As Thanksgiving quickly rushes upon us, it's hard to escape advertising. If there's one thing you can count on more than Christmas displays starting earlier than you're prepared for, it's the inundation of commercialism this time of year. Now, don't misunderstand me - I know that retail is part of economic recovery. I'll even admit that I enjoy window shopping and checking out sales. But something strikes me as off when the holiday is almost absorbed by talk of sales and plans of hitting the stores.
Now, who doesn't like saving money? And there are certainly some good deals to be had, especially by those who start early. There's even a website devoted to finding Black Friday-specific deals. I remember when I was growing up hearing tales of people getting in line for 6am store openings, with the line wrapped around the building. That was early then, but no longer. The big news this year was that several retailers are starting their Black Friday sales even earlier than usual - Thursday evening! Even more are opening at midnight.
It's not surprising that people are planning their shopping, given that there seem to be so many tricks to finding the best deal - most of which need preparation besides a warm jacket, thermos of coffee, and sturdy shoes while you wait for the store to open.
So, as we were trying to get a jump on our holiday shopping, I started thinking about all of this. A few days later, looking at blogs recommended by other blogs that I read, I stumbled across this gem. Gretchen eloquently captures my concern: what about the workers? It's great that people don't have Thanksgiving evening plans can get their shopping in at a time many (myself included) prefer to 5am. but to do so requires thousands of store employees to also give up part of their holiday evening - one of the few that retail employees have historically had. While there may be some who are willing and eager to get in extra hours this way, there are surely others for whom it's just something they have to do.
I worked at Toys R Us in my younger days - it was an especially great job while in college because the store was happy to hire me when I got home from fall finals and "release me" from employment a few weeks later when I had to go to back to school. Truly a mutually beneficial agreement. I don't recall that I ever worked Thanksgiving weekend although I had considered asking if I could a few times. But, I do know this. The seasonal rules were quite clear: everybody worked Christmas Eve, and everyone worked either New Year's Eve or New Year's Day. I am fairly certain that Black Friday was not an option either. So, then, more generally, what about those pre-8am/overnight holiday hours? Undoubtedly there's some negotiation, but it's likely some employees -whether they be cashiers, warehouse, custodial, sales folk, and managers- are being asked to give up or rearrange some of their family time. Just so the rest of us can start our shopping a bit earlier.
Well, while you're out there, remember to remain civil. It's a bit maddening being out in the crowds, but a smile and positive attitude go a long way to helping to keep the madness at bay.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
On Food and Government
At times, I find myself incredibly torn between wanting smaller government and realizing that it seems that we can't trust individuals/corporations/trade associations to police themselves and look out for the public well-being. Chemical and food safety is perhaps the biggest area where these feelings clash.
The simple fact is that there is a lack of education and a lack of knowledge about the safety of things we expose our bodies to - cancer studies show that lifestyle (diet and exercise) and environmental exposures present the greatest risk. Why do I separate education and knowledge? There are a surprising number of substances that we (American industry) put into food and personal care products. This isn't something that can really be blamed on the consumer - how does one know whether calcium caseinate is safe and proven?
Part of the issue here is that Americans, unlike Europeans, take a "safe unless proven otherwise" approach to additives. It is only recently that there's been any agreement (and acknowledgement) that BPA is dangerous, for example. I don't think it was ever added to products maliciously; we simply didn't know better. Now that we do, there is still an education/knowledge gap - where might you be exposed to BPA and is there a safe level of exposure? A common source is canned food liners - in nearly every canned good. Eating only organic food won't protect you here; most of those manufacturers use the substance to line cans and prevent rust and other side effects of food being directly in contact with metal for an extended time (years). (By the way, you'll also be exposed be handling thermal paper receipts, drinking canned soda, and possibly even recycled paper products due to those pesky receipts.)
Then we have the issue of education and access. Now, this is a tricky one to overcome. We know that obesity tends to be higher in poorer populations in the U.S. and that this is largely driven by diet. There is an impression that foods that are not nutritionally-dense (soda, candy, chips) or are processed are cheaper than real, whole, healthy foods. To some extent, there appears to be truth to this. Even more of a problem is that many of the people in the poorer urban environments (and, indeed, those upper-middle suburbs, too) aren't sitting down to a home-cooked family dinner. They're eating food that's fast and convenient, and these foods tend to be less than healthy. Unfortunately, they do tend to be tasty and addictive. This is a complicated issue to solve. We need to teach people about healthier (yet still tasty) choices, and we need to get the food to them. I'm in favor of letting the consumers drive the market and have a real push toward "better" foods - but the consumers can't do that if they don't know how to read food labels to identify what those better choices are. (And they won't do it if there aren't reasonable, affordable choices available to them.) Is HFCS something to be avoided or "no different than regular sugar" and still something to be avoided? ;-) Indeed, that last one is a trick question - it's hard to be educated on "facts" when it's not clear what the facts actually are.
