The Gastrocast

The blog behind the Gastrocast Cooking show

October 20th, 2006

WA Candidate Positions

As you all probably know I am a one position voter. I don’t vote along party lines–I vote on issues.
This year one issue trumphs every other one, for this one issue will decide all others–seriously.

It may seem a small thing to you if you don’t have animals, or aren’t a farmer and don’t know any. But it does matter to you if you eat food or intend on being a free citizen in America with you Constitutionally Granted Rights intact. Trust me. If the National Animal ID System gets put in place the way the USDA and all involved intend–it’s not about what they SAY, but what is INTENDED–it will be a dark day for everyone. Not only is NAIS a precursor for REAL ID, but also component of Agenda 21 and the final death of North American Sovereignty. We will no longer be a free people if we allow our Government to tag, track and enumerate our animals, our property, or our time. This is about control. The sort of control we don’t want.

Click on the photo to see a larger version. This is a partial list of the Washington State Candidates and their position on NAIS. Those that are Pro are very pro, towing the party line. Those that are Anti, understand the implications. Those that are on the fence are either unwilling to commit a position, don’t understand the issue and why it matters to them, or don’t want to be bothered. This list is partial and will be updated soon.

So, if you are in Washington, please have a look at this list. Familiarize yourself with this important issue–NAIS–and let it help you chart your voting course. It isn’t easy. I am not in favor of incumbents on the whole. If they haven’t done any good by now, they probably won’t. However, if they have a clear stance–what ever party they are for–then that should be reviewed. Other, independant candidates should be given an equal chance. Hopefully this November 7th they will.

Popularity: 8% [?]

October 20th, 2006

Don’t Judge. . .

. . .lest ye be labeled a Noxious Weed. This article in Capial Press got me started off this morning on what was otherwise a piss-poor beginning to the day. Just what makes a Noxious Weed, Noxious? The word Noxious was defined as:

       injurious to physical or mental health; "noxious chemical wastes"; "noxious ideas"

originally. However it has been re-defined, now, to mean:

      undesirable, troublesome, difficult to control or eradicate

when it comes to agriculture or the great outdoors. But what is it about these troublesome plants that make the Government think they should control them? In general they are not toxic, or deadly, or even stinky. Many are very pretty, can be eaten and are useful. Livestock don’t seem to mind eating them, nor do wild animals. So what is it about them that boils my blood?

Not only have I been forced to erradicate species of Noxious Weeds on my own property. Species which have been here for 50 years at least, and don’t seem too keen to go away. I have to focus countless hours a year to controlling these "weeds" which keep coming back, which don’t particularly bother anyone and which are actually a food for many of the island’s critters. But also the very act of being told that 1) they are "Noxious" and 2) they must, upon pain of financial loss–fines–be removed, erradicated and destroyed at all cost.

There is something very wrong with this. Something very "UN" about this and something highly suspiscious. Are weeds on the rise? Is rampant urbanization causing the weeds to crowd into undeveloped areas at an alarming rate? Or has a group of Elitists decided that all Non-Native Species in the US will be removed from our borders?

These weeds are generally neither noxious nor highly invasive–but that is the perception being placed upon them. Good minded citizens with nothing better to do are putting their shoulders to the campaign with zeal. Money is spent, war is waged, groups formed and money is gathered. The lobbiests prod the government into action and push their agendas forward. The government spends our tax dollars telling us what to do. And we spend our money again, doing it.

With a few exceptions–weeds which are deadly to livestock, but which also happen to be Native–most Noxious Weeds are harmless. We grow many of these "weeds" in our garden. Some of which are on the erradication lists. They may take an area over–but who are we puny humans to stop that? Mother Nature, Gaia, or whatever spiritual being you see this lump of rock we live on as, has its own plan. Rather than spend money controlling things which are futile–the spread of pollen, seeds and plant life, why not control pesticides, fertilizer abuse and the poisoning of the Earth? Let’s deal with hunger, poverty, aids, cancer, drug abuse. Let’s find a healthier way to raise our foods. Let’s not worry about weeds–the spread of which is a by-product of the destruction of Farming in our nation.

So next time you hear the words Noxious and weed used together, stop and think what it really means. Ask the person telling you or trying to convince you they must be dealt with why they are trying to destroy nature and biological diversity in our country. Ask them where they get the authority to tackle this problem and why it is only been in the last 10 years that Noxious Weeds have been such a problem–weren’t they as noxious before? Take care to point out to them the loss of crop-land and farmers has led to this predicament and the overuse of chemicals exacerbates the issue. Tell them it’s not the weeds which need controlled, but the people. The people at the top–the executive of the Multi-national Agri-Corps, the leaders in DC. They are more noxious than any weeds I know of.

Certainly weeds are pests. I battle them in the garden and around the farm every year. I pick, hoe and spade many to keep the sheep healthy, to have better vegetables. I even eat many.  I let the livestock and chickens feed on them, yet they keep coming back–no matter how hard I try. Even years ago, before I was a convert–Round-up, weed killers, and now natural methods. They are still here. But if you stop to look at them closely they are beautiful in their own right. As Mas Masumoto has said (to paraphrase) to truly end your weed problem, re-define what you call a weed. Find a way to live with them, work within their limitations and they will set you free. Sure you will still have to tackle them, but with smarts and sense your work load will be reduced.

So don’t judge the weeds, lest you become one–a poisonous entity spreading malcontent and dis-harmony without knowing why. Instead, research the whys and wherefores behind anything which doesn’t quite make sense or that you’ve never heard of before. Question any program which uses your tax dollars to charge you or cost you more money in the long run. Take a stand against the noxious weed lobby–by demanding less rules for a local food system. An easier time for small farmers. More farming diversity–hence biological diversity–ergo less weeds. Control, and weeds, are in the eye of the beholder. Take care which is being controlled–the weeds or you.

      

Popularity: 13% [?]

|