Fwd: Democracy Spring

[Steve Moring]

Hello Fellow Permies,

We generally do not get into politics, but I thought this is a life changing issue.  Please follow Loretta's link.

Walk Lightly,

Steve

-------- Forwarded Message --------

Subject:	Democracy Spring
Date:	Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:44:20 -0500
From:	Loretta C <lcra...@gmail.com>

Have any of you heard about this nonviolent civil disobedience over money in politics? I just stumbled upon it on FB. 

http://www.yesmagazine.org/people-power/frances-moore-lappe-why-im-facing-arrest-to-get-money-out-of-politics-20160317?utm_source=YTW&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=20160318

Loretta 

 

Prairie Garden Farm

Basehor, KS

http://www.prairiegardenfarm.com

 

 

[Steve Potratz]

The problem is that legislation, no matter how well intentioned, typically does not get the “money out of politics”, it just changes the influence from one side to the other.    For example it might try to stop the Koch brothers, but leave George Soros organizations, or stop money from Unions but not Wall Street.   Until money from both sides can be eliminated, it is just picking favorites, which is the whole problem.   I think the real solution is to reduce the size of Government so there is less utility in trying to sway its power.    Our Government is way too large and that why it attracts all the power brokers.    Just my two cents.

 

FYI, it was common thinking at the time of our founding that pure Democracy is a bad thing and always leads to Tyranny, because the biggest group can rule over the smallest.   That is why we have a Representative Constitutional Republic instead.

 

Steve 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
~
To post to this group, send email to kpc...@googlegroups.com
~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com
~
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kpc-dev?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nathan]

Decent article. I find these quotes together interesting. 

"It’s just that she’s come to believe that no amount of organizing can beat big agriculture—or any major industry, for that matter—unless the United States finds a way to get money out of politics."

"...we are not going to vote for people who take big contributions—we only vote for people who only take small donations and public financing."

Are these quotes suggesting that money in politics is not the issue, but rather the amount of money is the issue? When I read articles similar to the one linked, I always wonder where the spirit of Henry David Thoreau is with his essay on civil disobedience. To summarize, what would happen if people just stopped paying taxes as a form of protest?  

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
~
To post to this group, send email to kpc...@googlegroups.com
~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com
~
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kpc-dev?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

All the best,

Nathan.

Confidentiality Notice:

This email is covered by the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, and is legally privileged.

This transmission may contain confidential or privileged information, which is intended only for use by the individual or entity to which the transmission is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, dissemination, copying or distribution of this transmission is strictly prohibited. If you received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete this message and all attachments from your system entirely.

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Our system was never designed to work at this level, CANT work at this level. The 13 colonies had 3 million people. We've increased the population 100 fold but kept the Congress the same size. Not only that we are no longer a people, but a diverse group of nations with contradictory philosophies of governing. It is unworkable.

Representative democracy has turned out to be worse than pure democracy. Just look at the public's opinion on anything from GMOs to bank bailouts to wars.

But we're not that anymore, we're fast turning into a banking aristocracy.

Pete

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>, "Sustainability Action" <sustainabi...@yahoogroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:37:35 -0500

Subject:

RE: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

[Nathan]

I agree with some points made by both Steve and Pete. With the interest to further the discussion, does any one have any ideas on what could work to make a difference? It would also be excellent if more people on this list involved them selves with their thoughts and opinions in this community inspired collaborative. I know there are many people on this list, but on average, we hear from less than 10 people.

Along with my idea, I will put forward a thought. With Pete's discussion on population, I fully agree and think population is a huge variable in social complexities. As such, I question if there is a population cap that contributes to positive community building initiatives. To be clear, I question that once the population becomes a certain size in a given region, positive aspects of community tend to degrade. One thought along with this concept is that national politics is too large of a machine for any real impact. However, is local politics the better avenue for change to take place? 

Here is an example, I have a buddy that moved to Basehor last year. He and his wife purchased a typical suburban .25 acre lot. Orscheln's in Basehor recently just sold (so I am told) 2,000 chicks. My buddy bought four chickens as he assumed they are legal to have in his neighborhood as peacocks roam his streets, and a neighbor has a large amount of goats and llamas. Upon calling the city to ask, he was told a direct "NO! Chickens are not allowed in city limits." I suggested to my buddy that the answer was insufficient and he should call back. He did, and was told again, by two different city employees that chickens are not allowed in city limits. The second city employee said he had pushed for the city to allow chickens in city limits but people that live in Basehor did not show up to support the initiative. This all comes with that there is not a grocery store in the city limits of Basehor, which suggests, well...many things.

I was wondering if it would be wise for community organizations to share data and experiences openly and in a organized fashion that could allow someone like my buddy in Basehor to simplify his effort in approaching a city council meeting to lobby for such urban agricultural practices. While such an idea may sound simple, it is something local people could control rather than getting angry over national politics. I know many people on this list have already participated in such an action, but it is unclear to me on how others can continue to build on such efforts in a simplified fashion.
 

[Steve Moring]

Dear Friends,

In light of Nathan's last comment on community, there are some local organizations that are instrumental in making needed changes to local government.  For example the Sustainability Action Network of Lawrence has moved city and county government to change its policies on bike lanes, urban agriculture and many other important issues.  All it takes is a little bit of commitment on the part of individuals to get involved.  I propose that folks spend less time watching sports and dining out with club members, and get involved in local issues.  Maybe start a local movement or project!

My 3 cents,

Steve Moring

[Nathan]

Steve, thanks. I am aware that organizations have done such things. My thoughts were that potentially it could be a good idea for a template be readily available from existing organizations to support people that are not apart of such organizations, are unaware of such organizations, but yet are still hindered by local politics. It was just an idea to streamline certain acts. 

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Can you have real representation above the 150 person tribal level?

