this ain't livin'

On Elections | 23Oct06

My absentee ballot for Mendocino County was forwarded to me, and it arrived in the mail on Saturday. I’m waiting to see if my registration for San Francisco goes through in time—if it doesn’t, I will return my ballot to Mendocino so that I’ll have voted somewhere.

But I’m also interested in the Mendocino County election, because there’s some interesting stuff going on, especially with the race for district attorney. The incumbent, Norm Vroman, died a few days before I turned my back on Fort Bragg, and I remember chortling to myself as I passed a “Vroman for DA” sign on Highway 128.

I would have voted for Meredith Lintott anyway, because I thought she was the better candidate and I wouldn’t vote for Vroman on principle. With Vroman’s death, it seemed like a fait accompli for her, not that she needed it.

So I was surprised when I called my father last week, and he told me that Keith Faulder, the assistant DA, had been appointed interim DA, and was mounting a campaign to try and convince voters to vote for Vroman anyway, so that the County would appoint Faulder if Vroman “won” the election. A surprising number of people have apparently hopped on board with this harebrained scheme, and my father got several mailings about it.

Now, I’m not a big fan of Keith Faulder, for an assortment of reasons. Not least of which is the cases that Faulder cited as “triumphs” for his record. I happen to disagree with the verdict on one of them, and feel that Faulder achieved it through some underhanded dealings. Now an innocent man is in prison for a crime he didn’t commit, his reputation forever tarnished.

However, and more importantly, I dislike his assumption that the county will appoint him if Vroman is elected. If he wanted to be the District Attorney, he should have run for the position. He shouldn’t be able to ride on Vroman’s dubious coattails to a position he didn’t earn, and voters shouldn’t be supporting it. Faulder could campaign as a write in candidate, after all.

Keith Faulder was admitted to the California Bar in 1993, after graduating from Thomas Jefferson School of Law. Thomas Jefferson is a mail order law school. Students never actually attend classes at a campus, or interact with other students. They can complete their degrees entirely through online study. While this kind of education is sometimes appropriate, I’m not sure it’s the best choice for legal education, which requires extensive rhetoric, ethics, and government background. I think that a physical law campus provides the best education, and I’m not sure I want a mail order diploma running the DA’s office of Mendocino County. There are complex legal issues unique to Mendocino which I think require a more extensive legal education.

The story has begun to garner some attention elsewhere in the state as another peculiar Mendocino happening, with newspapers like the Press Democrat weighing in on the issue.

Faulder claims that county residents are “confused about the election process.” Most of the Mendocino County voters I have talked to aren’t confused at all—Vroman’s dead, so they plan to vote for Lintott. And if you vote in Mendocino, you, too, should vote for the candidate who is alive.

I’ll be posting other election endorsements in the coming days, in the traditional “meloukhia’s quick and dirty guide to California elections.”

[California election]

The Way We Live Now | 22Oct06

Few things are as enjoyable as a night spent among friends being hit with big sticks. I’ve got a nice goose egg coming up on my collarbone. Thank Pete I’m not in the corporate world anymore.

At one point, a security guard popped by to check on us.

“No,” I said, “we’re cool.”

I’m sitting in the living room while the Scarab and the Cap’n play chess. Replete with burgers, the roommates are sprawled out on the floor. We might have had a few beers.

Cap’n Raspberry had some cows once. I met them, back in Fort Bragg. One was black. They were cows, you know, your average kind of beast. Tonight I fried up the black one, mixed with salt, pepper, and a little marmalade. I ate mine covered in onions with a little farmer’s cheese. I’ve got the hookup, you know.

I tell you what: those cows never knew inside. They never knew pain and fear. The Cap’n’s father walked up to them one day and said “today is the day,” and then shot them in the head. Then they sent the meat out to be butchered and we are eating the white packaged results like we are eating ourselves, slowly, inside. The meat is in the chest freezer, and when it thaws, it bleeds.

Sometimes I watch the blood pool at the bottom of the bowl and I think about the vibrant throbbing existence it came from. It’s not a bad way to go; today’s the day for a bullet in your head. Watching Fast Food Nation I was struck by our acceptance of cruelty in death. This meat is happy. I can taste it as I roll it, rare, on my tongue. I have no fear. The bitter grey depression that is corporate meat can never compare to this.

The meat is juicy and rich, with touches of outdoor wildness to it. I think mine could use some sri racha but the boys are out. I should probably get out of the habit of eating so much damn sri racha anyway.

Paper Making: The Thrilling Conclusion | 21Oct06

We’re feeling fairy crafty here over on our Toxic Island, reveling in our new made paper. It did take us a few days, I grant, but the results are triumphant. When happened is that although we had intended to make paper on the 18th, the Scarab got busy, so we regrouped yesterday.