All of that commentary is before even getting into the issue of the national food market (as opposed to local food) and farm subsidies. But I want to point out two food-related issues that you should learn more about and may consider writing your representatives in Washington about:
2012 Farm Bill may be decided by the super-committee without any floor debate!
This is a very important bill that comes up for renewal/revision every five years that really shapes the policies that have a direct effect on what food gets to your table. Whatever you believe about farm subsidies, food stamps, and nutrition programs, how comfortable are you in the idea that this legislation may just be folded into the budget discussions, rather than being addressed on its own, with debate and detail?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/the-secret-farm-bill/
http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2011-11-15-the-farm-bill-the-view-from-the-grassroots
USDA school lunch proposals
We should all be aware that school lunch is a vital part of a child's diet. For some kids living in poverty, it's their only meal. For many kids who buy lunch, it's an opportunity to continue education onto the plate. the current school lunch guidelines have been in place for 15 years. In light of epidemic childhood obesity, concerned people have been speaking out about the quality of school lunches. Yes, it's an "Obama administration proposal." Frankly, that doesn't affect my opinion of whether or not it's a good proposal; I'm more interested in what it actually is trying to accomplish. I confess, this one does start ringing that bell of local versus national government. It's tempered by wanting all students to have access to healthier food, though.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R18F800.htm
Chew on those for a while, friends.
The simple fact is that there is a lack of education and a lack of knowledge about the safety of things we expose our bodies to - cancer studies show that lifestyle (diet and exercise) and environmental exposures present the greatest risk. Why do I separate education and knowledge? There are a surprising number of substances that we (American industry) put into food and personal care products. This isn't something that can really be blamed on the consumer - how does one know whether calcium caseinate is safe and proven?
Part of the issue here is that Americans, unlike Europeans, take a "safe unless proven otherwise" approach to additives. It is only recently that there's been any agreement (and acknowledgement) that BPA is dangerous, for example. I don't think it was ever added to products maliciously; we simply didn't know better. Now that we do, there is still an education/knowledge gap - where might you be exposed to BPA and is there a safe level of exposure? A common source is canned food liners - in nearly every canned good. Eating only organic food won't protect you here; most of those manufacturers use the substance to line cans and prevent rust and other side effects of food being directly in contact with metal for an extended time (years). (By the way, you'll also be exposed be handling thermal paper receipts, drinking canned soda, and possibly even recycled paper products due to those pesky receipts.)
Then we have the issue of education and access. Now, this is a tricky one to overcome. We know that obesity tends to be higher in poorer populations in the U.S. and that this is largely driven by diet. There is an impression that foods that are not nutritionally-dense (soda, candy, chips) or are processed are cheaper than real, whole, healthy foods. To some extent, there appears to be truth to this. Even more of a problem is that many of the people in the poorer urban environments (and, indeed, those upper-middle suburbs, too) aren't sitting down to a home-cooked family dinner. They're eating food that's fast and convenient, and these foods tend to be less than healthy. Unfortunately, they do tend to be tasty and addictive. This is a complicated issue to solve. We need to teach people about healthier (yet still tasty) choices, and we need to get the food to them. I'm in favor of letting the consumers drive the market and have a real push toward "better" foods - but the consumers can't do that if they don't know how to read food labels to identify what those better choices are. (And they won't do it if there aren't reasonable, affordable choices available to them.) Is HFCS something to be avoided or "no different than regular sugar" and still something to be avoided? ;-) Indeed, that last one is a trick question - it's hard to be educated on "facts" when it's not clear what the facts actually are.
