Kobach has been a leading proponent of his state’s strict voter-ID law, which decreased turnout by 2 percent in 2012, according to the Government Accountability Office, with the state falling from 28th to 36th in voter turnout following its implementation.
He’s also been the driving force behind Kansas’s 2011 proof-of-citizenship law for voter registration, which requires voters to show a birth certificate or passport to participate in the political process.
The problem is that the sort of voter fraud these laws are designed to catch barely exists. And many of the stories told in their passing were simply not true.
Now a mathematician has found strong statistical evidence of real anomalies in Kansas’s voting data. Strong evidence of possible wide scale voter fraud.
But it favors Republicans and would have to be in the code of the electronic voting machines themselves.
Analyzing election returns at a precinct level, Clarkson found that candidate support was correlated, to a statistically significant degree, with the size of the precinct. In Republican primaries, the bias has been toward the establishment candidates over tea partiers. In general elections, it has favored Republican candidates over Democrats, even when the demographics of the precincts in question suggested that the opposite should have been true.
Clarkson’s interest in election returns was piqued by a 2012 paper released by analysts Francois Choquette and James Johnson showing the same pattern of election returns, which favor establishment Republican candidates in primaries and general elections. The irregularities are isolated to precincts that use “Central Tabulator” voting machines — machines that have previously been shown to be vulnerable to hacking. The effects are significant and widespread: According to their analysis, Mitt Romney could have received over a million extra votes in the 2012 Republican primary, mostly coming at the expense of Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich. President Obama also ceded significant votes to John McCain due to this irregularity, as well.
It seems that Kris Kobach, who asked Governor Brownback for special powers to prosecute those who commit voter fraud, isn’t interested in investigating it. Beth Clarkson, the mathematician who discovered it sued for access to the paper trail, but the court denied it. She’s attempted to gain access to them through multiple avenues and the Kansas state government is either ignoring her or actively blocking her at every turn.
She then filed an open records request, but officials refused to provide the requested documents. She filed a lawsuit but the judge said the paper records were ballots, even though they didn’t identify the voter, and thus were not subject to the state’s open records law.
A lawsuit she filed in February against Kansas’ attorney general – and later amended to add the Sedgwick County election commissioner and Kobach – sought a court order giving her access to a certain number of voting records to conduct an audit.
She mailed it to the Sedgwick County election commissioner and Kobach, who under state law had 30 days to respond. Neither responded, later saying they weren’t aware they’d received the summons.
One study does not a fact make. The next step for their study is for it to be replicated. They could have made any number of errors in the way they gathered the data, the logic they used to make comparisons or even in their math. Until it has been replicated several times, it is simply a study with a particular result.
Science works in the aggregate, which is something lost on both the average person and the news media. The news media reports every study as a new reality. Contradicting studies end up being reported as if science is waffling back and forth on what is true. By the way, you Mr. Frank, are guilty of this very thing in this article. We have one study which you have declared as “fact”. It is not.
But the issue of science denialism goes much deeper than that. Many people’s issue with certain science “facts” isn’t the science itself. It’s who funded the science and the degree to which that might corrupt the conclusions of a study. Industry funding of science is rampant. For medical studies, 60 - 70% of studies are funded by industry with a stake in a certain result. Meta studies on science funding have found that this does consistently corrupt the results. I’d say the public is right to question them!
That’s not even touching on the dismal level of scientific education in this country. Or the fact that the vast majority of studies are hidden behind paywalls and unavailable to the general public—even those with a scientific background—unless they have a connection to some academic institution.
If we’re going to address the epidemic of science denialism in this country, we’re going to have to do much more than simply chiding those we deem guilty of it.
NPR’s coverage of Bernie Sanders has been terrible. They have focused almost entirely on the horse race aspect of the Democratic primary and have spent very little time talking about Bernie’s policy positions. Or the fact that the majority of Americans support his policy positions. They have almost universally focused on the question “Can he beat Clinton?” and the assumed answer has been “No”.
I think it’s time we remind NPR that they serve us. They rely on our donations to survive. I think it’s time we point out to them that, unless they clean up their act, they may find themselves with a revenue shortfall this year.
Select “Contact the Ombudsman” from the “I want to” drop down menu. Pick a show where you’ve heard poor coverage of Sanders, or pick “other” because all of them have had poor coverage. Then write a message about how you want them to stop covering the horse race, stop belittling Bernie and start covering his issues - fairly. Threaten to pull any current and future donations unless they straighten up and fly right.
This is our country. NPR is public media. It’s supposed to serve us, not the corporations and power elite. Time to remind them of that.