Our pulp had been soaking for a very long time. We decided to try the sluicing a screen around in a tub method, rather than the pouring method, but our screens were too large.

No worries, said the Scarab, we’ll just bend them into shape.

One of his housemates offered critical commentary on the process. We showed her!

We blended our well presoaked pulp a little more, and dumped it in a tub with a ton of water. It was fun to play in the sludge.

Here we are pulling out a sheet of the still very wet paper. We could tell already that this method was going to be more successful. The pulp was evenly spread, and looked excellent. We even chortled with glee for a moment before putting this screen on a high tech drying rack:

Don’t try this at home, kids.

We waited eagerly all afternoon for the paper to dry, and it didn’t happen. I was despondant, and could only be cured with the judicious application of Fat Tire. Today, however, I ventured over to the boys’ again, and:

What’s that? Oh…could it be…maybe…PAPER?!

Yeah, that’s right. That there is some PAPER. That WE MADE.

Even Cap’n Raspberry, who is normally too cool for our harebrained projects, was impressed. We promptly dipped every screen in sight in the leftover sludge, and are eagerly awaiting our paper empire.

[paper]

Friday Cat Blogging | 20Oct06

It’s wicked hot here on the Island today, even with all the windows open and the fans going. Loki, like any sensible citizen, is hiding under the bed both because it’s shady, and because it’s marginally cooler.

God, it’s hot. Even the City looks hot, I don’t see the usual miasma of fog.

[cat blogging]

An Ethicurean Dilemma | 20Oct06

I recently wrote a brief opinion piece which was published in the Point Reyes Light. I was hoping that it would appear in the online edition, but it didn’t, so I’m reprinting it here for the edification of those who cannot access paper copies. Enjoy.

It was with great interest that I read the piece Chicken Slaughter: Killing Them Softly in the Pt. Reyes Light this week. In addition to being an eye-opening discussion of smaller scale poultry farming, the article also brought attention to the major loophole in the Humane Slaughter Act which allows poultry to be excluded from regulatory practices.

Ranchers like David Evans are striking a blow for the vegetarian and carnivorous communities alike, because I suspect that both can agree that all living creatures deserve humane treatment, whether they are being eaten or not. There seems to be a growing awareness in the United States about farming and agricultural practices, thanks to authors like Michael Pollan and major news events like the contamination of spinach with Escherichia coli.

More and more consumers are demanding to know the source of their food, and are attempting to find foods that are raised in a healthy and respectful way which is good for the environment, the consumer, and the food source. With a growing population, it’s time to think long term about American agriculture. Factory farming is not working for us: it is not humane, it is not sustainable, and it is not ethical. What it is, right now, is lucrative, and that’s something that is beginning to change.

As a former vegan, I can strongly sympathize with the belief of the vegetarian movement that animals are not for food. However, as a former farm girl, I also feel that animals, when raised and slaughtered in a humane and loving environment, are an acceptable (and tasty) source of protein. In my youth, I raised poultry, sheep, goats, and cattle for food, wool, milk, cheese, and other products, and I participated actively in their slaughter. Working as I do, in the raw vegan community, I am hardly biased on the side of meat consumers!

I’m proud of the Pt. Reyes Light for publishing such a bold article on farming practices, and for forcing their readers to think about the source of their dinner. Reading about the process of creating meat from living creatures can be disturbing, and in my vegan days I argued strongly that people should be exposed to the reality of farming, to where their chicken, beef, and pork were coming from, and that carnivores needed to think carefully before eating meat.

I firmly believe that it is better to be a conscious omnivore than a mindless one, and that there is a growing middle ground between vegetarianism and blind carnivorousness—it’s called being ethical. Being an ethical eater involves eating food in a way which is designed for provide the least harm. None of us are innocent: vegetarians, for example, can credit the commercial agriculture industry with the deaths of mice and other field animals at the teeth of combine harvesters. We should all be striving towards a goal of sustainable agriculture, even if some of us may personally disagree on the ethics of eating animals.

Even Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, one of the most groundbreaking books in the animal rights movement, agrees that it’s better to be an ethical omnivore than a mindless meat eater (or vegetarian). He applauds the growing push towards transparency in farming practices, arguing that anything which exposes the reality of factory farming to the public is a good thing—even if it’s an article which ends in promoting slaughter.