All of that commentary is before even getting into the issue of the national food market (as opposed to local food) and farm subsidies. But I want to point out two food-related issues that you should learn more about and may consider writing your representatives in Washington about:
2012 Farm Bill may be decided by the super-committee without any floor debate!
This is a very important bill that comes up for renewal/revision every five years that really shapes the policies that have a direct effect on what food gets to your table. Whatever you believe about farm subsidies, food stamps, and nutrition programs, how comfortable are you in the idea that this legislation may just be folded into the budget discussions, rather than being addressed on its own, with debate and detail?
http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/08/the-secret-farm-bill/
http://www.grist.org/farm-bill/2011-11-15-the-farm-bill-the-view-from-the-grassroots
USDA school lunch proposals
We should all be aware that school lunch is a vital part of a child's diet. For some kids living in poverty, it's their only meal. For many kids who buy lunch, it's an opportunity to continue education onto the plate. the current school lunch guidelines have been in place for 15 years. In light of epidemic childhood obesity, concerned people have been speaking out about the quality of school lunches. Yes, it's an "Obama administration proposal." Frankly, that doesn't affect my opinion of whether or not it's a good proposal; I'm more interested in what it actually is trying to accomplish. I confess, this one does start ringing that bell of local versus national government. It's tempered by wanting all students to have access to healthier food, though.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9R18F800.htm
Chew on those for a while, friends.
Saturday, October 29, 2011
Book in Review: Truth About Organic Gardening
I'll skip past the apologies for the summer break. (And admitting that I started this post in August! Oops!)
I really enjoyed reading this rather information-dense book. The Truth About Organic Gardening: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Bottom Line by Jeff Gillman examines the techniques available to home gardeners for management of soil and pests. Gillman acknowledges some bias - he doesn't completely buy into the "organic movement" - but seems to evaluate each product on its own merits. The set-up is simple. After a discussion about what "organic" means (to which there's not really a conclusion), Gillman works his way through the aspects of plant care: fertilization, weed control, insect control, disease control, and animal (bird, deer, rodent, etc) control. For each, Gillman examines potential solutions to each, looking first at those that are free of synthetic chemicals and then the chemicals. Gillman summarizes what the technique is, its advantages, and its disadvantages, considering criteria like environmental impact, effectiveness, cost, and risk to humans and animals. He offers his recommendation on how that balances but generally as a summary, leaving the final call to the reader. (There are a few exceptions to this.)
Horticulture calls it "a reference text masquerading as a beach read" and I find myself in agreement. I read through the book fairly easily. Parts can get a bit technical, but Gillman keeps it understandable. Overall, I enjoyed the spectrum the book offered. Plenty of references are listed, although some reviewers have claimed that they are "cherry-picked."
Some of the take-aways:
-Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is safe.
-When considering what you will do for your crops, consider what your goals are. What does "organic" mean to you? Does a mix of natural and synthetic practices actually meet your goals better?
-No one applies pesticides because they like to use pesticides. Pesticides are used when necessary to control damage to crops. (If nothing else, it costs more to use them.) What does this mean? The same crops that need a lot of synthetic pesticides typically need a lot of (perhaps more or more frequent) organic pesticides. We test for synthetic ones; we don't have as many tests for natural ones.
-(Edit to add) What makes one thing a poison over another is amount. Everything is toxic at some exposure level. Some things toxic at a high exposure are safe to use at lower levels.
-There is a LOT to learn about horticulture. It's not something I need to grasp all at once, but it's something worth reading about.
I'm comfortable recommending this book as an addition to any home edible gardener's shelf.
I really enjoyed reading this rather information-dense book. The Truth About Organic Gardening: Benefits, Drawbacks, and the Bottom Line by Jeff Gillman examines the techniques available to home gardeners for management of soil and pests. Gillman acknowledges some bias - he doesn't completely buy into the "organic movement" - but seems to evaluate each product on its own merits. The set-up is simple. After a discussion about what "organic" means (to which there's not really a conclusion), Gillman works his way through the aspects of plant care: fertilization, weed control, insect control, disease control, and animal (bird, deer, rodent, etc) control. For each, Gillman examines potential solutions to each, looking first at those that are free of synthetic chemicals and then the chemicals. Gillman summarizes what the technique is, its advantages, and its disadvantages, considering criteria like environmental impact, effectiveness, cost, and risk to humans and animals. He offers his recommendation on how that balances but generally as a summary, leaving the final call to the reader. (There are a few exceptions to this.)
Horticulture calls it "a reference text masquerading as a beach read" and I find myself in agreement. I read through the book fairly easily. Parts can get a bit technical, but Gillman keeps it understandable. Overall, I enjoyed the spectrum the book offered. Plenty of references are listed, although some reviewers have claimed that they are "cherry-picked."
Some of the take-aways:
-Just because something is natural doesn't mean that it is safe.