Please share this far and wide so they get a deluge of letters. Thank you.
PS. I put this here because it was the most shareable avenue available to me. Feel free to crib the text for your own blogs, Facebooks, instagrams, what have you. Rewrite it as you see fit, or write your own. Consider it open source, MIT licensed (meaning do as you please with it). I don’t care, I just want NPR bombarded with letters telling them to clean up their act!
This is what several supporters of Darryl Neher’s mayoral bid have said to me. They were answering my expressed concern that he was somewhat conservative. Someone naturally skeptical of the power of government. Someone who would balk from using our city government to solve big problems.
“He’s a pragmatist.”
They weren’t denying the fact that Darryl would shy from tackling big problems. They just viewed this as a virtue. But in the next four to eight years we’ve got a very big problem to face, and we need to use all the tools at our disposal to address it.
We’re Out of Time
In 2009, the Copenhagen Accord set a budget for carbon emissions. If we kept ourselves with in the budget, climate change would still have serious economic consequences, but they wouldn’t be civilization threatening. 1
In 2012, the International Energy Agency released its annual World Energy Outlook. It contains the following alarming statement:
If action to reduce CO2 emissions is not taken before 2017, all the allowable CO2 emissions would be locked-in by energy infrastructure existing at that time.
If we didn’t start aggressively switching to renewable energy sources, we’d have used up all of our budget by 2017. After that, any new emissions would be pushing us further in to the catastrophic consequences range.
Well, it’s 2015, and emissions have only risen. We’re burning more fossil fuels and we’re burning dirtier fossil fuels. Which means we now have less than two years to drastically change course or we lose our chance. We’ll be unavoidably headed for catastrophic consequences.
If emissions keep growing the way they are, then we’re currently headed for warming that is two to three times what our budget would have kept us to.2 This is what the World Bank says we’re currently headed for:
the 4°C scenarios are potentially devastating: the inundation of coastal cities; increasing risks for food production potentially leading to higher under and malnutrition rates; many dry regions becoming dryer, wet regions wetter; unprecedented heat waves in many regions, especially in the tropics; substantially exacerbated water scarcity in many regions; increased intensity of tropical cyclones; and irreversible loss of biodiversity, including coral reef systems.
Keep in mind, this is coming from the World Bank, which means it will have been stripped of language viewed as “alarmist” to prevent upsetting world markets.
Many climate scientists and economists say that what we’re currently heading for is the end of civilization. There’s some give room between the consequences we’re about to lock in and “the end of civilization”. But if we’re going to avoid the latter, we have to move.
The next decade is absolutely key. We have to fundamentally change our society. And we have to do it now. What we do in the next few years determines whether our kids will be living in one of the post apocalyptic landscapes that have so filled our imaginations of late.
Political Pragmatism vs Real Pragmatism
The context in which the question of pragmatism came up was a discussion of implementing municipal broadband here in Bloomington. This is something originally put forward by John Hamilton, Neher’s opponent in the mayoral race. To Darryl’s supporters, municipal broadband is “pie in the sky” and Darryl was pragmatic for dismissing it with “But John, the cost!”
Pragmatism in the context of politics—and as used by Neher’s supporters—all too often means that a politician gives up before even trying. He glances at a problem and says “That’s too hard, there’s a chance I may fail.” That’s not what true pragmatism demands.
True pragmatism is about solving problems. It’s about the intersection of ideals and reality. The true pragmatist doesn’t start from “I can’t.” He starts from “How can I?” He looks at the realities of a problem and tries to find a way through them.
The reality of municipal broadband is that over 450 communities in the US have one form or another of community owned broadband. 89 of those have fiber to the home networks and 40 of those have gigabit or faster speeds. Many are in communities are like Auburn, Indiana. They aren’t large or particularly well funded. They aren’t in particularly friendly states. They are in towns where the administration didn’t say that’s “pie in the sky”.3
They said “How do we do this?”
Bloomington is a city currently dealing with a duopoly. Our choices are Comcast and AT&T. Comcast has previously said that they have no interest in investing in infrastructure. They’re currently making a 97% profit charging us for mediocre broadband, and they’re perfectly comfortable with that. AT&T isn’t any better.
John Hamilton looked at this problem and he asked “How can we fix this?” The answer he found was to form a municipally owned broadband corporation. And now he’s aggressively pursuing that idea. He’s trying to figure out how to make it work by bringing together panels of community leaders, reaching out to people who have made it work in other communities and studying how they did it.
This is the pragmatic approach.
If you watch the debates, you’ll frequently hear Darryl say “We can’t.” When he does offer alternatives they are small, easy things that don’t go very far. Inclusionary zoning? “We can’t.” Housing the homeless? “We can’t.”