The problem is, our current system is designed to inhibit participation through the relief valve of pointless elections while the reigns of power are entrenched in city hall, corporate board rooms and the bureaucracies. On top of that we are the most controlled and propogandized people in the history of the planet. Huge swatchs of the population condition their existance on the government teet in one manner or another.

The New England Town Hall model is interesting; not that it helped much in the grand scheme of things.

The problem is empires are usually supplanted, not reformed.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:38:05 -0500

Subject:

Re: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

[Phillip Holman-Hebert]

Pete. 

I believe that in the Aristotelian progress, oligarchy follows democracy. What we are becoming seems to follow that idea pretty clearly. 

Phil Holman-Hebert

Sweet love Farm 

[Bill Price]

http://www.ubuntuusa.com/

I have just started learning about Ubuntu. I have much more to learn before I make any real statement. However it does offer a viable suggestions on how to maybe start making some changes. These are things many in this group have discussed for some time now. I think the fact that there is so much distance between where we all live this may be limiting us getting things like this off the ground. If we could bridge that gap we could then start creating the change(s) we wish to see.

Bill

Sent from my iPad

[Garret Tufte]

Very interesting discussion. I have been following it most of the day, but have now the time to respond. First off, in regard to Greek thoughts on the matter, in Platonic politics (as opposed to Aristotlian, of which I am less familiar) democracy is a degredation of oligarchy. In the Republic, he seemed to think that it was an improvement on democracy, and as we have seen through much of history, the "tyranny of the masses", as a heel, has held much sway, and influenced our own form of government greatly. During that time, and if I remember my Thucydides correct, there was a particlularly disastrous democratic military decision during the Pellopenessian War that really sealed the deal in Plato's mind of the inability of the people to make important decisions collectively. They sent their entire naval fleet to the south of Italy for no good reason. Hubris caught the better of them. Nonetheless...

This was a tactical decision made by a multitude of people, the majority of which were not exactly fighting men, nor were they even literate. They were greatly swayed by emotion and sentiment, by the demagogues (loud mouths) of the time (not to disregard our great modern examples). They lost that war. And we are still feeling the repercussions today. But, there is a difference between decisions of that nature and those that a democracy of today would make. Namely this: competition (of which war is a derivative) is best played by the competitors. What we would consider democracy today, and what it would do, and the hopes and dreams it has for tomorrow, are not those of a competitive nature. It is cooperative.

The "cooperative vs. competitive" has ramifications across the board: public goods like education and healthcare and transportation and access to basic necessities, from which we all benefit, when made competitive, i.e. privatized, degrade the total society. They cause losses for both the winners and losers, strange as it sounds. The "losers" do not get what they need (i.e. bad education causes gangsters, the hungry steal to feed themselves, and the sick have no real recourse but madness), and the "winners" are increasingly scared shitless of all these people running amok, and build all sorts of walls to keep them away. These walls have manifested themselves as for-profit prisons, increased police presence (local, federal, and international), legal penalties for stepping out of line, and whatnot.

Games are fun, as competition often is, but they cannot be the basis of a society. The market may have not seemed as a game to Adam Smith, but it is quite evident now. One look at the stock market and currency exchange shows them to be the biggest gambling tables in the world. And so, what in life is worth gambling? Are the kids going to want the blue doll or the red one this christmas? A fine case to work toward, to have fun with, to engage. Other consumer goods: which car? What cell phone? Do you believe in this design or that one? Is that movie better or that music? It sounds like fun to me, something I and many others enjoy. But this mentality has a limit. Start hoarding grain in a starving country to get a better deal and people start dying. A competitor may the best to make tactical decisions, yes, but not all decisions are so. We ought to draw a line between the competitive game and the valuable life. A simple axiom I found recently you may like: my life improves when yours does.

As for the size of government: it would appear that we have reached a point where government of a certain size is necessary, for: standard metrics in different disciplines and materials, control of lethal ordinance, radioactive waste, nuclear weapons, disaster recovery, and grand projects, among other things. It seems absurd to believe we could somehow all return to an agrarian community lifestyle and still provide for cities packed with millions of people without them starving and rampaging across the globe. Not to say that small community living is impossible, but the greater part of society is incapable. We have gone too far to return to any such blessed innocence.

But we are not lost. The ship can be steered to a course of great harmony. There seems tremendous resistance, but even so, we must somehow push through. Our world's problems continue to accelerate, and the establishment is incapable of providing any answers. And what answers they do provide seem to actively make matters worse. It is quite upsetting, and we are in dire need of nearly any change we can muster. I would not be so happy in a corporate feifdom or a dictatorship, but I yet may be alive, if the right course were followed. It would appear, however, and quite evidently so, that neither of those options are capable of solving our problems. And as was said by one of my favorite philosophers, Alan Watts, "we may have no choice but utopia".

My two cents for what we can do:

1. Voting is a must, of course. Even if it does not turn in your favor. Do it anyway. Take the day off work if you can. Enjoy it. 

2. Find the people in power, wherever they are, and tell them what you think, in person if you can. The further our world moves into the digital, the more power the social has, oddly. Ask to speak to your representative. The people in Topeka, for instance, are rightly afraid of such incidents, and will often be absent. Don't get discouraged. Persuade as best you can. Remember why you are there. Be polite, but direct. Set up a meeting. Speak your mind. You can get much done as an individual. If you bring a group, you may want to make prior notice with the admins, or things could get messy. Again, be polite, but direct. Don't be afraid to repeat yourself.

3. Buy local. 

4. Support the good "loud mouths". Shameless self-promotion here: I will rock a stage at a moment's invite.

Okay, that's all for me. Glad to hear of everyone's efforts. More power to you. Keep up the fight, and soon we shall hopefully no longer need to.

Sincerely,

Garret C. Tufte

[Terry Sullivan]

I'm late to the conversation and have to admit that I haven't read all the posts carefully but I'm feeling compelled to interject some lines of thought I've been following.  Great conversation, BTW.