-When considering what you will do for your crops, consider what your goals are. What does "organic" mean to you? Does a mix of natural and synthetic practices actually meet your goals better?
-No one applies pesticides because they like to use pesticides. Pesticides are used when necessary to control damage to crops. (If nothing else, it costs more to use them.) What does this mean? The same crops that need a lot of synthetic pesticides typically need a lot of (perhaps more or more frequent) organic pesticides. We test for synthetic ones; we don't have as many tests for natural ones.
-(Edit to add) What makes one thing a poison over another is amount. Everything is toxic at some exposure level. Some things toxic at a high exposure are safe to use at lower levels.
-There is a LOT to learn about horticulture. It's not something I need to grasp all at once, but it's something worth reading about.
I'm comfortable recommending this book as an addition to any home edible gardener's shelf.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Just give me oats!
MJ and I have taken to reading labels on most if the products we buy. I think there's a growing trend that more and more people are doing that, at least with food.
There's even a commercial telling you to read the label on your pet's food, suggesting that one brand has better ingredients than the competition's. I'll confess that we do this, but we also quickly come to the conclusion that we have no idea what [b]should[/b] be in our cat's food. Are sweet potatoes and beets even good for her, yet alone a selling point?
Anyway, I digress. We were at the local mega-chain, all-in-one, how-can-you-not-save-money-here store picking up just a few things (at least that was the original plan), when I decided I should have "healthier" snack options at work so that I would eat less baked goods and candies. I'm inconsistent with things like carrot sticks and fruit, but something truly munchable and not too bad for me - that should work.
I settled in on cereal. But, before I grabbed the box of cheerios sitting on the shelf in front on me, I decided to look closer. Sure enough, the label listed sugar - 5g per serving. Well, surely, I could do better than that. And so began a lengthy stopover in the cereal aisle. My goal: to find a cereal less sweet but still appropriate for snacking (so not a flake). Kix sounded appealing but had no fewer than three types of sweetener in it. The Kashi cereals sounded healthy and delicious, but had twice the sugar, at least for what they defined as a serving.
Ultimately, surprised that it seemed they all had added sugar, I settled on the Cheerios. Five grams of sugar didn't sound like a lot anymore, and it's enhanced with all those vitamins and minerals, to boot. But I am left wondering - has there always been so much sweetener in those boxes? And, would it still taste alright without it?
There's even a commercial telling you to read the label on your pet's food, suggesting that one brand has better ingredients than the competition's. I'll confess that we do this, but we also quickly come to the conclusion that we have no idea what [b]should[/b] be in our cat's food. Are sweet potatoes and beets even good for her, yet alone a selling point?
Anyway, I digress. We were at the local mega-chain, all-in-one, how-can-you-not-save-money-here store picking up just a few things (at least that was the original plan), when I decided I should have "healthier" snack options at work so that I would eat less baked goods and candies. I'm inconsistent with things like carrot sticks and fruit, but something truly munchable and not too bad for me - that should work.
I settled in on cereal. But, before I grabbed the box of cheerios sitting on the shelf in front on me, I decided to look closer. Sure enough, the label listed sugar - 5g per serving. Well, surely, I could do better than that. And so began a lengthy stopover in the cereal aisle. My goal: to find a cereal less sweet but still appropriate for snacking (so not a flake). Kix sounded appealing but had no fewer than three types of sweetener in it. The Kashi cereals sounded healthy and delicious, but had twice the sugar, at least for what they defined as a serving.
Ultimately, surprised that it seemed they all had added sugar, I settled on the Cheerios. Five grams of sugar didn't sound like a lot anymore, and it's enhanced with all those vitamins and minerals, to boot. But I am left wondering - has there always been so much sweetener in those boxes? And, would it still taste alright without it?
Published with Blogger-droid v1.6.8
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
But what will we do with all those veggies?
Ever since I first decided to make a serious effort into eating more "real food," I'd been curious about CSAs. Perhaps even longer. So I was surprised when I started talking about them that most people didn't know what I meant. Now, to be fair, we're surrounded by acronyms these days, and throwing out a few letters with little context, "I'm excited about my CSA," would understandably confuse people. After all, it's something in the forefront of my mind, but not of everyone's. But, even after explaining that CSA means "community supported agriculture," I've found more elaboration is required.