John, instead, will say “We can and here’s how…” or else he’ll say “We should investigate that.” John doesn’t shy away difficult things.
This is the approach we need if we’re to do what we must to address climate change.
Acting Now, Acting Here
Bloomington isn’t the “lynch pin to addressing climate change” as one person on Facebook recently accused me of arguing. We’re one city of about 80,000 people. But it should be abundantly clear by now that we can’t depend on international agreements or national policy to address this. Not in time. We have to do what we can here and now, knowing that everything we do buys us all a little more time.
We can only hope that other towns step up to do their part.
At least a few other towns have clearly come to the same conclusion, and they’re moving. After they weren’t able to get their local investor owned utility to switch to renewable energy sources, citizens of Boulder voted to have the city form a municipal energy utility. And Burlington, Vermont recently announced that they were now operating on 100% renewable energy.4
Bloomington needs to be looking at doing similar things. We need to get on renewable energy, any way we can. We also need to be looking at improving our public transit and redesigning our neighborhoods so that residents no longer need to own cars to have freedom of movement. We need to be providing homeowners with the means to retrofit their houses for energy efficiency. We need to be relocalizing our food supply and growing our food all through out and surrounding the city. We need to be fostering a local economy that can produce more of the basic necessities of life. We need to do all this and more. And we need to do it soon.
If the world doesn’t collectively realize the danger we face and act then the children currently being born could well be facing the collapse of civilization in their lifetimes. So says a study funded by the “alarmist” NASA Goddard Space Center.5
We cannot control the rest of the world. We can only control what we do.
We don’t need to have the solutions to these problems. We don’t need to know how to accomplish any of the big things on that huge list above right this minute. We only need a mayor who looks at difficult problems and asks “How?”
John Hamilton is that mayor.
1. The budget would have kept us to a planetary temperature rise below 2 degrees C. It was generally agreed upon that a global average temperature rise of 2C would have economic consequences, but we’d be able to manage them. Here’s the IEA World Energy Outlook.
2. Depending on who you talk to, we’re currently heading for between 4 degrees C and 6 degrees C. The consequences of that much heating are catastrophic and would likely lead to the end of civilization. Here’ s the World Bank, on what 4C warming looks like.
We’ve all known for a while now that voting has little effect on national policy. We’ve watched Bush give way to Clinton, to another Bush and then to Obama and policy never seemed to change. It favored the wealthy, deregulation, interventionist foreign policy and an increasingly over bearing security state. Congress flipped back and forth from Republican to Democrat in that time. Even when Democrats controlled the house, the presidency and the senate with a super majority, we still got the same shlock.
Recently, we got empirical evidence backing the idea that voting has no effect on policy. Page and Gilens released a study examining the last 3 or 4 decades of policy. They compared them to studies of the policy desires of four segments of the American public: the median income earner, the top 10% of income earners, grass roots based interest groups and business based interest groups. Then they compared those desires—measured through opinion polls and collations of publicly stated positions—to the actual policies that got passed.
What they found was that where ever the opinions of the 10% of income earners diverged from those of the other three groups, policy followed the wishes of the top 10%. In other words, the wealthy always get the policies they want. No matter who is in power and what everyone else wants.
There are any number of contributing factors to this reality. Gerrymandered districts contribute to low turnover in the halls of power and lead to incumbents who don’t really have to answer to voters. The media doesn’t really educate the public about their candidates nor enable them to make intelligent choices. The power of moneyed interests further muddles elections and makes it difficult to tell who stands where, plus candidates tend to serve their donors more than their voters.
When candidates do try to make change in office, they often find themselves facing an entrenched bureaucracy that brooks no challenge to existing policies. This is especially true of the military and national security apparatus which tends to either dictate policy to publicly elected officials or to find loop holes through policies it doesn’t like.
Some might argue that low voter turnout is the root cause of all this. It means their favorite enemy—be it Republicans or Democrats—gets elected. But we’ve had full Democratic control of congress and the presidency and likewise for Republicans. Neither presented us with a true change in policy. Neither implemented policies that actually matched what the majority of Americans want.
All of this adds up to one thing: you can’t make change by voting. At least, not on the national level.
So what do we do? Do we stop voting? Do we just keep voting and trying and hope that eventually we’ll manage to elect a congress and president who will change all of this? Do we wait for the judicial branch to save us? Do we take to the streets?