Currently reading The Gardens of Democracy by Eric Liu and Nick Hanaur.  (Damn, somehow lost a paragraph I had in here.  I'm not going to rewrite it.  Follow the link.)

Gar Alperovitz Is doing great work along these lines along with The Next System project.  All of these resources will help to let people know what is being done an how to do it.

I live in Valley Falls, Ks on 4 lots and have done a little work toward permaculture but mostly am restricted by age (74yo) and lungs to maintaining home and vegi garden.

[Nathan]

I am excited that I woke up and read everyone's further contributions.

Pete,

I fully agree with your points. Population is a primary factor in my thought process, and as you mentioned propaganda, I could not agree more. To further support the concept of propaganda, I will quote Edward Bernays who coined the term propaganda, "The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in a democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized."  I find this quote useful and pretty much details the marketing industry perfectly. My replies so far are simply to play devils advocate to further discussion and also serves as a way to better understand those who reply.

Bill,

Ubuntu seems interesting to me. But I question if the concept and other concepts that are similar serve as a way to philosophically feel better, rather than taking a step forward that results in an positive action. As an example, many of the fundamental principles on the Ubunta site sound good in theory. But, with the size of human population in mind, my current understanding is that many of the principles that are listed can not be achieved. To further explore one example, "All have their basic needs met (food, water, housing, and electricity)." Here is one example that suggests such an act is not possible. http://motherboard.vice.com/read/we-need-three-planets-to-keep-the-human-race-alive-nasa-scientist-says 

With the goal to critically reflect upon the link I provided, we could say that the NASA study was flawed in some aspects, or even the extreme of all aspects. However, all consumer goods in modern history have grown at an exponential rate which is a variable I often reference because exponential growth is arithmetic, and arithmetic is absolute. What is more, as I mentioned the idea of philosophically feeling better, the following quote of the definition of sustainability is interesting...

 "We must be clear on the meaning of sustainability before we make any more use the term. A very commonly used definition of sustainability is implied in the following definition of sustainable development which is found in the report of the Brundtland Commission of the United Nations (4): Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. We must note two important things. First, “future generations” (plural) implies “for a very longtime,” where long means long compared to a human lifetime.” Second, the arithmetic of steady growth shows that steady growth of populations or of rates of resource consumption for modest periods of time leads to sizes of these quantities that become so large as to be impossible. The combination of these two observations leads us to the First Law of Sustainability (5): Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of resources cannot be sustained. The First Law is based on arithmetic so it is absolute. Science is not democratic, so the First Law of Sustainability is not debatable; it can not be modified or repealed by professional societies, by congresses or by parliaments. The First Law implies that the term “Sustainable Growth” is an oxymoron. This is true when this term is used by an untutored person on the street, by an economics professor, or by the President of the United States. (6)"

If we were to critically reflect upon the quote I provided to suggest the premise is wrong, we begin to walk in to the argument of Malthusian vs. utopia, which is a binary. A binary could relate to the discussion on propaganda as a binary could be characterized as a tool to simplify debates. Democrat vs. Republican, East vs. West, or as Garret referenced in his excellent reply, cooperative vs. competitive. Binary's are typically accompanied by high level of emotion within the debate which seems to me as a reason propaganda is a useful tool of empire because if many people are divided in their thought process, the easier they are to control. High level of emotion can contribute to irrational decisions which seems to typically result in increased government control. But, the underline in the Malthusian vs. utopia debate as they relate to exponential growth is that many arguments in the utopia side could be characterized as innumerate which is the mathematical equivalent of illiteracy.

I question if such a concept brings the discussion back full circle to the original article linked and Steve P.'s reply in which I would expand further on the topic that legislation not only keeps money in politics, but that legislation, often times, further expands economic growth. Economics has been characterized as the commodification of nature and therefore the system we use to organize social interactions can not, in a mathematical equation, continue indefinitely. I question if these types of talking points could be useful at the local level of politics rather than the national level for a number of reasons.

Terry,

The Gardens of Democracy sounds interesting. I look forward to reading the overview.

To conclude my long reply, my thoughts are nothing more than a writing activity over morning coffee and I am glad people on this list have responded in such an excellent fashion. I look forward to reading more peoples thoughts. Over and out. 

[Steve Potratz]

Sustainability is an interesting study all by itself.   The more I learn about soil and plant growth the more I realize how unsustainable our current agriculture system is.   Just take Phosphorous by itself.   Many other nutrients can be sustained with proper plant selection, but phosphorous goes off your property anytime food goes off your property or you eat it.   Or you don’t have enough organic matter to hang on to it and it leaches away.  The only replenishment is to import more from a mine or other deposits that are close to reaching a peak availability and will soon start to decline.      Seems that this one element endangers sustainability all by itself.    Until all the consumption is returned to the soil (that means composting toilets not sewers), this will continue to be a problem.     However our local Government will not allow anything but sewer and SEPTIC, so Government mandates unsustainability.   There is obviously a disconnect somewhere.   I think Government needs to be educated but it is a big ship and hard to turn.

 

Big ag is really a problem, I never knew that they just continually import this stuff and never think it will run out.   But to truly maintain soil health without importing anything turns out to be very difficult long term even for Permaculturists.

 

Steve

 

From: kpc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:kpc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Nathan
Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 9:03 AM
To: kpc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

 

I am excited that I woke up and read everyone's further contributions.

Bill,

[Nathan]

Steve P., and or everyone else?

How does nature continue to grow forests without human phosphate stewardship? 

Pete, when you asked, "Can you have real representation above the 150 person tribal level?" Could you define what you mean by real representation?

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Nothing carts the tree off in nature. That and they're mainly carbon and potassium.

