What We Eat and Who Suffers for it

Illegal immigration has been in the news lately as states pass stricter laws to police undocumented immigrants. In Georgia, the law requires that employers verify the legal status of their employees, using E-Verify. In Arizona, immigrants must carry their alien registration papers at all times, and anyone whom law enforcement suspects is in this country illegally can be stopped, questioned, and asked to show such papers. (One can imagine how this part of the illegal-immigrant laws can cause all kinds of problems: racial profiling, harassing people who can't produce papers because they are American citizens with, perhaps, only a driver's license on them when stopped, etc.) As these laws get passed in more and more states, the public's attitude toward those who work in our fields, our houses, and our meat-processing plants become more intolerant, too. Or maybe, the intolerance came first, and then the laws. But the two go hand-in-hand.

Illegal immigration is a difficult problem, but every time the federal government tries to reform immigration, voices speak up loudly to prevent any kind of amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have been living within our borders, working hard, paying taxes on the goods they buy, and raising children in better circumstances than those they left behind.

A few articles that I have read recently have illustrated to me how our country depends upon the work of those who are here illegally and thus have influenced me to believe that we need laws that allow those who are working illegally to work legally. Employers take advantage of people who are scared that they will be deported or arrested and jailed. And those who say that illegal workers are taking away jobs that unemployed Americans could have in this terrible economy need to look at the kinds of jobs that illegal immigrants are doing--jobs that require little or no education. Does anyone really think that a recently layed-off manager of a retail store or a fifty-year-old tax accountant is going to take a job digging out pig brains?

An article in Mother Jones--"The Spam Factory's Dirty Secret," by Ted Genoways--describes how foreign workers, many of them undocumented, toil away in meat-processing factories, juicing pig brains for a thickener used in stir fry. Austin, Minnesota, is very proud of Hormel's location in their city of 24,718 residents. Novelist Tim O'Brien was born there. The contracting company that does the meat-processing for Hormel, Quality Pork Processors, Inc. (whose web site is also in Spanish) is also located in Austin, within the 15-foot privacy wall of the Hormel compound. Within those walls, people kill pigs, cut up pigs, turn pig head meat into sausage, and juice pig brains for that thickener which is exported to Asia. "More than 19,000 hogs" can be processed in a single day.

The work is not easy, and the effects can be life-threatening:

Since 1989, the line speed at QPP had been steadily increasing—from 750 heads per hour when the plant opened to 1,350 per hour in 2006, though the workforce barely increased. To speed production, the company installed a conveyor system and humming automatic knives throughout the plant, reducing skilled tasks to single motions. Workers say nearly everyone suffered from carpal tunnel syndrome or some repetitive stress injury, but by October 2007, there were signs of something else. Workers from QPP's kill floor were coming to Carole Bower, the plant's occupational health nurse, with increasingly familiar complaints: numbness and tingling in their extremities, chronic fatigue, searing skin pain. Bower started noticing workers so tender that they struggled with the stairs to the top-floor locker rooms, high above the roar of the factory line.

Workers at the "head" line, that is, those who dig the meat out of the pigs' heads and pull out the spinal cords, and juice the brains into a frothy mix that looks, according to some, like strawberry milkshake or Pepto Bismol, began exhibiting neurological damage. The article describes the terrible effects of that damage on some of the workers. Interestingly, Customs and Immigration started investigating the documentation of those workers who were ill, illustrating, once again, how we take advantage of undocumented workers. We want them to work in our factories, do the dirty work many Americans won't do (and work for which companies want to pay as little as possible), yet we don't want to pay when those workers are hurt in the process. The CEO of QPP negotiated settlements with "up to a dozen of employees who had filed workers' comp claims": "After attorneys' fees, each received $12,500, a half-year's pay." One man who had been permanently injured received $38, 600.

Two other articles about food production in this country also reminded me of how much we depend upon immigrants. This first one is actually a post by Mark Bittman, on his New York Times blog, about Immokalee, Florida, "the source of almost all the winter tomatoes grown in the United States": "Immokalee, America's Tomato Capital," posted 12 May 2011. The second is a follow-up post written by Jennifer Mascia: "Everything You Ever Wanted to Know about Immokalee, Florida", posted 15 June 2011. Bittman's post is a description of his tour of the town where:

tomato workers have gone from enduring slavery, beatings, wage theft (and sub-minimum wage pay) and 12-hour days in the blazing heat with no shade, to a victory that, that, while not quite complete, is possibly the most successful labor action in the United States in 20 years...