I’ve heard many peers argue that we should stop voting as a form of protest against the system. We know it’s broken, we know it doesn’t work, so don’t feed the illusion. Instead, resist and engage in direct action. Given the turnout in the 2014 midterm election, a mere 36.4% and the worst in over 70 years, it seems many acted on that idea.
That’s fine, but I think if we’re going to keep doing that, then the direct action needs to take place around voting. If we simply don’t show up at the polls, the media and politicians will just assume we’re lazy, apathetic and not paying attention. They’ll berate us and use our inactivity as an excuse to ignore our desires. They’ll declare that if we don’t vote, we don’t have a leg to stand on in complaining about their policy choices.
If we’re going to turn not voting in to a protest of our oligarchy, then we have to do it loudly. We have to shout to the sky that we know we’ll get the same policies no matter who we vote for. We have to picket the polls and pass out copies of the Page and Gilens study. We have to declare all over social media our reasons for not voting. We have to march on our candidate’s offices and demand reforms to retake our democracy. We have to let our officials, our bureaucrats and our media know that the gig’s up. We know they aren’t serving us any more and we’re not going to let them get away with it.
We can’t just quietly stay home. We have to stand and fight!
I’ve shopped a lot at Bloomingfoods over the last 4 years. When I first started shopping there, I assumed the prices were higher because the employees were well cared for.
Over time, I realized that wasn’t really the case. My last article, told the story of my general disillusionment with Bloomingfoods. One of the concerns I mentioned was the lack of a union or employee representatives on the Board of Directors.
It seems that Bloomingfoods employees have decided to rectify the lack of a union part.
I’m generally supportive of the right to unionize. Sure, unions have their problems, but what organization of people doesn’t? Unions are a tool with which workers can advocate for themselves. They provide workers protections in dealing with those who have power over them and give them a strong voice in their workplace. A strong voice they can use to improve that workplace.
So I was pleased to hear about the union organizing drive. I was really hopeful that the Bloomingfoods administration and Board of Directors would use this as a wakeup call. Hopeful that they would respect the push and take advantage of the possibility it offers for additional systems of accountability with in the co-op.
Imagine my disappointment when I heard that the administration had secretly hired a union busting lawyer.
That Has To Be Just A Rumor
At first I was skeptical. I tried to convince myself it was just one of the many overly hyped rumors that have been flying around.
I had the name of the firm, so I decided to do some research. I did a search for the name, Barnes and Thornburg, and “union avoidance”—a poor euphemism for “union busting”, but one that seems to have come in to wide use. Low and behold, right there on their website, I found this.
A union flyer was posted on one of your facility’s employee bulletin board last night. What should you do next?
Fortunately, you don’t have to know the answer—because we do. We have the experience, depth and understanding to deal with any situation at a moment’s notice. We will get you through this – our professionals have worked with employers from coast-to-coast, across most industries and with most of the major unions. Our passion is to preserve a client’s freedom to manage and to assist our clients in helping them remain union-free.
My jaw dropped. I hadn’t expected them to be quite so blatant about it.
From further down the page I found this bit.
An effective union avoidance strategy involves a number of other components, including:
[ ... ]
Rapid Response Capabilities. We have been called in by clients to manage rapid responses to organizing activities and have prepared our entire team with campaign management tools that allow us to quickly address union organizing activities in the event of any card-signing or other union activity.
It’s pretty hard to argue that this isn’t a firm you hire when you want to fight a union organizing campaign. They all but say, “Call us and we’ll help you to remain union free!”
My immediate next thought was “Bloomingfoods cannot have hired these folks, and if they did, the board cannot possibly know about it or have approved it.”
So I reached out to Tim Clougher, the board president. I quoted him the same things I’ve quoted here and linked him to that web page. “Folks involved with the union push are now saying that George placed the law firm Barnes and Thornburg on retainer. Can you please confirm or deny this?”
It took him a little while to get back to me, but when he did, I found myself deeply disappointed by his answer.
Thank you for getting in touch and voicing your concerns to us! Like you, we really care about our Co-op, the employees, the members and our community. We recognize the rights of co-op employees to consider whether they want to join a union or refrain from joining a union. We are resolved to respect co-op employees’ decision on this issue, whatever it might be. Federal law imposes numerous requirements designed to ensure that the process of contemplating a union is free of improper influence. We are committed to making sure the law is followed. We are in the process of learning as much as we can about this situation and our role in this process in order to best represent our members.
We appreciate your continued communication and support in this effort.
On behalf of the BCS Board,
That’s not an answer.
Just to be sure, I casually asked a former labor lawyer that I happen to know and she told me, with the usual disclaimer that this wasn’t legal advice, that there was no law she knew of that would prevent the board from answering my question. Nothing to prevent them from publicly stating the name of the firm or firms they were working with.