'real' representation...I simply mean that one person fairly, accurately, honestly representing the interests of others. Get too big and its not possible for someone to represent them as there are too many competing interests and differences in opinion. The worst representation in the house of reps is 1 person representing a million people. Its simply laughable.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:06:09 -0500

[Nathan]

Pete,

To better understand, does real representation suggest catering to a persons every interest?

So, is it reasonable to suggest that the phosphate issue is more of a issue for industrial ag. rather than food production?

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

A representative by definition represents their interests. If you want someone who doesn't strictly do that, you're after a statesman, that was supposed to be the Senators job.

Phosphorous is an issue for all ag unless they are closing the loop with human poop.

Pete

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Wed, 23 Mar 2016 08:25:09 -0500

[Nathan]

Pete,

I understand what a representative is. What I am asking is for you to define what you think "their interests" is. More specifically, the amount of said interest. As you mentioned a potential cap of fair representation at 150:1, my question is would your ideal representative cater to all needs of the 150, or rather cater to the collective needs?

The phosphorus discussion is still a little unclear to me, too. If a tree is primarily carbon and potassium, and Permaculture mimics nature with edible varieties with food forests, is the issue a change in diet rather than "we are all going to starve?"

[Steve Potratz]

First of all Humus holds phosphorus, so in a natural forest there is lots of humus and leaching of phosphorus is not an issue like it is with Ag.  That is the biggest issue taken care of.   Also nothing is leaving the property, all the biomass cycles back to the soil locally and preserves the phosphorus.   In terms of mobility, bird poop has a lot of phosphorus so they tend to spread it around locally.    But it is one of those things that you can’t get more of, the best you can do is retain all that you have.    I understand that Hickory trees have a lot of phosphorus in them so living in an Oak/Hickory dominant area they tend to be the storage place.   When it is lost it typically goes down the rivers and to the ocean, so the ocean ends up with all our phosphorous, and that creates waterway issues because of the phosphorus excess in them.   (Can you say green algae bloom?)    So Ag creates two big problems that are actually solutions for each other, phosphorus depletion on the land and phosphorus excess in the riverways.

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

It is just simple math. How do you replace the lbs of various elements that you remove from the land in the form of food? Food forests arn't magic; just an output of fruit/nuts vs. grain/hay/meat/dairy.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:04:26 -0500

[Steve Potratz]

Yup, that is exactly right.   Just some of us recently had to wake from our dream that it was magic, and now suddenly understand.

[Nathan]

Pete,

What is simply math?

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Nutrients that leave the farm in the form of food, fiber and timber must be replaced in order to maintain a healthy system in the long term. Nutrients in vs. nutrients out; simple math.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Wed, 23 Mar 2016 10:33:05 -0500

[Steve Moring]

So Lets make a strong effort to using composting toilets, compost all manures with as many animal bones as possible, including our relatives ashes. and spread this on to our gardens and fields.   This will help.  There is a lost of phosphorous tied us in our human society.

[Steve Potratz]

And the associated effort to increase biomass in the soil or it will all be leached into the rivers anyway.

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Too bad composting toilets all but illegal in this state. Just try to build a house with one; you have to spend all your money on expensive septic and then add alternatives in secret on top of that.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:18:56 -0500

[Nathan]

It's only wrong if you get caught. ZING!

[Phillip Holman-Hebert]

Our house in Jefferson county has a whole household composting toilet system. The county health officer was very cooperative in helping us through the process of getting it approved. Also, you can recover the sludge from your septic system, compost it, and recycle it--as long as we are talking about doing things "in secret". PHH

[d o u g d u b o i s]

I am in Jefferson County, and am in the process of turning an "ag" building into a
residence. I use less than 10 gallons of water per day (from rainfall), including
cooking, cleaning and bathing but excluding laundry and irrigation. For solid
"waste" I use a humanure-style bucket toilet (I am 100% sold on this ultra-simple
method, btw, and encourage everyone to try it).

To give an occupancy permit, the JeffCo sanitarian (health dept. officer) initially
said he was obligated to require a 1,000 gallon septic tank and a complement of
laterals, but I helped him see how ridiculous that would be for my needs. I wanted
to irrigate with the graywater, but that's where he (and apparently KS law) drew the
line. Graywater MUST be treated with a septic tank or a lagoon. There are some
alternatives described in some state documents (wetlands, "dosed" systems involving
pumps and timers, etc.), but I deemed all of them more costly and labor-intensive
than a generic septic system.

Blackwater though, interestingly enough, is allowed some slack. All I had to do was
mention my "composting toilet." Since there is no blackwater going into my system,
he compromised down to a 300 gallon septic tank and one 50' lateral in a gravel bed
only 18" below the surface. He did not care one whit to ask about my toilet or my
rainwater collection/purification system. Jefferson County has no building codes...
once they're happy with your wastewater system, you're pretty much on your own. As
it damn well should be!

I'm not saying this is 100% "legal" in the eyes of the state. I'm just sharing what
worked out for me, and was deemed close enough for official county approval. Thank
providence there are still places like Jefferson County where there is still a hint
of freedom. And yes -- point taken -- I'm still required to have a tank and laterals
whether I wish to use them or not, but <$2,000 seems like an ok price to get the
county out of my hair.

Doug

[Bill Price]

A big Hurrah for Doug. Glad to hear of your success.

Bill

Sent from my iPad

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Many (most?) counties are not so forgiving. Missouri is easier, so long as the sludge isn't running over the ground onto the neighbours, they don't care.

Which is as it should be, they're all just random ways of hiding it underground.

Pete

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 25 Mar 2016 18:25:05 -0500

Subject:

Re: [KPC-Dev] Democracy Spring

[Nathan]

Sounds like Phillip and Doug's success could be contributed research and local politics with a smaller population size that provides more freedom. Interesting. In contrast, there was no news article, no act to place ones self in the way of arrest, no symbolic media push that serves as an individual billboard to provide value for ones self. Just results. Inspiring actions from both Phillip and Doug. Awesome work, fellas. 