In her post, Mascia provides more details of the town and the workers who make sure that tomatoes are available in the produce section of grocery stores. She describes the work that the Coalition of Immokalee Workers has done to prevent slavery and to raise wages and living standards of the people who toil in the fields. Big chain stores fight to get lower prices to pass on to consumers--and the people who suffer are the workers in the field. For after paying for automotive machinery and diesel, where else do farmers have to turn to cut back on costs? Wages.

The production of tomatoes in Immokalee also can be an ecological disaster, as the soil is not rich enough in nutrients to grow crops: "Because of this, the land is bombarded with fertilizers, fungicides and pesticides" (Mascia, "Everything You ever Wanted to Know about Immokalee, Florida"). Also, the tomatoes are picked green and then gassed with ethylene to "ripen" them. Vine-ripened tomatoes, that is, tomatoes too ripe to be gathered and transported, are left on the vines to rot and are ploughed under with the plants after picking, which is done by hand.

Mark Bittman also has a post titled "The True Cost of Tomatoes" (posted 14 June 2011) with more information about the lives of tomato pickers, and Barry Estabrook has written a book detailing the production of tomatoes in Florida and the people who work to get them to the supermarket, Tomatoland: How Modern Industrial Agriculture Destroyed our Most Alluring Fruit. Here's an excerpt from his book: "Slavery in the Tomato Fields," published 8 June 2011, in The Atlantic. One can listen to an interview with Estabrook here: "The Tasteless Modern Tomato", posted by Justin Megahan, 21 June 2011, on the website of Creative Loafing, Tampa.

These articles remind me not only to care about the people who put the food on my table but also to be more aware of the food choices that I make. We owe a lot to immigrants in this country. Grappling the problem of illegal immigration requires some humility and mercy, along with justice.

[The photo at the top of the post is one of our own tomatoes, gathered from our first garden since moving in March to south Louisiana.]


Additional comment: Congressman Mo Brooks of Alabama says he's willing to do anything short of shooting illegal immigrants to get rid of them. He says that:

they have no right to be here. They are clogging up our emergency rooms, and making our education system more expensive. If you go to the Madison County Jail, there are far too many illegal aliens there because they have victimized Americans...[He adds that they] need to quit taking jobs from American citizens.

Maybe he will take their places in the tomato fields of Florida or the pig-brain-sucking head table of Hormel in Austin, Minnesota: "Alabama Congressman Mo Brooks Makes Strong Comments on Illegal Immigration Law," WHNT-19 News, Huntsville, Alabama, 29 June 2011.

More about the meat industry here:
Tom Philpott, "How the Meat Industry Turned Abuse into a Business Model," Mother Jones, 29 June 2011.

And on how House Republicans' refusal to fully fund the Department of Agriculture's appropriations bill for next year will hurt small farmers: Monica Potts, "GOP's Tiny Cuts Wound Small Farmers," Grist 23 June 2011.

See also: Monica Potts' "The Serfs of Arkansas," American Prospect, 9 March 2011.

Protecting the Rich and Powerful

This morning, I read on Salon's website an article titled "The Rich Aren't Like You and Me," by Michael Winship. Winship describes how the rich are getting richer and richer and the poor, poorer and poorer. CEO pay and compensation continues to grow while workers' salaries stagnate. Of 438 companies analyzed:

[a]t 158 of the companies, more was paid to those in charge than was shelled out for outside audit fees. And 32 of them paid more in top salaries than they paid in corporate income taxes. The pay of 2591 executives was up 13.9 percent in 2010. Total, before taxes: $14.3 billion, almost equal to the GDP of Tajikistan, population: more than seven million.

The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act (See also, here) was passed in 2010, in response to the financial crisis, but interested parties have been chipping away at its regulatory power. One of the requirements of the Dodd-Frank would have made transparent the difference between CEO compensation and worker compensation of publicly traded companies: "The Dodd-Frank Act requires publicly traded companies to disclose the median annual total compensation of all employees of the company, the annual total compensation of the CEO, and the ratio comparing those two numbers."

