In any case, I just wanted a more positive note than "I can't stand Chinese people"...and say that I have bought a share in a CSA (community supported agriculture). (CSAs are basically local farms that you can buy a share in a farm and get the fruits of the harvest...as well as sharing the risk of good/bad harvests.) That basically means that I will be receiving a fresh delivery of vegetables from a local farm once a week, depending on what the harvest is during the season. (I think it's leafier greens in early summer, and then bigger produce as summer heat sets in, and then a move to more root veggies as fall rolls around.) I know the farm produces arugula, corn, potatoes, beans, tomatoes, eggplants, fennel, beets, radishes, carrots, squash, broccoli rabe, baby lettuce, mustard greens, and apparently so many herbs that can't be used. It also has an orchard, but I'm not sure it's producing yet.
Given my penchant for eating everything in my apartment once evening rolls around, combined with my desire to eat healthier and cook with more variety (which I will be forced to do), and the free time I should have this summer, I think this'll be great. It comes to about 15 dollars a week (paid in advance). As an example, here is what the large share got in one of the weeks last year (22.50 a week).
- 24 ears corn
- 11 white potatoes (~ 2.5#)
- 8 hefty tomatoes (~3#)
- 2 yellow squash
- 2 bunches arugula
- 2 bags baby lettuce
- 1 bag green beans (over a pound)
- 1 bunch radishes
- 1 bunch mustard greens (I think?)
- 1 large, stunning eggplant
...And yes, in the past month of changing dietary habits, I do consume a LOT more fruits and vegetables than before. So it's not simply stocking up on foods I hope to eat. (and no, I'm not a fucking hippie. Shut up. Asshole.)
17 comments:
i didn't get a meat share yet, we are waiting to transition to pastured -only meats when we get a freezer...you usually have to buy like...half a pig. next year we plan to buy a fruit/veggie share, we missed the deadline this year and also decided we would just do the farmers market this year whilst learning and collecting recipes for seasonal meals. anyway, that's really cool that you bought one, you'll have to let me know how it goes. greg and i have an argument about it: i say having a box of vegetables will force us to use and cook them, he thinks we will end up throwing stuff out.
that's great, but how can I join a csa?
--anonymous commenter looking for a nice, quiet csa to call my own (somewhere in california)
I have the perfect solution: Just get the half pig and then call me.
I'm a little surprised at how cheap it is, considering the fact that I used to double that spending on cigarettes alone. I also side (optimistically) with you on the debate, which is that I hope it will force me to use vegetables and learn new things because, as it stands, I have absolutely NO idea what to do with a bag of broccoli rabe, beets, and radishes.
As for you, anonymous commenter, if my hunch is correct, then you should go to www.localharvest.com and type in "Los Angeles." Bitch.
It took me a bit to notice your post directed to me, so I’m responding here.
I think you misunderstand some of my ideas about the economy. I start from the premise that the pursuit of profit is a moral activity. While profit seeking is recognized as an economic requirement, it is often tainted with the brush of immorality. Oil companies who scour the earth for a precious vital resource are pilloried for their high profits. Even those who defend profit seeking often do so on the grounds that it leads to a greater and noble end, i.e. advances in the public good.
Take for instance the statements by Obama on income inequality. While the rich get richer, the poor and middle class are held back by stagnant wages, growing healthcare costs, and bad schools. The solution proposed by Obama and Hillary is to spend more on education, provide healthcare that covers all Americans, and use legislation to protect unions.
I believe that this idea is based on a false premise; that income inequality is negative. America is the first country in the world that recognized that wealth was not a fixed quantity, rather wealth could be created, through the activities and voluntary arrangements of individual Americans. Individuals do not create the same amount of wealth. Bill Gates creates more wealth through Microsoft Windows than the clerk who sells it in the store. These differences in productivity stem from differences in ability, intelligence, work ethics, skills, choices and so on, and are the reason for vast differences in income.
But because wealth is created, it should belong to those who create it or those to whom they chose to give it. If someone wants to create wealth, they are free to enter a field, get an education, start their own business, or anything else they desire.
The pursuit of wealth benefits everyone. Businessmen, in order to earn a profit, bring out quality products at desirable prices. Further, businessmen profit when they make others more productive, increasing their bottom line by constantly creating new jobs to add to their profits.