[d o u g d u b o i s]

Thanks, Bill and Nathan. I don't feel that I deserve much credit in this
matter... Although I did look hard for alternatives to a septic system,
I ended up basically punting by deciding/realizing that alternatives
would only make my life more expensive and difficult, with no
significant payoff. And I may have benefited from a reasonable
sanitarian who had already been loosened up by the efforts of others,
notably Phil. He deserves all the credit here for investing a great deal
of life energy (time and money) into his desire to recycle all the
effluents from his home. It was a noble cause, and although it didn't
all work out, his negotiations with the county surely made the way
easier for folks to come seeking alternatives, or at least
less-intensive systems (less overkill).

Doug

[Ben Stallings]

I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but I have to respond to this "simple math" comment. As I understand it from the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham, Dr. Christine Brown, and other contemporary soil scientists, this understanding is incorrect. The nutrients that are available to plants come primarily from soil life (mycorrhizae and bacteria) fed by those same plants during their lifetime. The soil life, in turn, get nitrogen primarily from the air, and potassium and the other micronutrients primarily from the subsoil, so that only phosphate and sulfate come primarily from decomposition of existing organic matter.

So yes, it's true that we need to be more conscious about returning phosphorus and sulfur to the soil. But as for the other nutrients, the loop is not closed in a functioning ecosystem (since nitrogen comes and goes with the atmosphere, and more potassium is brought up every year from the subsoil), and in fact most (more than 90%) of the carbon we attempt to return to the soil by composting goes into the atmosphere instead.

I could be wrong, I'm just repeating what I've heard.  --Ben

[Steve Potratz]

Just wanted to note that I am very much enjoying the discussion.    Good to get perspective from everyone on these matters.

 

Steve Potratz

 

From: kpc...@googlegroups.com [mailto:kpc...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben Stallings
Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 9:35 AM
To: kpc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

 

I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but I have to respond to this "simple math" comment. As I understand it from the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham, Dr. Christine Brown, and other contemporary soil scientists, this understanding is incorrect. The nutrients that are available to plants come primarily from soil life (mycorrhizae and bacteria) fed by those same plants during their lifetime. The soil life, in turn, get nitrogen primarily from the air, and potassium and the other micronutrients primarily from the subsoil, so that only phosphate and sulfate come primarily from decomposition of existing organic matter.

--

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Nitrogen and carbon yes, those you can get free from the air. I'm told much of the biomass of a tree actually comes from CO2 from the air. In acid rain areas you may get a few other elements as well. Same if you get semi-periodic flooding or irrigate with dirty river water. 

But for the most part, you're dealing with what is in the soil (top soil or subsoil). But its still a closed system save what you add to it. Depending on your soil type and depth you may have a good reserve, but you can mine the minerals out of the subsoil just as you can the topsoil. Simple math still applies.

Also, some elements like boron leach really easy; there may be several minor elements your extremely devoid in to begin with.

Pete

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:34:52 -0500

Subject:

Re: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

[Nathan]

Its only simple when we simplify the discussion and the resulting understandings. This simplification looks to be a common overtone of this discussion. The environmental issues that many of us are aware of and concerned about, I would argue are anything but simple. However, when we simplify such debates, I question if we almost cheapen them because we are not fully addressing all the variables. As an example, this discussion has focused on many different spatial scales from industrial ag (implying all corporate farming, world wide), national politics, local politics, ecosystems (size unspecified), and generalized geology. With this approach of simplification, I question if we are addressing certain concepts in an unrealistic way.

As an example, If we approach the discussion of industrial ag, we are dealing with a very old, wealthy, powerful industry that at its most basic level, does include simple math of increased inputs and decreased outputs. However, I would argue that is the only thing simple about industrial ag, and by making this basic view the premise for my talking points, could we say that I am grossly oversimplifying the discussion which demonstrates that perhaps I have a simple understanding, while also minimizing other peoples talking points. With the goal to be clear, such a talking point of "agriculture requires mining minerals from other sources so therefore its simple math that we will always be at a deficient which suggests that there is no point of trying because we are all going to starve anyway because....capitalism. yuck!" may not be the best approach to complex situations. Perhaps it is? I am just questioning that such an approach is not ideal. What is more, such an approach becomes less about critically discussing and sharing in each others ideas and talking points and honestly, becomes more about individualism. 

Perhaps let us consider that no grass roots organization can change industrial ag and the environmental externalities that come with it. So instead of wasting energy on such an unreachable goal, perhaps we could focus more on local aspects we can change? As Phillip and Doug did, among many others on this list, too.

 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
~
To post to this group, send email to kpc...@googlegroups.com
~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com
~
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kpc-dev?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Steve Moring]

In regard to the discussion of recycling of nutrients in a given ecosystem.  The only system that is closed is the the terrestrial system (the planet earth).  Then again you might say there is a tremendous resource in the Keiper belt, which sends comets crashing down to the earth.  Back down on the surface, phosphorous and trace elements eventually get recycled in the soil due to volcanic activity and tectonic subduction.  The time cycle is long.  The best example is when the Yellow Stone super volcano which blew its top about 200,000 years ago with tens of feet of ash being deposited over the breadth of the continent.  This ash is rich in mineral nutrients and phosphorous that find their way into the subsoil via eluviation (leaching from the topsoil) and illuviation (transport of minerals to the B & C horizons).  The question is do we want to wait for the next cycle of renewal?  BTW, the next yellow Stone eruption is overdue.

Cheers,

Steve Moring

[d o u g d u b o i s]

Right after reading Steve's comments about Yellowstone, I stumbled on this:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2016/0326/Massive-supervolcano-eruptions-once-rocked-Yellowstone

"If the Yellowstone supervolcano explodes, says the 2013 study, the resulting
eruption could be up to 2,000 times as violent as the Mt. St. Helens eruption
several decades ago."