Some folks, however, think that gathering this information is just "too burdensome" for companies and that the money spent gathering that information would best be spent on hiring workers. (Really, how difficult would it be for a company to publish that information in its annual report?) So Rep. Nan Hayworth (R-NY) has sponsored a bill--which has passed in the Committee on Financial Services--to do away with this "burdensome" requirement. Companies, of course, have a vested interest in not making this kind of information easily available to the public--and their own workers. Nan Hayworth also has a vested interest. As Michael Winship points out, Nan Hayworth's official biography

cites 'reducing regulatory burdens on businesses' as one of her top priorities. Among her leading 2010 campaign contributors: leveraged buyout specialists Vestar Capital Partners, distressed debt investors Elliott Management and financial services giant Credit Suisse. Not to mention the anti-taxation Club for Growth.

Businesses, of course, are making profits once again in our stressed economy; workers, however, are not seeing their pay rise accordingly.

So I was curious to see who co-sponsored this bill to lift such a "burdensome" requirement, as outlined in H.R. 1062: Burdensome Data Collection Relief Act. Here are the names: Judy Biggert (R-IL), Francisco Canseco (R-TX), Bob Dold (R-IL), Scott Garrett (R-NJ), Michael Grimm (R-NY), Peter King (R-NY), Bill Posey (R-FL).

As Peter Whoriskey reports in his article in the Washington Post, "Business Group: Public Companies Shouldn't have to Compare CEO and Worker Pay":

The committee vote was largely along partisan lines: Twenty-nine Republicans and four Democrats supported repeal; 21 Democrats opposed it.

As income disparity grows in this country, it's interesting to see just who forms alliances to hide that disparity and to protect the rich.

And so it goes.

Additional information:
members of the Committee on Financial Services

Register opposition or support: popvox

The Hellscape

Yesterday I did a bad thing and a good thing. The bad thing I did was to withdraw the money from my defined contribution plan that covered the last three years I worked part-time in Georgia. No, it wasn't that much money, but the advice my husband had given me was to roll it over into an IRA. Instead, I withdrew the money, deposited most of it in a newly-opened savings account and some of it in a newly-opened checking account in a bank near my new home. Then I went shopping. 

I really don't like to shop, especially in the kind of shopping centers that plaster the area where I have moved and that plaster most of America's cities and suburban areas, what my husband calls "The Hellscape," acres of parking lot in front of big-box buildings. 

What I loved about the place from which we moved is that the local community (one of the densest populated in Georgia) had made a conscious effort to recreate a real downtown, with businesses lined up along sidewalks and parking available in designated areas behind businesses or in parking garages.  Trees lined the streets. Tables were set out in front of restaurants.  An art gallery was located next to an import shop which was located next to a coffee shop where local kids read their poetry on Friday nights. Several good restaurants were within walking distance of my house, a mile from downtown. I could walk the shady sidewalks of my neighborhood and within fifteen minutes arrive at a bookstore or at my hairdresser's or at a restaurant where I could order an excellent margarita.

Not so in The Hellscape. You are damned to arrive only by car--everyone in his or her own car, all the cars stacked up at the three-eyed (or four-eyed if there's a left-turn lane) traffic light that guards the way into The Hellscape. And once you've arrived, and parked, and walked the steaming hot pavement (for this IS south Louisiana) to the somewhat shady portico of the building you're headed for, there are few surprises left to anticipate. All the stores are all the stores you will find in any other Hellscape, and the products sold are products you would find in any other Hellscape store. Maybe you'll find something on sale. 

To shop, I drove to a larger Hellscape from a smaller, labyrinthine Hellscape. The labyrinth had been designed, evidently, to test the orienting skills of the newly-damned. I failed--even with a printed Google map and a satellite photo of the shopping center where the Louisiana Division of Motor Vehicles was located. I had to make a phone call to my husband, who had earlier navigated this labyrinth of Chinese restaurants, pawn shops, and car title stores. 

Once I escaped the Division of Motor Vehicles (where I had to pay a very hefty amount of money to make my car Hellscape legal), I headed to the Big Box Hellscape. Here, at least, there was a bookstore, a Big Box bookstore, but one where I was able to find the books on my reading list even though I had forgotten the titles of those books and the names of the authors. I remembered enough to be able to scan the shelves to find what I needed--and even to pick up a book that was not on my list but which captured my attention as one I might like to read.