The question for me is not whether or not we have the right to eat animals, or whether we have dominion over them, but whether we have the responsibility to treat all animals ethically, and I think that we do. As fellow living creatures, I think we owe each other respect and humanity, and farmers like Evans are putting these ethics into commercial practice. Furthermore, I applaud articles like this one, which raise thoughts and discussion about animals, and their role in our lives. It is my hope that all readers, vegetarian and carnivore alike, came out of the experience with a desire to amend the Humane Slaughter Act to include poultry. Furthermore, I hope it raised awareness about sustainable farming practices, and led the readers to want to read more, to research alternate methods of obtaining food from wheat grass for juicing to rumps for roasting.

Fast Food Nation | 19Oct06

I stole one of the housemates last night and we went to see a screening of Fast Food Nation in Berkeley with a discussion featuring Michael Pollan and Eric Schlosser afterwards. It’s sort of like going to see a movie and being told “oh, by the way, God will be there afterwards.” I also got to meet Dairy Queen of The Ethicurean, which was awesome. Although because I’m shy the housemate had to shout at her while she was running up the aisle: “hey, are you the Dairy Queen?”

Michael Pollan is a professor in the journalism department at Berkeley, which was sponsoring the screening. And Eric Schlosser wrote the book that inspired the movie, and therefore is being flogged across the country by Fox Searchlight Pictures. Well, maybe not. But he said he was in Colorado the night before, so it sounds like he’s logging a lot of frequent flyer miles right now.

Anyway, spoiler, the cow dies.

But seriously.

I liked the movie. I was surprised that they decided to turn it into a fictionalized account with a factual basis, rather than a documentary, but I liked it. I can respect the choice, because documentaries aren’t often released on movie screens all over the country, although March of the Penguins and Bowling For Columbine are indicators that might be changing. But, in general, documentaries don’t get huge releases.

In many ways, the film reminded me of El Norte or Maria Full of Grace, both fictionalized accounts of very real issues, and both heavily researched. Eric Schlosser obviously cares deeply about the labour issues associated with the fast food industry, looking in this case particularly at meat. Meat packing plants employ illegal immigrants in dangerous jobs without bothering to train them, and workplace injuries are a daily occurrence. This year is the 100th anniversary of The Jungle and as Schlosser pointed out after the screening, The Jungle talked about the abuse of immigrant workers, the terrible conditions in slaughterhouses, the exploitation of animals and men…and we still face the same problems, 100 years later. This seems wrong, in the 21st century.

My primary criticism of the movie ended up being partially addressed after the screening. In all of the slaughterhouse scenes, the slaughterhouse seemed unusually clean and shiny to me. Well washed, no filth and muck and blood everywhere. The scenes on the kill floor seemed highly unrealistic to me, because it was too tidy, and things were moving at a fairly slow pace.

The scenes looked like a real slaughterhouse to me, with real animals obviously dying, so it seemed unlikely that they had wasted budget building a giant set. But it’s also extremely difficult to get into slaughterhouses, and I doubted that the filmmakers had been able to enter and film in a traditional American slaughterhouse. Perhaps they had filmed in a smaller local abattoir for a day?

After the film, Schlosser said that at the screening in Colorado, two of the meat packers he interviewed for the book came up to him afterwards and said that their only criticism is that the slaughterhouse was too clean, and not a realistic reflection of American slaughter practices. It turns out that the factory used in the film is in Mexico, not the United States. And handles 175 cows a day, rather than 400 cows an hour on one line alone, as most American slaughterhouses do. Even in Mexico, they had difficulty being able to film, but when the filmmakers explained the purpose of the film, the owners agreed because of the exploitation of Mexican workers in the United States. The owners seemed to feel that although they were uncomfortable with filming, it highlighted a bigger issue and might improve the lot of Mexican immgrants in America.

So I was glad to have that cleared up, but my concern is that average viewers who don’t happen to have Eric Schlosser on hand to explain things might come away with misconceptions about American slaughterhouses. A viewer might leave the film thinking “well, exploiting immigrants really sucks, but the slaughterhouse looked pretty clean, and the cows were killed humanely.” While the movie touched upon some of the issues associated with a fast moving production line, the slaughterhouse scenes seemed to belie the claims. I strongly believe that there should be a disclaimer on the film, explaining that the packing plant is not a realistic reflection of slaughter practices in the United States.

I almost wish that they had intercut the grainy, illegally shot films of American slaughterhouses into the film. I would hope that the special features in the DVD edition include a discussion of the issue, perhaps including interviews with meat packers, labour activists, and so forth.

Other than this weak point, which I see as extremely serious, the film was excellent. It was a moving portrait of the people who work in slaughterhouses, and the kind of lives that they live. It also showed the underbelly of the fast food industry, in some senses. There was even room for hope in the character of Amber, who begins to explore her activist side in the film, suggesting that all of us could perhaps make a difference eventually.