"Three super-eruptions at Yellowstone appear to have occurred on a 600,000-700,000
year cycle starting 2.1 million years ago," explains the BBC. "The most recent took
place 640,000 years ago – suggesting Yellowstone is overdue for an eruption."

"This new study, with evidence of 12 volcanoes in about 3 million years, suggests
that the Yellowstone supervolcano can erupt catastrophically on a much shorter cycle
of about every 250,000 years."

Doug

[Nathan]

Would you guys suggesting bringing the tomato plants inside during such an event? :)

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
~
To post to this group, send email to kpc...@googlegroups.com
~
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com
~
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kpc-dev?hl=en?hl=en

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "KPC-Dev" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to kpc-dev+u...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[d o u g d u b o i s]

There will be a barn dance at Brushy Run (9 miles north of downtown Lawrence) this
Saturday, April 2. This is NOT the big summer party (which will take place June 4),
it is primarily oriented toward those who enjoy contra/square dancing, with a
potluck dinner at 6pm to kick it off. Everyone welcome, but if you only come out for
one event in the year you might want to make it the Homestead Hoedown on June 4.
Flyer attached.

Doug

[Steve Potratz]

I would argue that Big Ag is not a capitalism issue it is a Government issue.   Government subsidies and regulations are what keep it afloat and enough favorable from small farms to survive.   Salatin showed that small farms are much more profitable when allowed to function, remove the Government overhead and let Capitalism work and small farms would enjoy a resurrection.    Even your local example of Phil and Doug is a triumph over local Government regulation.    

 

However that argument aside I agree we should do what we can locally, change will happen from the bottom up not the top down.    I always come back to my observation that Permaculture attracts and pulls together from across the full political spectrum, so we should be able to move mountains when united around these issues.  

 

Steve

[Garret Tufte]

There are two directions for solutions for many of the troubles we have these days. Go government, tax the wealthy, and direct the money to the best usage; or, and this is the true capitalist answer, utilizing the power of the market and keeping government small: raise the minimum wage. That's it. People will do the rest. If someone espouses small government and market-based solutions, but neglects the minimum wage, they are not interested in prosperity.

- Garret

---

From: Steve Potratz
Sent: ‎3/‎29/‎2016 18:38
To: kpc...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

[Nathan]

Steve P,

I do not necessarily disagree that big ag is not a capitalism issue at a basic level. I was only using big ag as a general example in my reply on how simplifying talking points does not really progress understanding, but rather often times serves as a way to slow or stop the positive discussion.

However, capitalism does commodify nature which includes agriculture and I personally find food very interesting because human way of life can change very rapidly when there is an issue in availability to food. With that, I question how much subsidies come into play post WW2 with migration patterns inspired by social forces (increased standard of living) which was primarily a result of capitalism. Without subsidies, government could have a more complex time governing as more and more people were leaving production farms for consumption centers. In this light, one could say that big ag/corporations are pretty much an arm of government that is not questioned on a main stream scale and severs as a hegemony that is not electable.  This act also resulted in rural towns becoming ghost towns as mom and pop shops were ran into the ground. However, such a rural town seems like it could be a gold mine for modern organization and economic renewal if collectively, people, with their elected local government, worked together to keep resources local.

Garret,

To toss out a different perspective, I would argue that the environmental situation we are in can only be mitigated which suggests negative impacts will still take place. The situation from my understanding is that we can only lessen the negative impact. One argument exists that the only solution to our problem would be a large decrease in human population. Diving further into that topic can become dark and depressing really fast. With that, one theme I have been referencing throughout my replies is for such discussions like we have been having, to remain positive with the idea to stay on point towards the direction many of us collectively wish to go. I am aware that many people on this list have done excellent things to progress in a positive light. And as a result from this positive discussion, an argument was made with one example of phosphorus and a reason progression is hindered, but then two people responded detailing actions they have accomplished to mitigate such an issue for themselves. While an argument exists that such an act is small on a global scale and does not make a dent in the global scheme of things (corporate farming), such an act is a perfect example that some problems/predicaments are prudent to be utilized on the local scale. 

To expand the scope of this discussion, there are formulas that exist for the amount of land required for cattle to graze without environmental degradation. During my ecology studies there was formula presented that 2.2 acres is required per person for the needs of food, sanitation and energy to be met, with out environmental degradation. The energy need was for the house to be heated in the winter at approximately 58 degrees. If we want the house warmer, more land is required. If we were to take an approximate population of Lawrence, KS at 100k, if I recall, the amount of land require is somewhere around 365+/- square miles. Looking at 360ish square miles on a map is sobering. What I have presented is a general concept and the variables could be argued on many levels. Just tossing out this concept to further discussion.

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

And what about the robots? They're already expected to replace 40% of human jobs in the next 5 to 25 years; hiking the minimum wage will only make that worse.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Tue, 29 Mar 2016 21:53:25 -0500

[Nathan]

Pete,

In light of your recent comment, I saw this news article just now that I thought could relate. One topic of focus with how robots could relate is how there is a push to "secure" the environment, rather than sustain or conserve the environment. This debate tends to associates the militarization of the police force with "securing" the environment.   Anyway, food for thought.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3514251/To-catch-futuristic-thief-Virtual-machine-guns-robo-security-guards-drones-protect-home-burglars-2025.html

[Ben Stallings]

This is why we need a universal minimum income. Assuming for the moment that robot population continues to increase and human population doesn't dramatically decrease (which strains the concept of sustainability, but assuming anyway for the moment), there will not be enough jobs for people, so punishing people for not having jobs will not make sense.

In a more likely scenario where human population does dramatically decrease and robots cannot be maintained, I'd still support a universal minimum income, because chronic illness is unlikely to ever go away, since the various possible causes of said massive die-off are unlikely to go away after population has finished dropping.  --Ben

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

Universal income sounds good, but its a pandoras box of socialism. The immediate response to universal income will be the increase in prices on the part of those who charge for things. This either makes the income uselessly small or causes the government to respond with price controls.  And so on and so forth.