Let's back up a little - what is this thing about "real food" anyway? Put simply, many of us, particularly those who like convenience, have moved further and further away from the "source" of our food, or even simply non-chemically-mimicked food. It's becoming harder to know what's in the things you eat (if you don't make them yourself from base ingredients). Look to the recent court case against Taco Bell for an example of that. There are increasing questions about the safety of what's in our food - both in regard to e. coli and similar outbreaks and questions about the effects of commonplace ingredients like high fructose corn syrup. The idea to eat real food is to stay away from processed ingredients and use things that are fresh and/or natural. (This in itself is a complex idea, as "natural" isn't a regulated term.)
The next part of the fresh food search often leads to the conclusion that you should try to "eat local." Why? There's some idea that eating locally grown and locally produced food will help you be more aware of how the food gets to your plate. But, there's also more direct advantages: a reduction in shipping, less confusion about imported food safety, and fresher ingredients to your door. Embracing local eating often means accepting seasons (or at least, modifying your diet to eat locally during peak growing season) - crops are harvested at certain times of the year and generally will not be available during other times. If you're adventurous, this could lead to accepting new foods into your diet as you eat what's available when it is. If you're really committed, this may mean preserving foods during their peak season so you can eat them during off-peak times.
So where do you find locally grown food? Sometimes at your grocer but more often at farmer's markets, roadside stands, and similar locales. Why? Well, that's where the local farmers bring their food to sell it. There's a few reasons for this, but for the moment, let's stay on the idea of the local, small farm. It's not easy to be a farmer, particularly on a small scale. (Particularly if you don't get government subsidies...) If you're income is entirely based on farming, then your livelihood is directly tied to the weather. Too much rain, not enough rain, frost, scorching heat, et al, all determine your yield for the season. Things like insects, fungus, and disease can also ruin a crop. Then there is the market issue on the other side - once you harvest your crops you need to sell them or lose them - and whether consumers will buy your product a particular day can be unpredictable.
Enter CSAs. In a CSA, a group of people come together to support local agriculture - often by supporting a specific farm. They agree to buy the farmer's goods, typically paying in advance. In other words, they invest in shares of the farm before the harvest. The consumer now shares in the risk with the farmer, and helps to guarantee that the farmer will receive income, even in a bad crop year. In return, the consumer is promised a portion of the harvest on a regular schedule. Nice farm fresh vegetables not shipped from too far away. A farm may diversify its crop to meet the demands of its CSA members or it may join with other farms to provide a variety of goods. Consumers are able to prioritize their values when choosing a CSA - picking an organic farm, for example. Many farms will allow their CSA members to visit their fields; a few may even ask members to contribute in some fashion. The CSA delivery is often a surprise - it will be based on whatever crops are ready to harvest.
For us, our farm aims to fill a 48 quart cooler for each of its full share members each week with organic produce. Now that's a lot of veggies!
Let's back up a little - what is this thing about "real food" anyway? Put simply, many of us, particularly those who like convenience, have moved further and further away from the "source" of our food, or even simply non-chemically-mimicked food. It's becoming harder to know what's in the things you eat (if you don't make them yourself from base ingredients). Look to the recent court case against Taco Bell for an example of that. There are increasing questions about the safety of what's in our food - both in regard to e. coli and similar outbreaks and questions about the effects of commonplace ingredients like high fructose corn syrup. The idea to eat real food is to stay away from processed ingredients and use things that are fresh and/or natural. (This in itself is a complex idea, as "natural" isn't a regulated term.)
The next part of the fresh food search often leads to the conclusion that you should try to "eat local." Why? There's some idea that eating locally grown and locally produced food will help you be more aware of how the food gets to your plate. But, there's also more direct advantages: a reduction in shipping, less confusion about imported food safety, and fresher ingredients to your door. Embracing local eating often means accepting seasons (or at least, modifying your diet to eat locally during peak growing season) - crops are harvested at certain times of the year and generally will not be available during other times. If you're adventurous, this could lead to accepting new foods into your diet as you eat what's available when it is. If you're really committed, this may mean preserving foods during their peak season so you can eat them during off-peak times.
So where do you find locally grown food? Sometimes at your grocer but more often at farmer's markets, roadside stands, and similar locales. Why? Well, that's where the local farmers bring their food to sell it. There's a few reasons for this, but for the moment, let's stay on the idea of the local, small farm. It's not easy to be a farmer, particularly on a small scale. (Particularly if you don't get government subsidies...) If you're income is entirely based on farming, then your livelihood is directly tied to the weather. Too much rain, not enough rain, frost, scorching heat, et al, all determine your yield for the season. Things like insects, fungus, and disease can also ruin a crop. Then there is the market issue on the other side - once you harvest your crops you need to sell them or lose them - and whether consumers will buy your product a particular day can be unpredictable.