After the film, one of the audience members asked Eric Schlosser if he thought civilian action or governmental regulation was the solution to the problems of the food industry. I thought it was kind of a stupid question, frankly, because I agree with Schlosser—both are vital. By being active citizens, we pressure the government to make changes, and make it clear that we are not happy with the state of our food. By legislating, the government can effect some changes. But there are things we as citizens can do, personally, as well, like voting with our dollars. If you don’t like an industry, don’t support it.

Afterwards, I drifted up to the stage because I wanted to ask Eric Schlosser about the slaughterhouse in the film, and whether misperceptions by audiences were a concern of his. I was, of course, too shy to actually say anything, but I did listen to Michael Pollan talk about grassfed beef.

It’s certainly a film worth seeing, although the weak of stomach may take exception to the slaughterhouse scenes. Just remember, as you watch it, that most slaughterhouses are hundreds of times worse, that the scenes in Fast Food Nation are tame by comparison to the actual industry, and ask yourself if you are willing to pay that price for meat.

[Fast Food Nation]

Pork Dick | 18Oct06

The Ethicurean’s own Dairy Queen is on the case in the San Francisco Chronicle, after getting curious about “White Marble Farms” pork on the menu at Globe.

There is a growing trend which walks hand in hand with industrial organic—the realization that consumers will feel more secure, and therefore pay more, for “all natural meat.” The only problem is that no one is really sure what “all natural” means. It certainly sounds good, conjuring up Michael Pollan’s “Supermarket Pastoral” of happy animals rooting around in grassy fields with kittens and puppies. The USDA defines all natural as minimally processed without artificial ingredients and colours, according to Powell. But that doesn’t mean that the animals can’t be raised in CAFOs, never seeing the light of day or having normal social interactions with their own kind, or that they are slaughtered humanely.

Restaurant owners are lulled into buying these wolves in sheeps clothing, because their clientele demands meat with a pedigree. No longer can a restaurant list “pork loin” on the menu—it has to be “Mayflower Farms All Natural Pork Loin.” However, most of the brand names with “farm” in them these days are owned by huge agriculture corporations, reaching for brand diversity.

Clearly, it seems like stricter labeling laws are needed. When I see Old Mill Farm on a menu, I know what it means because I know the farm. But the name also sounds good, implying sustainable farming practices combined with a humane outlook and healthy, happy animals. Were I eating casually somewhere and scanning the menu, I would be more drawn to meat items that looked as though they had a clear chain of custody, something that “farm” implies.

How are we to deal with this? Surely a company can call itself whatever it pleases, and it’s not for us to dictate the terms a company can use to refer to itself and its products in literature. However, using a phrase like “all natural” to describe animals which have been confined in piles of their own waste and fed animal byproducts seems ludicrous. Especially since many small farms cannot afford the increasingly polluted “organic” certification, and use “all natural” to distinguish their products from the competition.

Therefore, factory farmed meats like those produced by Niman Ranch can share space on the menu with healthily raised, happy pigs like those at Old Mill Farm. As consumers, we could attempt to control the meat we eat by researching menu items, assuming a menu is available for us to look at online. However, as Powell discovered, even if you can find that meat is produced by big agriculture, you are still going to have a difficult time tracking down the exact provenance, and good luck trying to tour a breeding or slaughter facility.

At home, you have the luxury of researching meat before you purchase it for consumption, visiting and supporting small local farms where you can see the conditions the animals are raised in. You might choose to patronize restaurants that these farms supply, if you can, and to lobby restaurant owners to look more deeply into the sources of their meat. But what happens when you travel? Pop your head into a neighborhood bistro on a whim? Shouldn’t you be able to know where your food comes from, who raised it, and how it was raised? Is that too much to ask?

According to big agriculture, yes, it is. We should eat our commercialized foods “brightly, brightly, and with beauty,” and love every second of it.

[all natural]

Chocolate Chip Goodness | 18Oct06

There’s been a serious ongoing project in our household regarding the perfect chocolate chip cookie, and I have been neglecting to keep you abreast of it, gentle readers. It’s involved many cubic feet of butter, tossed eggs, and heated debates over oven temperature, egg chemistry, and Ghirardelli vrs Toll House. Luckily we have boys to take care of egregious errors.

First, the perfect cookie needed to be defined. For me, it’s a medium sized, dense, chewy confection. One of the other housemates agrees, while another prefers a slightly crunchy outside. I don’t like things that crunch. Therefore, I have been attempting to create the perfect chewy cookie.