And that was the good thing I did: I went shopping for books. Well, I think, probably, the better thing I could have done was to go to a library and check out those books, but I can't be TOO good.

 

(Click on the photo above to see the books I'm anticipating reading. My son immediately snatched up David Eagleman's Incognito: The Secret Lives of the Brain and is almost midway through it.)

Giving Credit Where Credit is Due

The Awl has an interesting post on how Michele Bachman's supporters will use negative criticism to inflame her base--those nasty lefty bloggers, you know--much as Sarah Palin has used negative criticism to make the case that her critics are mean and unfair. But what really caught my attention was the discussion of how local Minnesotans who have been following Bachman's career and catching her out on lies and craziness don't get the credit for their work. Instead, big-name writers such as Matt Taibbi, of Rolling Stone, grab information from those local sites and often don't credit the source. Shame on Rolling Stone! A second criticism of writers of large media publications  is the tendency to condescend to folks who live in those towns from which Bachman and Palin hail: Stillwater, Minnesota; Wasilla, Alaska. It's easy to jet into a place, sniff out some local color, and draw quick conclusions that don't stand up in the light of real analysis--or conclusions that, while not untrue, are simplistic. This is another reason folks hate the media.

Anyway, giving credit where credit is due:  Karl Bremer of Stillwater, Minnesota, has been following Michele Bachman's career from a front-row seat. So check out his blog: Ripple in Stillwater. Also, check out these other sources that did not receive credit for information used by Matt Taibbi in writing for Rolling Stone: Minneapolis City Pages and The Dump Bachman Blog.

Politics Vs. Substantive Discussion of Issues

"... [R]elentless emphasis on the cynical game of politics threatens public life itself, by implying day after day that the political sphere is nothing more than an arena in which ambitious politicians struggle for dominance, rather than a structure in which citizens can deal with worrisome collective problems." --James Fallows, in "Why Americans Hate the Media," Atlantic Magazine,  February 1996.

I am re-reading this article from The Atlantic's archives. Fifteen years later, it seems to me that the media focus is even more on politics rather than on substance, substance such as how our country should deal with the very real problems of unemployment, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq (and now Libya and maybe even Yemen), the financial crisis, and climate change.  Republicans have just about abandoned any real attempt to create jobs for the millions of unemployed Americans, and they are threatening to blow up our country economically by holding the debt limit hostage to their budget-cutting demands, despite contrary advice from economists within their own party. I'm beginning to think that Republicans are willing to sacrifice American livelihoods to win the presidency--They just rejected a suggestion to cut payroll taxes, a move that would stimulate the economy and a tax cut they very much favored in the past. It's all about politics. All about how a poor economy will hurt President Obama's prospects--and the Democrats'--in 2012. And the media focuses on the politics--on how not embracing Paul Ryan's budget plan will affect Republican nominees' chance at the presidency, not on how adopting Ryan's plan will affect ordinary Americans. It's not about us, the people, and how these policies will affect our everyday lives.

Update (Thursday, 23 June, 2011):
The point that James Fallows makes in the quote I've excerpted above has been demonstrated once again in the discussion of climate change. Al Gore has published a very well-written, insightful article in Rolling Stone on climate change. Does the media then discuss climate change, the overwhelming evidence of climate change, the tremendous push-back from vested interests, the consequences of climate change, the ways to confront climate change? No, of course not. Because Al Gore included some criticism of President Obama in his article, the media immediately focuses on politics: Al Gore vs. Barack Obama--as if the whole issue boils down to a boxing match.

Yet Gore's criticism of Obama is muted and is only a small piece of the long article. Once again, the media turns a serious topic into political entertainment.

It's disheartening.

Read the article: "Climate of Denial," Al Gore, Rolling Stone, 22 June 2011.

Typically, television media frames  Gore's discussion of climate change as a political spat, "Gore vs. Obama." On Hardball, Chris Matthews begins his show using that very frame, though he does give a little push back in the lead-in, as do Joan Walsh and Eric Bates: "Drop the Gore vs. Obama Script," Joan Walsh, Salon, 22 June 2011.