There are two possibilities here.
In the first, they are deliberately refusing to answer the question in order to avoid a member-owner backlash. I will only say, that when one finds oneself in a public service position—as serving on the board of a co-op is—wanting to keep something secret for fear of the ire of those you serve, well that’s a darn good hint that you shouldn’t be doing that thing in the first place!
The other possibility is that Tim, the board president, was unable to get a hold of George, the General Manager, to get a yes or no answer to my question in the 26 hours it took him to get back to me. Personally, I think this is unlikely, but should the board plead lack of knowledge, I will only say that it makes me question their ability to provide adequate oversight of the Bloomingfoods administration.
A strong employee union would help in that regard, by the way.
At this point, I have confirmation from one of the union organizers that Bloomingfoods has consulted with one Nathan A. Baker of Barnes and Thornburg.
I’ll quote a relevant section of his publicly posted profile.
His labor relations practice has also included all aspects of traditional labor law. He has represented management in union-free training, arbitration hearings, unfair labor practice charges before the National Labor Relations Board and union organizing drives and counseled clients through strikes and lockouts. Nathan also represents employers in collective bargaining negotiations as well as in resisting union organizing attempts.
He represents employers in “resisting union organizing attempts.” Is there a clearer way to say “he helps employers bust unions”? This is what a modern union buster looks like. They aren’t tough goons with sticks anymore (most of the time). They’re lawyers.
The biggest problem with the co-op hiring one of these guys is that it makes it impossible for us to give the board and the co-op’s admin the benefit of the doubt.
Plausible deniability is these union avoidance lawyers’ bread and butter. The whole reason they can do what they do is that they are experts at staying in the grey area just inside the red line—or at dancing over it in ways that are very hard to trace back to them.
If we, as member owners of the co-op, truly respect the right of Bloomingfoods employees to consider unionizing, then we cannot allow the administration to continue to consult one of these lawyers.
I really want to believe Tim when he says, “We recognize the rights of co-op employees to consider whether they want to join a union or refrain from joining a union. We are resolved to respect co-op employees’ decision on this issue, whatever it might be.” But as long as Bloomingfoods is consulting a lawyer who specializes in “resisting union organizing attempts”, I can’t.
The egregious lack of transparency only worsens this state of affairs.
The Way Out
I want to give the Bloomingfoods board and administration staff the benefit of the doubt. But so long as they are following the classic union busting playbook by secretly hiring a union avoidance lawyer, and so long as they blatantly dodge my requests for transparency in the matter, I cannot.
I have to assume they’re following the union busting playbook intentionally, because the first line of that playbook is “Maintain the appearance of respecting the worker’s right to organize.” Every other line in the playbook is about undermining that very right. It’s the most divisive and deceitful playbook out there and is wholly unbecoming of a cooperative.
So, Tim, Bloomingfoods board and administration staff, if you want to win back my trust and repair some of the damage you’ve done in the last few weeks, here’s what you can do.
Start by being transparent. Publicly state whether you’ve consulted with, retained or hired Nathan. Clarify his role in your deliberations and the nature of those deliberations.
Next, fire him. A union avoidance lawyer has no place in a cooperative environment. There are many lawyers who can advise the co-op as to the legal intricacies involved in this process who refuse to engage in any sort of union avoidance. These are lawyers who we, as member owners, can trust to provide truly neutral, objective advice to the co-op. I know some local labor supporters who are currently assembling a list of such neutral lawyers. If the board doesn’t have it already they should have it shortly.
Finally, maintain transparency through out the rest of this process. Be open and honest with us about your worries with respect to Bloomingfoods unionizing. Tell us what your lawyers are telling you. Give the union organizers a chance to respond. Allow us to have a truly objective, open air and cooperative discussion about the benefits and pitfalls of unionization.
Then stand back and let the employees make their decision.
Please, allow us to deal with this as a cooperative and not adversarially as labor supporters fighting an untransparent corporation.
Why do I shop at Bloomingfoods? This is a question I’ve found myself pondering recently. It started last Thanksgiving when my mother returned to living in town full time. We went shopping for the big meal and I was trying to convince her to go to Bloomingfoods instead of Kroger or (god forbid) Sam’s Club.
Her primary value when purchasing food has always been quality first and low price a close second. She seems pretty representative of a large share of the American populace who have been indoctrinated with the idea that the most patriotic thing they can do is consume. And the best way to consume is to find a deal.