As a San Franciscan, I felt obliged to use Ghirardelli in my latest batch, despite the eye watering cost. It appears that I have developed the perfect chocolate cookie, through extensive yuppie research via Sunset, a small baking mistake, and…perhaps…the auspices of the Ghirardelli Chocolate Company.

Out of the oven, they were soft and wilted, and I crammed a few in my mouth just to check basics. They were, in fact, chewy, dense, and delicious. After allowing them to cool for a little while, I had a few more, and the qualities of perfection were retained. Assuming no boys come over tonight, I’ll be able to see whether they can stand the 24 hour test.

Actually…I’m not sure they will stand the 24 hour test, even without boys.

Preheat the oven to 400°

Cream 1/2 cup salted butter (please do not use margarine or unsalted or low fat butter replacement, or you will regret it) with 3/4 cup packed brown sugar. When fully mixed, add one egg, 1/2 teaspoon almond extract, and 1/2 teaspoon vanilla extract. Mix evenly.

Add 1/2 teaspoon baking soda and 1/4 teaspoon salt to the wet mixture. Then fluff your flour. Gently spoon out 1 1/4 cup of it. Do not dip the cup measure into the flour bag. Do not pack the flour. Do exactly as I say. Damnit.

Mix the dough until all ingredients are fully incorporated. Add 1 cup chocolate chips.

Spoon out in healthy dollops onto an ungreased baking sheet. I got 12 cookies on the sheet, three raw cookies in my stomach, and 1 chunk of dough in Loki’s stomach due to a kitchen accident.

Bake for 5-8 minutes, and pull out when the middles still look slightly pale and raw. The edges will have started to turn golden. Pull out and cool away from the stove for 10 minutes before moving the cookies to cooling racks.

Can you spot the baking mistake?

[chocolate chip cookies]

Reader Participation | 17Oct06

Reading Boing Boing today, I noticed a link to a plea by Dori Smith for the return of her licenseplate. Now, I’m not sure which plate was stolen from her vehicle, or if both were taken, but either way, it’s not very groovy for her. She’s facing a major hassle with the DMV to get the plate back, and meanwhile is sans a completely excellent personal plate.

Given that the vehicle was parked in Healdsburg and that many of my readers are from Northern California and are also geeks, I’m posting a link to her plea—here it is again. If anyone has seen the plate or knows anything about it, she would love to get it back, no questions asked.

When I had a vehicle, I had personal plates (which now hang on my wall), and I would have been majorly bummed to lose them. For those who aren’t familiar with the personalized plate system, when you order vanity plates in California they become your property. They are also pretty pricy, depending on configuration, and require higher annual registration fees if you want to retain them. Therefore, it’s majorly unhip to steal them, kids! Take a picture!

Help a geek today!

Paper Making the First | 17Oct06

When we got back the boys’ house, the Scarab began prepping the screens while Cap’n Raspberry read inside and pretended he was too good for us and our diy arts and crafts projects. All I’m saying is, when the revolution comes, what is the Cap’n planning on using to write on?

I shredded paper and dropped it into a big tub, which I filled with water, to start the paper soaking. The Scarab got pretty into our San Francisco Chronicle and found objects soup and fondled bits and pieces of soggy paper for a while under the guise of doing something productive and paper manufacture related.

I created a work area, wisely outside in case the blender got frisky.

The Scarab was in charge of blending, while I was in charge of beer drinking. I think both sides accomplished their duties very well, and we regrouped for the next stage: making paper!

Our pulp was looking a little thick, but we continued gamely on. When I made paper before, I remember pouring and spreading it across the screen, whereas the Scarab’s recommended method was dipping a screen into a vat of pulped paper and then pulling it out. Sadly, our vat was small and our screens were large, so my method it was…

…only my method didn’t appear to be working. The pulp was clumpy and thick. It stuck to us just fine, in big lumps, and it coagulated on the screen, looking rather revolting. We reblended and tried again, with the same level of success.

Peaches came over, and we tried pressing the pulp in between two boards while she jumped up and down on them.

The paper stuck to the two boards, effectively gluing them together, so we tried again, only layering the paper pulp in a tee shirt to prevent it from sticking. The Scarab jumped up and down futilely for some time, looking like a slave dancing in the grapes.

The Scarab got grumpy and tossed some paper pulp at their sliding door, where it stuck admirably. He also tried writing on it, without success.

I started laughing, and was spooged with paper pulp.

After a brief conference, we decided to leave the paper fragments soaking overnight, in the hopes of relaxing the fibers more so that we could make an even slurry. We also decided to cut down the screen, so that we could try the dipping it in the tub method.

Will the Scarab and meloukhia succeed in paper manufacture? Only time will tell!

[paper making]