It is the egalitarianism of the current system that has led to many of our current problems. By dictating that all should have equal access to education, and medicine, the government has taken over both fields, placing regulations on them both that hinder efficiency and decrease productivity. (As a side note I partially agree with your comment on (de)regulation, I think that now that its in place its removal should take place gradually).
True equality means freedom for all from government interference. If we end government interference in health care and education, America’s doctors and educators would be liberated to offer education and medicine at all different price points, and we would see quality and price improvements just like with computers, blenders, and HDTV sets.
This returns me to my primary point. These benefits require each of us to recognize the moral principle that a man has a right to enjoy whatever he produces. No one has the right to take it away, and no one has the right to something for nothing.
RS
1) Your point leads precisely back to your underlying belief that the natural world of freedom, in essence Darwinism, produces a moral and just society. I'm not sure why you don't believe that human beings can and do prey upon each other, that predation can be political, social, or economic, and that not all of it is "productive."
2) Shared Assumption: Some inequality is necessary, and some inequality spurs growth, and some inequality is inevitable.
Your conclusion: Every conceivable level of inequality is inherently constructive.
My conclusion: Massive inequality can and does breed political instability.
3) Ultimately, even though I can see how your beliefs have rationality, simplicity, and an elegance to them, I don't for a second believe that civilization, society, and humanity itself is so simple and reducible to formulas.
1.)
I do believe that predatory actions take place. Indeed, the taxes that would go to pay for this socialized medicine edifice that Obama seeks to establish are in themselves predatory, as they are one group of people expropriating the wealth of another, for their own needs. The government, backed by the threat of force or punishment, is the intermediary in this predatory conduct.
You misunderstand what I’m espousing. I’m stating that any predatory conduct is immoral. Be it by the hand of those taking from those who make money, or by the hand of those that make money taking from the less fortunate. As immoral conduct, predatory behavior should be condemned.
2.)
I agree with you that massive inequality can and does breed political instability. I think where we differ is that those who are being “unstable” fail to realize that by expropriating the product of those that earned it, they are being immoral.
3.)
Agreed. But as dogmatic principles, I think they form a foundation for future extrapolation, sort of a rugged individualist version of “The Principles of Leninism”.
Anonymous Commenter: My hunch was wrong. You are not who I thought you are. Thus, I rescind calling you "Bitch."
Thus...
RS. I'm going to transfer and redirect the "Bitch" comment to you. And laugh how your hierarchy of morality has "pursuit of profit" at it's pinnacle. Not, you know...morality...
And seriously, you gotta stop pretending that Socialism and Communism are remotely effective tools for waging the conservative war. I don't identify with it any more than you identify with references to Fascism and Hitler.
I do have one question though...can you explain how your concept of economic free markets differs from Darwinism?
thanks for the link and the rescind.
--anonymous commenter from before, who happens to be reading pollan and who is definitely not r.s.
http://www.svamp.eu/cocks/?url=http://adevelopingmind.blogspot.com/
Curses! I was too excited by the prospect of mockery to preview! Try this instead:
http://snipurl.com/26h3p
I suspect this will only amuse a very small percentage of your readership (namely, me).
HA. What the hell is wrong with you?
I saw that on the burchblog and I could NOT figure out who could have posted that. (between you and Sarah basically...)
Dude, I wasn't attempting to use communism and socialism by referring to "The Principles of Leninism". Rather, I was merely pointing out that when Stalin wrote "The Principles of Leninism" in 1924, he boiled down complex principles to a few simple dogmatic ones. Which was what I was doing. There isn't an individualistic example which came to mind.
Let me puzzle out that economic free market / darwinism question you asked. I'm sure there are differences.
RS
P.S. I'm still jazzed about having been inside Nixon's helicopter on Monday.
I agree blog readership is taking a hit. Has ADM thought of a creative campaign to keep his ratings up, especially in the summer months?
I would offer some suggestions, like "puppies, puppies, puppies"...but if I'm not stuck in the library avoiding work, I'm not sure how often I'll actually blog...
...except for...I guess...the...bar exam....FUCK.
More political analysis? Or are you afraid Obama's in real trouble?
RS
I don't really ever have much to offer in the way of political "analysis": unless by political analysis you mean explaining to you why you're wrong.
If you'll notice, this long political discussion took place in a post about vegetables.
Post a Comment