I was trying to talk her out of this conditioning, but found myself unable to craft an argument in favor of Bloomingfoods. I could only argue against the alternative. Through out the discussion her point was, “I can get the same stuff at Kroger for much less.” I couldn’t respond with the statement that Bloomingfoods takes care of its employees, I know that it doesn’t. Meanwhile, Kroger has unionized labor. So why shouldn’t my mom go to Kroger to get the same products for less? And why don’t I?
Why do I continue to shop at Bloomingfoods?
I’ve been a Bloomingfoods member owner since I moved back into town about four years ago. While away at college I became involved first in the local food movement, and then with the environmental, sustainability and permaculture movements. When I returned to Bloomington I knew I wanted to get involved in all of these movements locally. Joining the coop was one of my first moves in that direction.
I was really excited to be a part of it. I had images of a business I would have a say in. That I could volunteer for—like the coop I’d briefly been a part of in New York. One that would take care of its workers, seek out local and organic food and try to minimize its environmental impact. One that would actively try to do good in the world and one that I could happily support.
Almost immediately part of that image began to dissipate. There were no volunteer opportunities—that I knew of. There was no way I could lower my price burden by working for the coop, as there had been in the New York cooperative. 1 I told myself I would make it back with the end of the year profit sharing check. This coop just used a different mechanism. But when that check showed up, it was a measly $30—after I’d spend thousands.
It also quickly became apparent that there was almost no transparency. The newsletter didn’t talk about coop issues. The minutes from board meetings were conspicuously absent. Indeed, until recently I had no idea when board meetings even were. They weren’t advertised.2 The newsletter mostly included fluff articles and local events. I had no idea what was going on internally to the coop, and no clear channel for finding out.
It took befriending many of the coop’s employees for the rest of this vision to chip away.
As I became more and more privy to internal gossip, I learned that the employees weren’t actually well cared for. Loyal employees who’d worked there for years were still working part time and making below living wage. There was no union, nor any kind of employee representation on the board. The employees at the bottom felt like they had no channel through which their voices could be heard.
The more I shopped at Bloomingfoods, the more I realized that they carried very little local produce. What they did carry all seemed to either not be labelled with its origin or came from one farm, Stranger’s Hill. As it turns out, George Huntington, the general manager has partial ownership of Stranger’s Hill. Most of what Bloomingfoods carries is big organic. Much of it is even conventional.
As I got to know local farmers, I started to learn about what the coop required of them in order to carry their produce. One local farmer I spoke to told me that he had given up trying to sell to Bloomingfoods. When he’d attempted in the past he’d been told to match the prices of the big organic farms in California. Which is impossible for him to do, and unreasonable for a coop to ask of him.
And yet, even as I learned all of this it never translated into questioning my shopping there. Until I tried to convince my mom to follow suit, and realized I couldn’t.
So, now I am on a quest. A quest to understand what’s going on with Bloomingfoods. Why is it that this coop operates in a manner apparently so far from its advertised values? And what can we, as member owners, do to change this? Are there good reasons for the ways in which it departs from its mission statement and image? Or is it simply a matter of poor management and member owners who haven’t demanded better? I hope to find out, and to start a conversation among member owners. What can we do to make Bloomingfoods do better?
1. A friend and Bloomingfoods employee has informed me that there are, in fact, volunteer opportunities. Any member owner can volunteer 2 hours in a week for a 10% discount that week. This fact just isn’t widely advertised. To quote “We have 11,000 members, obviously we can’t have them all volunteering.” In the course of writing this article, a page describing the opportunities appeared on the Bloomingfoods website.
2. After receiving pressure from both employees and several member owners, the times and locations of the board meetings are now advertised on the website.
On Tuesday March 11th 2014, I finally closed on the house that I have been trying to buy for the past year. It has been a long and arduous journey just to get to this point. So much went wrong that that I went to the closing still convinced another shoe would fall. Even after all the paper work was signed I was sure something more could go wrong. But it didn’t. The house was, at last, mine.
In the wee hours of the next morning, I awoke in a deep panic. The purchase process had been so long because no bank would lend on the home. It’s a bit a of a fixer upper, to put it lightly. Foundational issues, bad wiring and plumbing, a leaky roof. The one terrifying me at that instant, as freezing rain fell in a light pitter patter, was the foundation.
Now, here, you might ask, “Daniel, why on Earth did you buy this place?” It’s a fair question. I wanted a house in town, but with enough land that I could build an urban homestead on it. I wanted to be close to Dandelion Village. I wanted a small house and a big lot. But mostly, I’d made the mistake of renting the house before buying it and I’d fallen in love with it. Despite all its flaws, it had become home.
