The Law of Unintended Consequences

MANILA, April 11 — More than anywhere else in Asia, the soaring price of rice has become a good-vs.-evil drama in the Philippines, one of the world’s largest importers of rice.

Traders who fiddle with the price of the nation’s all-important staple now face life in prison. Police are raiding warehouses in search of hoarders. Soldiers and police have been mobilized to help sell government-subsidized rice to the poor.

Philippines Caught in Rice Squeeze, By Blaine Harden, Washington Post Foreign Service,Saturday, April 12, 2008

I was a Peace Corps Volunteer in the Peace Corps in the late 1980s; in fact, this story was brought to my attention by the discussion list started last year by the organizers of our 20th anniversary reunion.

I keep thinking about how they used to dry the rice on the roads. I’d go for bike rides and have to go around these patches of grain laid out to dry. The farmers had an incredible sense of balance, too, walking over these slippery, mud-covered ridges that separates one rice field from another.

I hate to invoke the old adage of the right-wing economists, but it is ironic that these farmers are now suffering exactly because their crops are suddenly so valuable. Even more ironic, the scarcity of rice seems linked to the demand for ethanol in the west. Maybe the appropriate saying is some variation on ‘feed the fever, starve the cold.’

Abolition

Yes, we mean real slavery. People held against their will, forced to work and paid nothing. Sometimes the slave holder ‘pays’ a few grains of rice to keep the slaves alive, or uses a bogus payment that the slave holder reclaims at the end of the month. But the end result is what slavery is today and has always been—one person controlling another and then forcing them to work.

Through Free the Slaves’ research, first published in Kevin Bales’ Disposable People, our conservative estimate is that there are 27 million people in slavery today. This means that there are more people in slavery today than at any other time in human history. Slavery has existed for thousands of years, but changes in the world’s economy and societies over the past 50 years have enabled a resurgence of slavery.

FreeTheSlaves.net

I keep thinking and hearing about the world out there, hidden for the last eight years or so by this fog of rhetoric about terrorism, a tactic disguised as a movement. Here’s an awful problem that could be solved in just a few years, as easy as going to the moon, if only we paid attention.

Deconstructing Organic

See which of the country’s largest food producers are behind your favorite organic snacks.
Words By Phil Howard
Illustrations By GOOD magazine

GOOD and Phil Howard show you who really owns the family companies that make your smoothies and cracked wheat.

Good Magazine

I lived in the ICC housing co-ops in Austin, Texas, in the 1980s, while I was an undergraduate, and we bought all of our food either through food clubs or a local food cooperative called Wheatsville. At first, Wheatsville was nothing more than a kind of warehouse; you volunteered a few hours in order to become a member and you got access to all sorts of fresh food, mainly produce and whole grains.

Eventually, Wheatsville grew into a proper if small grocery store, owned and run by its employees and members. I never worked there, or even became an active member, but I shopped there regularly and I kept up with the often raucous debates that seemed to always drive the decision making over the direction of the co-op. Everything had to be decided collectively: irradiated foods, plastic bags, how and what to recycle, the redesigned storefront.

Even from a distance it was maddening and frustrating and exciting all at the same time. Often, too, when you went to Wheatsville you felt more than a little of a kind of self-righteous competitiveness. The bike people glared at you because you came on a motorcycle; the backpack people probably didn’t like the people who used paper bags; the people with dreadlocks thought the punks with bleached hair lacked commitment.

Still, Wheatsville opened up the world of food and politics for me in many ways. It was the first place I ever saw whole-bean coffee and Melitta coffee pots and filters. I used to love their deli made pimento cheese salad and turkey sausages. Wheatsville was the real thing: a new form of ownership designed to encourage a very different way of thinking about food that was environmentalist, feminist, progressive.

At about the same time, just south of the river, Whole Foods opened. At first it seemed similar: a small store that carried fresh vegetables, local brown eggs, cheeses that you could not get anywhere else. The same crowd: punks, Rastafarian wanna bes, college students. When floods destroyed the first store, everyone chipped in to help, just as they would at Wheatsville. Whole Foods had a completely different agenda, though.

It was privately owned, for one thing, and it wanted to be profitable and to grow beyond a single store. It had a creepy, messianic feel to it and an equally creepy if passive aggressive anti-worker agenda. Whole Foods declared itself too advanced to need unions. Maybe the Wheatsville rhetoric seems a little tired and dated, but its shadow twin has now become,”the world’s leading retailer of natural and organic foods, with more than 270 stores in North America and the United Kingdom.”

I went overseas for several years and when I moved back to Austin in the 1990s Whole Foods was well on its way towards becoming the Wallmart of the organic foods retailers. The Whole Foods story prefigures the evolution of the organic food industry illustrated in Howard’s charts. It took a great idea, drained it of all of what made it important and new, and then mass marketed the resulting empty shell. It’s a sort of institutionalized hypocrisy that’s become all too common.

OMG Johnny Can’t Read

The other week was only the latest takedown of what has become a fashionable segment of the population to bash: the American teenager. A phone (land line!) survey of 1,200 17-year-olds, conducted by the research organization Common Core and released Feb. 26, found our young people to be living in “stunning ignorance” of history and literature.

This furthered the report that the National Endowment for the Arts came out with at the end of 2007, lamenting “the diminished role of voluntary reading in American life,” particularly among 13-to-17-year-olds, and Doris Lessing’s condemnation, in her acceptance speech for the Nobel Prize in literature, of “a fragmenting culture” in which “young men and women … have read nothing, knowing only some specialty or other, for instance, computers.”

Amy Goldwasse, Salon, March 14, 2008

There has been a real run lately on these sorts of stories. One conservative blogger is even recommending that old chestnut, Why Johnny Can’t Read, as a corrective to what he (or she, but it has to be a he) calls “the entire leftist establishment that has so dominated our culture for decades.” These studies come out regularly, but I think it was Dorris Lessing’s Nobel Prize speech that started this round.

Goldwasse takes a swipe at Lessing, of course, although I get the feeling that she did not read the speech. If she did, then she would know that Lessing’s point was that the powerful always turn technology against the powerless. Why should the Internet be any different? Lessing worries that we have turned some terrible corner, that the powerful have in recent years won a victory that may be impossible to reverse. It’s also fascinating that Lessing herself seems so foreign to writers like Goldwasse.

What I most disagreeable about Goldwasse’s defense of the young is its political naivitee. If you can’t see class, race, and even gender, perhaps because you have fallen in love with a stylish, ironic detachment, it’s hard to see that the Internet might be empowering to some but not all youth. It seems pretty obvious, for example, that the online voices are more affluent than the off line voices and that as usual the affluent voices are getting the most attention.

It is equally obvious that some Johnnys and Janes are getting more help in their reading and writing and computer skills than others. Why wouldn’t the Internet reflect that too? If you take class into consideration, then in effect Goldwasse is defending the privileged. I think she’s right, too, in that the online kids are probably not in much danger of becoming the village idiots of world culture. Even their misbehaviors come from their material advantages. The poor are in a very different boat.