In the end you get the kind of quality the USSR had. You will have food, usually, if you stand in line. You will have housing, to say nothing of the quality.

Or as wisdom teaches us: you get what you pay for in life, there are no free handouts. it has a cost.

Overpopulation is a myth. Humans suffer from societal breakdown and sub-replacement rates before famine ever kicks in. It is farm more likely we go extinct.

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:47:50 -0500

[Ben Stallings]

Famine is not the only indicator of overpopulation, and in any case malnourishment is already widespread (more than a billion people). Overpopulation just means that the population of a given species has outstripped the environment's ability to support it. There is plenty of evidence this has already happened for us; how and when the population will decrease in any particular part of the world, and how we choose to deal with it, remains to be seen.

"Pandora's Box of Socialism" would make a great name for a band.  --Ben

[Carol Barta]

 There has been for some time two very distinct strands of permaculture. One is the independent, libertarian up-by-your bootstraps group. The other is the social interdependence, we're all in this together group. We can maybe agree that each of us falls somewhere on this spectrum, but probably won't all agree on methods. Remember the outcome we are working for is a world that is 
environmentally sustainable, spiritually fulfilling and socially just.

My $0.02

Carol
Sent from my iPhone

[Susan Jones]

I concur Carol. 

Susan

Sent from my iPhone

[Nathan]

Carol,

I would be interested to hear more in-depth thoughts on your reply. I was not aware there were different strands of permaculture.

[Steve Potratz]

I think that anytime you try and simplify things down to a continuum, you are making it too simple.   People are more complex than that.   We like to form simple constructs to understand, but real life is never that simple.    Continuums just tend to make differences polarized into and us and them.   I think that at the end of the day we are all more alike than different we just have different views of how to achieve the goals.     There are some people with a homesteading mentality that want to be self-sufficient if necessary, but that doesn’t mean they do not see the value of community if it is available.   You can find as many viewpoints of what is meant by Spiritual fulfillment and Social Justice as there are people.   There are multiple facets to all these issues and I don’t think a two group viewpoint is even close to the multi-dimensional views out there.   The thing that unites us all is the necessities of life, and how to make things better for ourselves and those that come after us.

[Carol Barta]

The point I was trying to make was that there are lots of different approaches to implementing permaculture. No one is any more right than another.  I know permie homesteaders and permies living in intentional communities. Each of us gets to choose which lifestyle fulfills us. There is no need to be contentious about our differing viewpoints. 

At the risk of sounding snippy (it is late and I am tired) valuing diversity is not just about plant varieties. We can value differing opinions, but we are not required to make them our own.  Agree that we can disagree and let's move on to another discussion. 

Carol

Sent from my iPhone

[dotjen2000]

Yes....the full circle.

Thank you.  Steve & Carol

Sent via the Samsung GALAXY S®4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone

[Nathan]

I do not have anything to ad other than I would like to point out that this discussion has around 60 interactions which is the most interaction I can recall in a long while on this list. All done with out any real contention. Kinda cool.

[far...@gasperfarm.com]

And about politics no less...

----- Original Message -----

From:

kpc...@googlegroups.com

To:

<kpc...@googlegroups.com>

Cc:

Sent:

Fri, 1 Apr 2016 08:09:21 -0500

[Steve Moring]

Steve,    Than you for your incitefull comment.  I share your perspective.

Steve Moring

[Michael Almon]

I'm usually a lurker on this list, but I find it necessary to comment on recent thoughts expressed.

Human actions are by definition an intertwining of "process and goal".  We can't have a goal without a process to reach it.  And no process can exist without it operating toward a goal.  They're two sides of the same coin.

Yes it's true that permaculturists generally are working toward the same goals.  But to say that "how" we work towards our goals is irrelevant or incidental to pursuing permaculture ignores how central the "how" is to permaculture ethics.  Let me give some examples.

Goal: to grow corn.  Process: We can grow GE or hybrid corn with chemical infusions, industrial traction, heavy petroleum dependency, and massive soil erosion.  Or we can grow open pollinated corn in a 3-sisters polyculture and off-season cover crop to protect the soil. 

Goal: using soil.  Process: We can grow crops by repeated yearly tilling, with synthetic fertilizers and herbicides, so the soil is dead and devoid of minerals and simply holds up the plants.  Or we can grow no-till polycultures of woody perennials and leafy annuals and animal presence to replenish the minerals, increase the organic carbon content, and improve the health of micro-organisms.

Goal: to liberate ourselves from industrial ag.  Process: I can employ practical permaculture design as a rugged individual preper to create a self-sufficient homestead that may carry me through times of deprivation.  Or we can join in community (extended or physical) to share knowledge, avoid duplication of occasional-use equipment, synergistically expand creative ideas, and assure that we take care of each other equitably if faced with hard times.

Goal: a just and equitable society.  Process: We can pretend the oligarchs aren't manipulating the economy to benefit the 1% at the expense of our wage base, our job availability, our tax burden, our transportation options, our energy costs, our poor food quality, etc, and struggle to maintain our communities under ever increasing assault, brush fire after brush fire.  Or we can find strength in numbers and work with each other to expose the corporatist pretense, discredit trickle-down, challenge the policies of structural inequity, reform the cash-controlled elections, remove the corporate functionaries from elected office, and revive access and transparency to democratic decision making, so every individual is truly free to thrive and participate in community.  Which is what the beginning of this thread is all about - Democracy Awakening_April 2016.

Granted as others have said, my examples pose two extremes on a continuum.  None of us chooses exclusively the extreme, but each of us falls somewhere toward one side or the other.  For example, I'm 99.9% organic, and I politically fight Monsanto at any turn, but I admittedly use glyphosate in tiny amounts on the aggressive weeds that resist any other control like bind weed or poison ivy.