Enter CSAs. In a CSA, a group of people come together to support local agriculture - often by supporting a specific farm. They agree to buy the farmer's goods, typically paying in advance. In other words, they invest in shares of the farm before the harvest. The consumer now shares in the risk with the farmer, and helps to guarantee that the farmer will receive income, even in a bad crop year. In return, the consumer is promised a portion of the harvest on a regular schedule. Nice farm fresh vegetables not shipped from too far away. A farm may diversify its crop to meet the demands of its CSA members or it may join with other farms to provide a variety of goods. Consumers are able to prioritize their values when choosing a CSA - picking an organic farm, for example. Many farms will allow their CSA members to visit their fields; a few may even ask members to contribute in some fashion. The CSA delivery is often a surprise - it will be based on whatever crops are ready to harvest.
For us, our farm aims to fill a 48 quart cooler for each of its full share members each week with organic produce. Now that's a lot of veggies!
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Trail in Review: Cedar Ridge Preserve
It is my hope to make trail reviews a regular "feature".
Site: Cedar Ridge Preserve, Dallas, TX
Managed by: Audubon Dallas
Cost: $3 donation requested
Time of hike: Early spring afternoon, weekend
Weather: Sunny and warm
I found this site by a simple google search for Dallas hikes and was interested in checking it out on the promise of butterflies and wildflowers. We were a little early for the wildflowers - they were ready to start blooming and there were some patches of bluebonnets decorating the entrance but they just weren't out in full yet. And the butterfly garden did not yet have its blooms. In fact, it looked like it may be in need of some spring maintenance. Still, we were not disappointed! There were plenty of butterflies out along the trails, and there was plenty of trail to fill the afternoon.
The preserve has several miles of trails ranging in difficulty from "easy" to "hard" with most at a moderate level. You can do in-and-outs, loops, or chain several trails together without much (if any) double-tracking. imagine that this will also allow variety across multiple hikes. We chained together the Escarpment Road, Fossil Valley, and Cedar Break trails for a hike that lasted about 2-2.5 hours. The trails were rated moderate to difficult. We were able to manage all bits, although we felt challenged by parts of the difficult Fossil Valley trail. Its trick lies in its steep slopes, but plateaus and gentle slopes between the steeper bits allow time to recover.
Most of this hike is in wooded areas more reminiscent of the Hill Country than the Plains. This offers shade for much of the hike, although some bits are more exposed. There are a few crossings over streams and run-off paths; one we found had a spot to the side with a bench with a short (12") waterfall and a frog or two. A highlight of the preserve is the cattail pond, which is home to fish, ducks, and turtles. There are several look-out points that offer views back toward town and toward Joe Pool Lake. We think we did spot a fossil or two on the Fossil Valley trail - it was an impression of something in a rock, at least.
The trails are very well maintained and marked. (In fact, they have volunteers perform maintenance on the third Saturday of each month.) The trailhead has water fountains, bathrooms, and picnic tables. There's also the butterfly garden I alluded to earlier. Signs warn hikers to stick to the paths due to the presence of snakes in the area, including rattlesnakes, water moccasins, copperheads, and coral snakes. We did not encounter any snakes although another hiker on the trail warned us that he saw a rattler in the middle of the trail. (MJ suggests that he might have been trying to impress the two ladies who crossed his path first.) There were a fair number of people out but the trail never felt crowded - so long as you weren't looking to feel isolated, it was a comfortable balance of solitude and community.
All in all, an excellent hike that we look forward to doing again. A.
(My current "avatar" is a picture from this hike.)
Cedar Ridge Preserve
Site: Cedar Ridge Preserve, Dallas, TX
Managed by: Audubon Dallas
Cost: $3 donation requested
Time of hike: Early spring afternoon, weekend
Weather: Sunny and warm
I found this site by a simple google search for Dallas hikes and was interested in checking it out on the promise of butterflies and wildflowers. We were a little early for the wildflowers - they were ready to start blooming and there were some patches of bluebonnets decorating the entrance but they just weren't out in full yet. And the butterfly garden did not yet have its blooms. In fact, it looked like it may be in need of some spring maintenance. Still, we were not disappointed! There were plenty of butterflies out along the trails, and there was plenty of trail to fill the afternoon.
