I have quad-bracketed my responses.
Message: 3 Date: Mon, 17 May 2004 12:58:12 -0500 From:
"Mary Baker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [StPaul]
Growing your own food, continued To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Message-ID:
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed [My neighbor
grows more food in his back yard and gives over 80% of
it away! Because he ALWAYS has much, much more that he
and his family can use. B/t/w �he has a 10x20 foot
garden and he grows EVERYTHING back there, right in
the heart of the city. You either don't know how to
garden or you�re a republican.]
Last year I had an excess of tomatoes, apples, chives,
peppers, basil, dill, and mint. I traded with my
neighbors for plums and cucumbers, made and froze
salsa, made and stored applesauce, collected and dried
the dill, carried some stuff to work and gave it away,
and let the rest waste. So what? Did I grow enough
excess to feed me for the next year? No. Not even
close. Much less feed myself, husband and child. It's
quite normal to have more than you can eat before the
food spoils. When crops bear fruit, they tend to do it
all at once. Just because there's a lot extra, say
even a month of extra food, does not mean there's a
year's worth of extra. I don't think you understand
the scale of what you're discussing.
[[[Yes it does mean a years worth of food if you
preserve it. Can the food. You can also make a
greenhouse too and grow things year round. In fact, a
neighborhood greenhouse is good idea. ]]]
[Stay on the subject. Whose talking about chickens????
Do you have a some sort of a weird "chicken fetish"? ]
The subject being whether or not a person could
conceivably handle and grow all the food they eat,
without a radical change to our culture and lifestyle.
Many of us eat chickens. Thus, if someone wishes to
handle and grow all the food they eat, then they will
have to handle and grow chickens.
[ you missed the point of the comment. To be safe, one
should handle as much as their own food as they can.
It's just common sense, which says: The more people
that handle the food, the higher the probability of
that food being contaminated.]
[If you eat right, you probably won't get sick, but if
you do, that's what you got neighbors and the U.S.
Government for.]
I see. I suppose all those people who have died of
plague, influenza, pox, dysentery and various other
maladies over the centuries were all simply not eating
right. If you rely upon your neighbors or the US
Government to take care of your foodstocks when you
are sick, then you are not handling or growing all the
food you eat. Your initial post about this subject was
explicit that ANYONE other than yourself who handles
or grows your food is a "butt-scratching profit pimp".
[[[[Didn't say that. I said that I don't like the idea
of leaving it up to them. Yes, the people that did die
of those maladies, probably didn't eat their veggies.
]]]
Thus, you can not allow your neighbors to handle or
grow your food, sick or not. At least, not without
conceding that sometimes circumstances exist that
justifies other people growing and handling your food.
[Malnutrition is natural?] Yes, it is. It is perfectly
natural to die of malnutrition when your environment
does not supply a vital nutrient to your body.
[[[but your environment does provide all that you
need, provided that some capitalist, didn't
contaminate it.]]]
[If McD's is good, I would want to know if Mrs. Croc
eats her 3 squares at one everyday. I would bet you
all the money in you pocket, that she doesn't. ] Stay
on the topic. This discussion has nothing to do with
McDonalds. It has to do with the feasibility of each
and every individual in St. Paul to handle, grow and
prepare their own food. If Mrs. Croc lives in St.
Paul, then I'll concede that her eating habits might
be germaine.
[[[[It has everything to do with topic of what
capitalists do to food. Wealthy people don't have the
same diet as the poor folks.]]]
[Do you understand that you are brainwashed into
believing that (there is a link between working and
getting an income)?] No, I don't think I'm brainwashed
to believing that. I know that if I want to get
something done - say, get my front step fixed, then
I'm going to have to pay someone to do it if I don't
do it myself. If someone comes by and offers to do it,
then does not do any work and my front step is still
screwed up, then I'm not going to pay them. There's a
very direct link between paying someone for a task and
the performance of that task.
[[[this is not on the subject. Jobs equate with wages
and not necessarily income.]]]
[If you need two acres, you should meet my neighbor.
If he used his just HALF of his OWN BACKYARD, he could
feed the entire block! If he's unable to do the work,
because of broken leg, one of the neighbors comes over
a helps out. Imagine what he could do if this was his
full time endeavor?]
I notice that your vaunted neighbor does not handle
and grow his food himself when he gets a broken leg. I
suppose that makes his helpful neighbor a
butt-scratching profit pimp. The rest of your post I'm
going to skip responding to, since for the most part
it's off topic. Mary Baker East Side
[[[I never seen anybody misunderstand a post to this
degree before.
Of course, when he's unable to do his own work, yes,
somebody will have to handle his food chores, and
thusly, he's not handling his own food.]]]
This thread is now closed.
R. Hanson.
St. Paul.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Domains � Claim yours for only $14.70/year
http://smallbusiness.promotions.yahoo.com/offer
_____________________________________________
NEW ADDRESS FOR LIST: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, modify subscription, or get your password - visit:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/stpaul
Archive Address:
http://www.mnforum.org/mailman/private/stpaul/