I ended up paying more than it was worth. It was underwater and I didn’t feel like trying to compete with institutional buyers in a short sale. Maybe I wouldn’t have had to. But by the time we got to that point, I’d already been through two attempts at obtaining a mortgage. I’d been at it for over 8 months. I had spoken to every kind of contractor on the planet. I knew what the home was worth, and I knew every single thing that was wrong with it. It was a long list. But, after all of that, I still wanted it. I ended up essentially paying for the land and 3 - 5 years worth of rent. Whether or not that’s what I’ve actually purchased remains to be seen.
The economics of the whole thing get better if I can start getting most of my food from the land right away. And so, I haven’t wasted time getting started on building the long dreamed of urban homestead. Before the closing, I had started laying down mulch as the foundation of four raised beds in the front yard. If things fell through and I ended up walking away, I figured I could just move the mulch onto Dandelion’s land. But closing went through and I forged ahead.
I’d originally purchased the mulch from Good Earth intending to lay it down in the side yard. Every time it rains the whole thing turns to a muddy slush that the dogs track all through the house. I was expecting the mulch to be something closer to wood chips. What I got was half way between finely ground mulch and compost. It was never going to work as mud prevention. I wound up ordering straight woodchips to use for the side yard and was left with 10 yards of composting mulch. Perfect for the raised beds I’d been planning.
I used the mulch to build the bed’s foundation and then I ordered a load of compost from Bloomington Speedway Mulch. I’d heard that Speedway’s compost was more nutritious than Good Earth’s. What arrived was not quite what I expected. Instead of well aged, rich humus, I got a fairly light and dry powder that smelled strongly of shit and ammonia. It was almost raw manure and there was clearly too much nitrogen and not enough carbon. Suddenly I was very glad I’d laid the foundation of the bed with mulch. The mulch would absorb much of the excess nitrogen and the two would combine and rot to form the perfect soil.
I decided to layer the two, lasagna bed style. On top of the foundation of mulch I put a solid layer of compost. Then a somewhat thinner layer of mulch, and a thinner layer of compost. Finally, a very thin layer of mulch, just enough to cover the surface. The beds wound up almost two feet high. They’ve settled quite a bit since then. I’m still a little worried that they’ll be a bit too nitrogen heavy and burn out the roots of my plants, but we’ll see. Hopefully I reached the right balance of mulch and compost. Either way, next year they’re going to be amazingly fertile.
In the mean time, I’m was still fretting about the foundation. The house sits on the side of a steep east facing hill. There’s several acres worth of run off that flows down the hill, and right up against the west side of the house every time it rains. Much of it flows into the basement and gets pumped out by the sump pump. All of this puts pressure on the already bowing cinderblock basement wall. There’s a solid 2 cm crack running horizontally down a seam of the blocks right at the frost line. Directly west of the west wall is a particularly steep section of hill. Whenever it rains with any force at all a large puddle forms on the surface of the ground, right up against the west wall.
To alleviate some of this pressure, I dug a drainage trench directing the water out around the front of the house and down the hill. I’m not sure what I’m going to do over the long term. Visions of terraces, digging out the wall to in fill with gravel, and ponds in the front yard swim in my head. I’ll probably need to do some more research to figure out exactly what my options are.
The closing has acted as the starting gun. It released me from my long wait behind the gate and allowed me to act on dreams I’ve been nursing for over a year. I’m glad to be working and it’s wonderful to see my dreams begin to take shape. But man, do I have my work cut out for me.
I recently read Mockingjay, by Susan Collins, book 3 of the Hunger Games series and I have to admit, I wasn’t thrilled.
Collins piled on the pain with out providing catharsis. She was doing plot gymnastics in order to deliever repeated sucker punches. I know what she was going for, the horrors of war and all that. But it resulted in a story that just didn’t hold together very well.
As the story progressed, the punches took their toll. I started falling into a deep depression. But it wasn’t the bittersweet that comes from a sad story, well told. It was a state of delirium and disbelief.
Katniss spends much of the book cycling repeatedly between hospital beds and states of near psychological collapse. When your narrator and window into a world are constantly delirious, it follows that you will be a bit woozy. But Collins takes it to an extreme in Mockingjay, and I spent large poritions of the book positively nautious.
Eventually, the disjointed writing that characterized Katniss’ trauma followed her to portions of the story where it didn’t belong. As if Collins had gotten stuck in that mode of writing and had lost the ability to write with the crispness and vividness of the first two books.
The whole book takes on a nightmarish Groundhog’s Day quality.
When the end finally rolled around, I was ready for it to be over. I wanted a catharsis. At least, as long as she wasn’t going to go full 1984 on me. But if she was going to provide a happy ending, then it ought to have been one that made me feel something.