Nevertheless, the "how" makes all the diference in the world.  Personally I think the "how" is more important than the "goal" in most instances.  If we say we share our goals, but don't care how we achieve them, we can easily justify any "means justifying the ends", but which run roughshod over each other and the planet.  The disagreements that characterize this thread of discussion pretty much all come down to "how".

Permaculture emphasizes how to live our lives in harmony with all species.  A predominant emphasis on goals in industrial societies is what has created the planet's problems.  We cannot afford to diminish the "how", and to side step questions of differing viewpoints among each of us about the "how". 

"If there is no struggle, there is no progress" - Frederick Douglass, 1857

Michael Almon
Forest Floor Permaculture

 

Pete

Sent:

Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:34:52 -0500

Subject:

Re: [KPC-Dev] Fwd: Democracy Spring

I've stayed out of this discussion so far, but I have to respond to this "simple math" comment. As I understand it from the work of Dr. Elaine Ingham, Dr. Christine Brown, and other contemporary soil scientists, this understanding is incorrect. The nutrients that are available to plants come primarily from soil life (mycorrhizae and bacteria) fed by those same plants during their lifetime. The soil life, in turn, get nitrogen primarily from the air, and potassium and the other micronutrients primarily from the subsoil, so that only phosphate and sulfate come primarily from decomposition of existing organic matter.

So yes, it's true that we need to be more conscious about returning phosphorus and sulfur to the soil. But as for the other nutrients, the loop is not closed in a functioning ecosystem (since nitrogen comes and goes with the atmosphere, and more potassium is brought up every year from the subsoil), and in fact most (more than 90%) of the carbon we attempt to return to the soil by composting goes into the atmosphere instead.

I could be wrong, I'm just repeating what I've heard.  --Ben

On 3/24/16 12:53 PM, far...@gasperfarm.com wrote:

Nutrients that leave the farm in the form of food, fiber and timber must be replaced in order to maintain a healthy system in the long term. Nutrients in vs. nutrients out; simple math.
--

All the best,

Nathan.

[Steve Potratz]

A valid critism Michael.    You are expanding the how beyond my intent, I was thinking of how to achieve the normal permaculture goals in different ways.   But expanding that to a no limits how, your point is understandable.

--

[Michael Almon]

Oh, okeh Steve.  Different strokes as they say.  As long as the different ways fall within the permaculture ethics of care of the Earth, care of people & community, cycling surplus through the system, and limits on growth & consumption. 

I'm just someone who tends to think wholistically, in whole systems, so I try to expand these principals into parallel endeavors at many levels.

cheers,
Michael

[Michael Almon]

For those of you still interested in the origin of this discussion thread, Democracy Awakening, it started today with a patriotic rally at the Liberty Bell in Philadelphia.  Then they are marching 140 miles to Capitol Hill in DC. 

According to this write up by Jim Hightower - Mavericks and mad-as-hellers march to Washington for a pro-democracy rebellion - Hightower Lowdown - On Saturday, April 16, the Democracy Awakening will include teach-ins, workshops, and non-violent direct action trainings, and on the 17th a big, colorful protest march, followed by a "Rally for Democracy" on the Capitol lawn. 

On Monday, 18 April will be the Congress of Conscience - Day of Mass Civil Disobedience, a day of direct action and advocacy during which we commoners can demand, in person, that our Congress critters expand voting rights and end their corporate money addiction.  Other mass actions and sit-ins at the Capitol will be from April 11-16.

Five strong groups - 99Rise, Avaaz, Democracy Matters, Energy Action Coalition, and the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union - form the steering committee.  Two web sites cover different aspects of the event - Democracy Spring for the overall event, and Democracy Awakening_16-18 April 2016 for the direct action activities.

Finally there is a petition for those who can't attend in person - Sign the petition to tell Congress to act now to strengthen our democracy.

thanks Loretta for alerting us to this,
Michael

[Whitney Chaplin]

Everybody, just remember that you have spring fever right now. A normal and good illness to go through. Stop posting so many things and get back to living life.Sorry but I'm on this thread living in Taos NM with winds that might kill y'all back in the midwest. Hearing these philosophical rants makes me feel like people aren't spending their time doing things for the greater good, and isn't that the point of it all? We're all frustrated at this time of year even though it's quite amazing. Just remember that you have decent soil and get busy with it. I'm pretty sure this "helpful" group wasn't meant to be a craigslist rant page. Lets get back to basics and leave your frustrations at the local bar.

[Nathan]

Whitney,

I kindly disagree. I would like to see people post more ideas and interact with each other. Perhaps community means different things to each one of us, and for me, open communication is very important and serves as a cornerstone to better relationships. As Michael Almon made reference to "how" goals are completed, communication I would think is very important such an event. 

All the best,

Nathan.

[Susan Jones]

Whitney…😉

Susan Jones

Sent from my iPhone

[Phillip Holman-Hebert]

Far from being a rant or seeming "ill" in any way, this discussion has been one of the most respectful and thoughtful discussions I have seen posted on this list serve in the several years I have followed it. The first entry that seemed like a rant to me was the one you just posted, Whitney Chaplin. It's seems only natural that the springtime of the year should produce such vigorous, if not yet fruitful, intercourse. Thank you to all who have continued to participate. I look forward to observing the dialogue as it continues to grow. 

And far from it being calm here weather wise, I am quite certain your winds down in Taos ain't got nothin' on our Kansas gales. We've had very few days of late here at Sweetlove Farm where the wind has not been 20 or more mph at some point during the day. And more than a handful with winds getting up over 40. When your hopes rely on chicken coops not blowing away in the wind, you pay close attention to these things.

I live a very full and productive life, I think. And I still manage to read, and occasionally post to this thread. 

Phil Holman-Hebert