The preserve has several miles of trails ranging in difficulty from "easy" to "hard" with most at a moderate level. You can do in-and-outs, loops, or chain several trails together without much (if any) double-tracking. imagine that this will also allow variety across multiple hikes. We chained together the Escarpment Road, Fossil Valley, and Cedar Break trails for a hike that lasted about 2-2.5 hours. The trails were rated moderate to difficult. We were able to manage all bits, although we felt challenged by parts of the difficult Fossil Valley trail. Its trick lies in its steep slopes, but plateaus and gentle slopes between the steeper bits allow time to recover.
Most of this hike is in wooded areas more reminiscent of the Hill Country than the Plains. This offers shade for much of the hike, although some bits are more exposed. There are a few crossings over streams and run-off paths; one we found had a spot to the side with a bench with a short (12") waterfall and a frog or two. A highlight of the preserve is the cattail pond, which is home to fish, ducks, and turtles. There are several look-out points that offer views back toward town and toward Joe Pool Lake. We think we did spot a fossil or two on the Fossil Valley trail - it was an impression of something in a rock, at least.
The trails are very well maintained and marked. (In fact, they have volunteers perform maintenance on the third Saturday of each month.) The trailhead has water fountains, bathrooms, and picnic tables. There's also the butterfly garden I alluded to earlier. Signs warn hikers to stick to the paths due to the presence of snakes in the area, including rattlesnakes, water moccasins, copperheads, and coral snakes. We did not encounter any snakes although another hiker on the trail warned us that he saw a rattler in the middle of the trail. (MJ suggests that he might have been trying to impress the two ladies who crossed his path first.) There were a fair number of people out but the trail never felt crowded - so long as you weren't looking to feel isolated, it was a comfortable balance of solitude and community.
All in all, an excellent hike that we look forward to doing again. A.
(My current "avatar" is a picture from this hike.)
Cedar Ridge Preserve
Saturday, April 2, 2011
The Influence of Democracy and Food
This is a hard year for state governments across the country as they look to balance budgets and Texas is no different. Or perhaps we are; the legislature is only in session for five months every two year term. So now is time when most of the work of the state gets done. Your local government practices may differ.
Two years ago, and closer to the end of the session when things are rushed to get them passed, I wrote to several legislators across the state in protest of an addendum to a bill that would limit who could practice lighting design in the state. It was a rather large lobbying effort in a short amount of time that swamped phones in Austin and resulted in the language being dropped. I generally get annoyed by the idea of lobbying groups (so often it's about money and "pork"), but it was truly exciting to be involved. Anyway, because of that, I was added to the mailing list for my state representative. And generally, that's been neat.
My representative sends out a monthly update email of her activities when the legislature is not in session and weekly ones while it is. It's a quick blurb to keep her constituents updates on what's going on and what she, specifically, is involved in. Whether or not I agree with her positions, I appreciate her effort to stay in communication with the folks "back home" and decided to test her claim (in every email) that she wanted to hear back from us, the voters.
I learned about a gathering by the Organic Consumers Association in Austin to spread awareness and raise support for a bill to label food products that use GMOs. It's an interesting issue. A growing number of crops in our country are genetically modified to "improve" them in some fashion - make them more resistant to fungi and diseases, increase yield, make them resistant to specific herbicides for easier weed control, and similar ideas. The difficulty in this is that it's not clear what effect, if any, these modifications have on us when we consume GMO products. (It shouldn't take much web-searching to find arguments saying that these products are safe and are dangerous!) Furthermore, most Americans do not realize how much of their food is affected by GMO use; GMOs are used extensively in soybeans, canola, cotton, and corn crops, and are starting to gain acceptance in things like sugar beats. (Proteins aren't exempt, either.) The campaign is to alert consumers as to what products contain genetically modified organisms so that they can decide whether or not they want to buy them. Companies using GMOs worry that such awareness will decrease sales and be similar to putting a poison sticker on the side of the container. If that's true, doesn't that mean they already know what consumers want? I don't mean to oversimplify; it really is a complicated question and one that quickly moves from "Do I feel this is a safe ingredient for me and my family?" to "Who has the big pockets that are benefiting from this?" and questions of ethics.