Gotcha!

Ever since Katie Couric asked Sarah Palin what newspapers she read to keep informed, Palin has complained that the "lame-stream" media is always trying to trip up politicians with such "gotcha" questions. For my part, Couric's question seemed quite straight-forward. How difficult could it be to name a newspaper or journal or two? Surely Palin read The Weekly Standard, the conservative magazine founded by one of her most ardent supporters at the time, William Kristol. Maybe she occasionally read Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy? I mean, she was the running mate of a man who wanted to lead the most powerful country in the nation.  Were he to become president, she would be, as they say,  a heart-beat away from the presidency. Or, really, how difficult would it be to pucker one's lips to say The New York Times or Washington Post? She could have started locally, with the Anchorage Daily News or the Wasilla Frontiersman. I mean, she was governor of Alaska then, and it would make sense to us voters that she kept up with state news and politics. In short, there was nothing "gotcha" in that question that Sarah Palin herself didn't provide in her answer.

Ever since the Couric interview, Palin has again and again accused the media of focusing on "gotcha" questions. Certainly, there are people and organizations who long for and aggressively look for that "gotcha" moment. The group following Congressman Anthony Weiner's Tweets is an example. Andrew Breitbart is an example.  Writers for The Enquirer may be further examples. But these aren't--usually, I guess I should add here--providers of news for mainstream and authoritative news organizations.

Now Dan Amira, with New York magazine, has put together a slide show of Palin's complaints about these "gotcha" questions--all of which seem quite legitimate questions to me posed to people who were or are running for the highest offices in the land.

Judge for yourself: "A History of Sarah Palin Complaining about 'Gotcha' Questions," Dan Amira, New York Magazine, News and Features, 8 June 2011.

Please go back to your real job, Paul Broun (R-GA)

I am getting really, really tired of hearing U.S. Congressmen and Senators excoriate other public employees. For some reason, Republicans don't seem to think that federal employees are citizens; they certainly don't care if their budget cuts and threats not to raise the debt ceiling deprive hundreds of thousands of citizens of their jobs. And now Paul Broun, Republican Congressman from Georgia, flippantly states on conservative radio host Martha Zoller's show that not raising the debt limit would only put 250,000 or so people out of work. And who cares about those people, anyway? They're just federal employees:

Well, [Paul Broun said] those are gonna be government employees that are put out of work. There are a lot of government employees that need to go find a real job. [Hear these words here:"Paul Broun Fine with 250,000 Public Employees Being Laid Off..."]

Just what is a real job, Congressman Broun? Is taking care of the payroll with the Department of Defense not a real job? Is running the veterans' hospital system not a real job? Is collecting federal income taxes not a real job? How about managing federal lands and national parks? How about the crews who do the cleaning up after tourists at national monuments, national parks, national museums? How about the folks who provide summer informational tours and activities for children at those national museums and national parks? How about those folks at NOAA who chart hurricane activity in the summer and fall? How about the people who make sure (to the best of their ability even when stymied by budget cuts and ideological demagoguery) we have clean air and water?

I admit, Paul Broun, I have a dog in this fight. My husband works for the federal government; he was fortunate to get this job, one which he not only enjoys but for which he is eminently qualified, during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. We have been married for thirty-three years, have seen hard times and good times, and are putting two kids through college. Well-educated, neither of us has ever received a paycheck that truly compensated us for our skills and education, but, also, neither of us has ever been motivated primarily by money. We've had jobs that enabled us to give back to society in some way, through education, conservation, or scientific research. And now we have reached the age when it becomes increasingly difficult to find appropriate employment if we lose our jobs. I know. I've been either under-employed or un-employed for the past several years, despite an excellent employment history (though being a woman who changed jobs to fit the needs of her family certainly did not help me in the long-term). There are hundreds of thousands--millions--of Americans like us, people who paid their taxes, took responsibilities for their families, contributed to their communities, and looked forward to, if not a comfortable retirement, at least a livable retirement.

Those hundreds of thousands of Americans include federal employees who have helped people like you steer the ship of state. And now, in a time of great distress, you are all for abandoning them and for taking an economic path that would not just put more Americans out of work when the current national unemployment rate is 9.1%, but that would also have additional serious consequences for millions of people around the world. Not raising the debt limit could--according to economists that include those from your own political party--cause another financial crisis, and we're not even out of the current crisis yet. Some are even predicting that the current crisis could escalate into another Great Depression. And you're just itching, evidently, to add fuel to the fire.