As it was, the handful of pages she devoted to the aftermath felt weak. As if she was just phoning it in, glad to be done with it all. They weren’t vivid enough to make me feel anything.
Throw it all together and the result is a book that just doesn’t cut it. The rest of the series was wonderful. A well told story set in an excellently crafted world with a thought provoking allegory woven through. But Mockingjay was a dud.
With Fridge to Food 3.1, I decided to slim things down and remove some features that I’d previously thought were integral. The more I thought about it, the less sense it made to me to have users “own” recipes. Very few recipes are actually invented by the person who shares them. Rather they are found in a blog post, the author of whom found them in a book, the writer of which was taught them by their mom and so on. Recipes are common knowledge, passed down from person to person. Tweaked, shared and then tweaked again. Yes, chefs sometimes do “invent” new recipes. As in, make them up with out finding them. But often as not, someone else had already “invented” that recipe independently. They were invented and forgotten about. Invented and not shared, or just invented and kept quietly in the family.
I realized that I was hesitant to post any recipes, even as “community” recipes. I didn’t feel I owned them. But that beat the whole point of Fridge to Food. I started Fridge to Food because I wanted to be able to search a database of recipes by ingredients and by tags. And I wanted to be able to rate those recipes by voting, instead of stars. In hanging on to this feature that was preventing me from using Fridge to Food, I was beating the whole point of the site in the first place.
So I removed the users from everything, except the photographs. You no longer “own” the recipes you post. You just share them. I removed reputation, because with out the ability to “own” recipes it doesn’t make any sense to build a reputation with them. And really, what did reputation mean before? That you were good at finding and recognizing good recipes? That’s not what it was supposed to mean. It’s gone. No reputation. No ribbons, no ownership of recipes.
For now, your user account will still remain attached to the recipes you post so that you can edit them. At least for a while. I will probably change it so that it detaches after some amount of time.
Photographs will remain owned, because they are copyrighted by the user who posts them.
Every so often I get depressed. I don’t know what causes it to come and I don’t know what makes it go. It sneaks up on me. Coming on so gradually that I don’t even notice it until it’s here.
When it starts, I feel a little melancholy. But only a little. I can easily write it off as a minor, momentary glumness. I’m just low energy. I need to rest and recharge, that’s all. Days pass and it grows stronger. Melancholy develops into sadness.
I go searching for reasons. Trying to rationalize it, trying to pin it on some life event. My relationships aren’t fulfilling enough. My friends aren’t there for me when I need them. My life isn’t stable. I’m failing at work. It could all come crashing down at any moment.
None of these things have changed from the week before when I was perfectly happy. When my friendships were deep, fulfilling and numerous. When my life’s instability seemed manageable. And when I had confidence in my abilities at work.
The truth is that I go seeking those thoughts. I want to be sad and I want to give that sadness a reason.
In this state, I seek out powerful emotions. I seek out music, television, movies and books that will at once feed my melancholy and allow me to escape from it. Stories, songs or poems that will take me on an emotional roller coaster. That will make me feel, intensely. That will make me cry, from sadness or bittersweet happiness.
I wallow. I want to wallow. I can’t stop wanting to wallow. And that makes me sad.
Eventually, I start getting distracted by life. I go out and spend time with friends. I get exercise. I’m productive at work. I forget to be sad. And suddenly, I’m happy. Or content, anyway. The desire for sadness is gone. Just as it snuck up on me, it slips away and life goes on.
I’ve used Wordpress to run my site for several years. I loved the blogging and writing tools it provided me, but struggled with site design. The default Wordpress theme is bland. But days spent digging through the free theme archives always ended in frustration. I attempted to learn the theming system several times, but always gave up. It felt overcomplicated. So I resigned myself to being disatisfied with my own website.
In August of 2012, I started working at EllisLab. My first task was to learn ExpressionEngine. I quickly grew to appreciate the Channel module and templating system. They’re clean and straight-forward and they force very little on me. With in days, I was eager to switch over. But I kept putting it off, never quite feeling as though I had the time.
I finally got started last May. The redesign and rebuild took shockingly little time. I completed it in an evening here or a weekend there and in no time I found myself with a mostly finished site needing only content. The rest of the time since then has been focused on just that, creating content. Which, when you think about it, is exactly what a content management system should allow you to focus on!
So here we are, the new site is launched. It’s still rather lacking in content, but time will fix that. I love the new design. I love that ExpressionEngine enabled me to create a design I’m happy with. Now I can finally stop cringing every time I visit my own site and focus on what matters, my writing.