights of what there is besides what has come to

be owned, acquired or created by humans, all that's non human. Without the

non human there'd be no humans or property.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

[Guest guest]

> Irene wrote:

>

>> >So Heidi,

>> >Why don't you just use a few million dollars of your " mad money " and

>> sue

>> >Enron yourself? Sound like a nice summer project to me!

>> >BTW, I live in California so I know all about the Enron blues.

>> >Irene

> ____

>

> A class action suit would seem more practical. Additionally, a watchdog

> foundation would be a worthwhile project.

Chris

Too late! Bush's tort reform went through yesterday. Class actions will have

to be approved now through Federal courts and Bush administration chosen

judges. No more state court approval. Watchdogs and self informing just

expanded out to every product, at least, for all of us here.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 265.8.8 - Release Date: 2/14/2005

[Guest guest]

> >I would appreciate information y'all may have about WAPF at the

> >grassroots and higher levels.

>

> I have mixed feelings about some of the foundation's work, but from a

> utilitarian perspective, I find the journal well worth the annual

> membership fee, and the foundation is serving an important purpose.

>

>

>

>

> -

What WAPF work are you feeling mixed about, if you don't mind my

curiosity? I understand they are involved in some legal battles over

raw milk now and are branching out in that direction. I will leave it

to those in the know to expand on this information as they see fit.

Members can take advantage of email alerts; I don't know about the

general population. Perhaps Suze mentioned this. Also, I am curious

how many physicians are active in WAPF besides Tom Cowan, MD. I think

it helps add credibility to the nutritional approach, for SAD folks

set in a mainstrean mind set especially.

Deanna

[Guest guest]

I have no idea on the number of physicians involved in WAPF, but I

happen to know 2 doctors, one is a member and the other is a chapter

leader and they live within ½ hour of each other in/near a major

metropolitan area. Perhaps there are lots of others.

Kristi

Also, I am curious

how many physicians are active in WAPF besides Tom Cowan, MD. I think

it helps add credibility to the nutritional approach, for SAD folks

set in a mainstrean mind set especially.

Deanna

<HTML><!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC " -//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN "

" http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd " ><BODY><FONT

FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " >

<B>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES</B>

<UL>

<LI><B><A

HREF= " / " >NATIVE

NUTRITION</A></B> online</LI>

<LI><B><A HREF= " http://onibasu.com/ " >SEARCH</A></B> the entire message

archive with Onibasu</LI>

</UL></FONT>

<PRE><FONT FACE= " monospace " SIZE= " 3 " ><B><A

HREF= " mailto: -owner " >LIST OWNER:</A></B>

Idol

<B>MODERATORS:</B> Heidi Schuppenhauer

Wanita Sears

</FONT></PRE>

</BODY>

</HTML>

_____

[Guest guest]

>I have no idea on the number of physicians involved in WAPF, but I

>happen to know 2 doctors, one is a member and the other is a chapter

>leader and they live within ½ hour of each other in/near a major

>metropolitan area. Perhaps there are lots of others.

>

>Kristi

>

We have a couple doctors in our area that are friendly to the WAPF

lifestyle, but I have no idea of their activity level within the

foundation. Our local chapter website has a section for health care

providers, but there ain't much listed now.

It might be nice if Wise Traditions tapped in more to the medical

community for articles. Perhaps they do. I have only been a member for

a year, so I haven't seen many copies yet.

Deanna