So...I decided to send my representative a note about the upcoming event in Austin and encourage her to consider Truth in Labeling legislation as well as GMO labeling. I wanted it to be something on her radar, realizing there are a lot of balls in the air right now (and some of them, like balanced budgets, education, and arts funding pretty important ones, indeed). What I did not expect was a letter in a the mail within a week thanking me for sharing my views. It's a brief six sentences but specific to my topic and shows that at least someone in her office read my email and took the time to let me know. "I will consider your views...Please continue to communicate your thoughts on issues that are important to you." Perhaps a bit of a throw-away sentiment, but not something that needed to be sent to me at all. I doubt that anything will come from this particular contact (there's no such legislation in the works for Texas right now), but it leaves me feeling encouraged to stay engaged. (And the letterhead says "The State of Texas House of Representatives", which is pretty cool.)
So, my hope for what you take away from this - a representative government will only represent you if you take the time to try to let it. Get in contact with your state and federal representatives and learn what they're doing. And, consider letting them know what you'd like them to do, too.
I'll talk more about food in other messages. Here are some resources in the meanwhile:
World Health Organization on GMOs
Organic Consumers Association
FDA on voluntary labeling
Two years ago, and closer to the end of the session when things are rushed to get them passed, I wrote to several legislators across the state in protest of an addendum to a bill that would limit who could practice lighting design in the state. It was a rather large lobbying effort in a short amount of time that swamped phones in Austin and resulted in the language being dropped. I generally get annoyed by the idea of lobbying groups (so often it's about money and "pork"), but it was truly exciting to be involved. Anyway, because of that, I was added to the mailing list for my state representative. And generally, that's been neat.
My representative sends out a monthly update email of her activities when the legislature is not in session and weekly ones while it is. It's a quick blurb to keep her constituents updates on what's going on and what she, specifically, is involved in. Whether or not I agree with her positions, I appreciate her effort to stay in communication with the folks "back home" and decided to test her claim (in every email) that she wanted to hear back from us, the voters.
I learned about a gathering by the Organic Consumers Association in Austin to spread awareness and raise support for a bill to label food products that use GMOs. It's an interesting issue. A growing number of crops in our country are genetically modified to "improve" them in some fashion - make them more resistant to fungi and diseases, increase yield, make them resistant to specific herbicides for easier weed control, and similar ideas. The difficulty in this is that it's not clear what effect, if any, these modifications have on us when we consume GMO products. (It shouldn't take much web-searching to find arguments saying that these products are safe and are dangerous!) Furthermore, most Americans do not realize how much of their food is affected by GMO use; GMOs are used extensively in soybeans, canola, cotton, and corn crops, and are starting to gain acceptance in things like sugar beats. (Proteins aren't exempt, either.) The campaign is to alert consumers as to what products contain genetically modified organisms so that they can decide whether or not they want to buy them. Companies using GMOs worry that such awareness will decrease sales and be similar to putting a poison sticker on the side of the container. If that's true, doesn't that mean they already know what consumers want? I don't mean to oversimplify; it really is a complicated question and one that quickly moves from "Do I feel this is a safe ingredient for me and my family?" to "Who has the big pockets that are benefiting from this?" and questions of ethics.
So...I decided to send my representative a note about the upcoming event in Austin and encourage her to consider Truth in Labeling legislation as well as GMO labeling. I wanted it to be something on her radar, realizing there are a lot of balls in the air right now (and some of them, like balanced budgets, education, and arts funding pretty important ones, indeed). What I did not expect was a letter in a the mail within a week thanking me for sharing my views. It's a brief six sentences but specific to my topic and shows that at least someone in her office read my email and took the time to let me know. "I will consider your views...Please continue to communicate your thoughts on issues that are important to you." Perhaps a bit of a throw-away sentiment, but not something that needed to be sent to me at all. I doubt that anything will come from this particular contact (there's no such legislation in the works for Texas right now), but it leaves me feeling encouraged to stay engaged. (And the letterhead says "The State of Texas House of Representatives", which is pretty cool.)
So, my hope for what you take away from this - a representative government will only represent you if you take the time to try to let it. Get in contact with your state and federal representatives and learn what they're doing. And, consider letting them know what you'd like them to do, too.
I'll talk more about food in other messages. Here are some resources in the meanwhile:
World Health Organization on GMOs
Organic Consumers Association
FDA on voluntary labeling
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
and time goes by so slowly
At least, it does it you thought I'd make a blog post more than once when I first opened this! Ah, but I've been thinking about creating more, sharing more. and why start over when I'd only just begun? Here's a new challenge: bi-weekly posting. Can I do it? Who knows. But here we go! Potential topics: scene design, food, Bible study, books, politics. So many thoughts, and only my will to get them out. I'll be seeing you - soon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)