So please go back to your real job, Congressman Broun. As a federal employee.....you suck.

Traveling with Hate from One Century to the Next

This afternoon I read an article on Slate titled "The Persistence of Hate," by Ray Fisman. The author describes a study done by Nico Voigtländer of UCLA and Joachim Voth of the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Spain. The two academics set out to answer this question by looking at the roots of anti-semitism in Germany: "How persistent are cultural traits?" By comparing historical records, the authors discovered a correlation between the treatment of Jews in certain locales during the Black Plague with anti-semitism in the same locales in Nazi Germany:

When the Black Death arrived in Europe in 1348-50, it was often blamed on Jews poisoning wells. Many towns and cities (but not all) murdered their Jewish populations. Almost six hundred years later, after defeat in World War I, Germany saw a country-wide rise in anti-Semitism. This led to a wave of persecution, even before the Nazi Party seized power in 1933. We demonstrate that localities with a medieval history of pogroms showed markedly higher levels of anti-Semitism in the interwar period. Attacks on Jews were six times more likely in the 1920s in towns and cities where Jews had been burned in 1348-50; the Nazi Party’s share of the vote in 1928 – when it had a strong anti-Semitic focus – was 1.5 times higher than elsewhere.

The authors conclude that hatred was transmitted over centuries, toward a group of people who basically disappeared from Germany in the 1500s (after all the burning and torturing) and who did not return in numbers until the 1700s. You can evaluate the authors' methodology yourself at the following link and download the published paper: Persecution Perpetuated: The Medieval Origins of Anti-Semitic Violence in Nazi Germany," Nico Voigtländer and Joachim Voth, Social Science Research Network: Tomorrow's Research Today, May 27, 2011.

I have scanned the article but have not read it thoroughly, but the findings do not seem out of the realm of possibility to me. Hatred is transmitted from one generation to another, even when the receiving generation has had no personal contact with the persons against whom the hatred is directed.

Just hours after I read the discussion of the study on Slate, my son returned from the tutoring center where he is working part-time this summer. "Guess what question a fourth-grader asked me today," he said to me. "He asked me which side I was on in the Civil War."

A regular student at the tutoring center, this child evidently often tries to engage the tutors with off-the-wall questions not related to the subject in which he is being tutored. He had asked the same question of the woman who was tutoring him, and, not liking her answer--"on the side of the North"--he turned for vindication to my son, who was tutoring other students. When my son said that he was glad that the Union had won, the fourth grader asked him why. "Because slavery is evil," my son replied, trying to keep his answer short and to the point before getting the student back on track.

"But the Civil War wasn't about slavery; it was about state's rights," the kid replied. "Abraham Lincoln made it about slavery to stick it to the South." Then he added that he hated Abraham Lincoln and that it was a good thing that John Wilkes Booth shot him. And he asked my son why he didn't live in the North since he wasn't "for" the South--still fighting the Civil War in his little head.

Later, as my son and I were describing to my husband these two interlinking experiences--my reading the article on Slate and my son's experience with the young student--we discussed a myriad of responses, some a little smart-alecky:

• "You're right: it was about state's rights--about the rights of states to establish or to maintain slavery as an institution."
  
• "Which side was I on? I wasn't alive during that war. Surely I don't look that old."

But it really wasn't a funny story. Hate never is. .......

Update: This must be hate-Abraham-Lincoln week. I just read Andrew Leonard's post on Salon: "Was Abraham Lincoln a Jewish Pawn of the Rothschilds?" Only in this story, hatred of Abraham Lincoln is directly connected to hatred of Jews. It seems that there are conspiracists who believe that Abraham Lincoln started the Civil War because the Rothschilds thought it would be good for banking. It's true that after the Civil War--and in order to help pay for that horrible war--Lincoln reformed the banking system, establishing a national currency--and thus stabilizing banking. As Leonard points out, a similar narrative is being tossed around today toward another president who initiated major banking reform. Is there no exit from these stupid conspiracy cycles and hate transfusions?