Sunday, August 17, 2014

The Jaffe Memo


Table of Population Control Proposals from the Jaffe Memo


In 1969, Frederick Jaffe, the Vice-President of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, sent a 9-page memo to Bernard Berelson, President of the Population Council, which outlined the various proposals under consideration by the eugenicists of the day. Aside from serving as the VP of Planned Parenthood, Jaffe also worked in a consulting role with other prominent Population Control organizations like the National Center for Health Statistics, the National Institutes of Health, the Commission on Population Growth and the American Future, and the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

Consider the opening paragraph of the memo: "This memorandum is responsive to your letter of January 24, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy, defined as "legislative measures, administrative programs, and other governmental actions (a) that are designed to alter population trends... or (b) that actually do alter them."
 
In other words, Jaffe was one of the primary consultants and brain stormer for the elite 1% establishment conglomerate of Corporate/Non-Profits/Tax-Exempt Foundations who had the ways and means to effect  increased  Population Control measures on American society.

Forty-five years later, we can see just how effective the Population Control Industrial Complex has been in shaping our present society, when you see just how much of this original brain storming exercise by this award winning eugenicist has come to pass and now accepted as normalized aspects of our Brave New World Order.

The image of the table that made up the last page of this memo gained some notoriety amongst the Pro-Life/Anti-Abortion blogosphere a few years back. In the time before social media, the Jaffe Memo Table went somewhat viral and generated grist for the mill in the ideological Pro-Life/Pro-Abortion dialectic.

According to Winston Smith over at the Ministry of Truth Wikipedia, under the entry for Frederick S. Jaffe:


In recent years a 1969 memo written by Jaffe has been a source of controversy on the Internet. The memo, written to Bernard Berelson, head of the Population Council, included a table that summarized many proposals from various sources regarding population control. This memo has been erroneously cited to accuse Jaffe and Planned Parenthood of supporting such measures as compulsory abortions and sterilizations, which were among the proposals referenced. In fact the table was merely a listing of current proposals, with sources documented, not the policies of Planned Parenthood. The original memo and an article based on it are available online.

This, of course, is a red herring "re-frame" of the real issue. It's another classic example of the collective Borg of PC thought-policing by the commissars at Wiki, telling us what we are supposed to think when confronted with the table of Population Control measures that were "merely a listing of current proposals."

Having seen a passing mention by an anonymous commenter on another blog citing the Jaffe Memo as a reference to the Population Control agenda, I consulted Googliath, but could not find the Jaffe Memo in its entirety posted anywhere as an easily copy-and-pasted text. Only the .jpg or .pdf picture of the table was widely disseminated throughout teh Interwebz...and the only copy of the entire memo that I could find available -- that was not sequestered behind a pay wall site -- was scanned images of the memo stored on Google Drive.

So I downloaded the image files of the original memo in its entirety and began reading to get to the source of this memo and put the "mere listing of current proposals" into their proper context. As I read, I found myself getting into blogger-fisking mode and wanting to do the classic copy-and-paste of excerpts interspersed with my own thoughts. But the Google drive image files had no text that could be copied and pasted, and I don't have any OCR capable software installed on my current desktop, so instead of a typical fisk-job I decided to transcribe it myself.

The memo in it's entirety represents one of the primary eugenicists of his time weighing the pros and cons of various Population Control measures, and compares and contrasts voluntary versus mandatory measures under consideration by the social engineers of that era. These ideas are considered in the context of American society in the 60's, and how such measures would play out amongst different stratus of socio-economic classes of that era. Jaffe essentially points out that the welfare dependent underclass and the middle/upper-middle classes would require different methods to achieve the Population Control goals of the elitists.


Given the clarity of hindsight by those of us opposed to the agenda of the Population Control Industrial Complex, it is easily discerned that the multivariate approach has succeeded beyond these social engineers wildest dreams. In fact, some of it's "mere listings of current proposals" are currently being promulgated today, most notably the promotion of homosexuality, and the infliction of chronic depression via a genetically modified and artificially engineered dietary zeitgeist in conjunction with the proliferation of unnatural lifestyles endemic to our modern rat race.


It confirms one of my primary contentions I've been making on this blog for years now - our highly engineered society was deliberately designed that way.

In this, the year of our lord 2014 AD, with American citizens of the vanishing middle class not reproducing at population replacement levels, while the welfare dependent classes are producing future revenue streams for the industrial incarceration complex and providing further justification for the expansion of the Surveillance-Militarized Police State, it's not a stretch of the imagination to say we now live in the dystopian world imagined by the likes of Frederick Jaffe, Bernard Berelson, Margaret Sanger and the likes of the elitist eugenicists at the Rockefeller Foundation et al.


The following is a complete transcription of the Jaffe Memo.



http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


The Technical Assistance Division of Planned Parenthood-World Population

Center for
Family Planning
Program
Development

545 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10022
(212) 752-2100

March 11, 1969

TO: Bernard Berelson

FROM: Frederick S. Jaffe

RE: Activities Relevant to the Study of Population Policy for the United States

This memorandum is responsive to your letter of January 24, seeking ideas on necessary and useful activities relevant to formation of population policy, defined as "legislative measures, administrative programs, and other governmental actions (a) that are designed to alter population trends... or (b) that actually do alter them." My observations will be limited to the United States and to activities which might shed light on the necessity for, desirability of and in some cases, the potential hazards, of development of an explicit governmental population policy or policies in the United States.

Apart from the abstraction that in the long run, a zero rate of population growth is inevitable, the arguments advanced to justify an explicit U.S. policy now of encouraging a specific universal limit on family size (as distinguished from proposals aimed selectively at welfare recipients and racial groups) center mainly on two propositions:

1) That continued U.S. population growth will inevitably cause a deterioration in the quality of life of this and future generations; this can be described as the ecological position.*

2) That an explicit U.S. policy to encourage or compel smaller family size in the U.S. is necessary to enable our government effectively to encourage or compel developing nations to move in similar directions; this may be termed the international public relations position.


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif
* A variant of this position is that the U.S., with some 6 percent of the world's population already uses more than half of the world's non-renewable natural resources, and that population growth here thus effects not only the quality of American life but the opportunity of the developing countries even to attempt to improve their living standards.
http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


The debate thus far (in government, among conservation organizations, in the demographic field, within Planned Parenthood, etc.) has with only a few notable exceptions (e.g. Coale) virtually ignored current actual U.S. fertility behavior and its implications for public policies in other areas which may influence the realization of fertility preferences, nor with the predictable political consequences of a major effort to adopt and enforce an anti-natalist U.S. population policy. Nor has it viewed population policy as an element -- but only one -- of a larger field of social planning in which the direct and indirect costs and benefits of each element must be weighed against the direct and indirect costs and benefits of all elements in order to produce a coherent social policy.

Realistic public policies intended to influence actual behavior are rarely adopted in the U.S. only for public relations reasons. Proposition 2 above, therefore, is not likely to become the primary basis for a U.S. population policy will ultimately be made on the validity or invalidity of Proposition 1.

Accordingly, at least as regards the United States, I believe that a number of activities must be undertaken as prior and necessary conditions to consideration of whether or not the U.S. should adopt any explicit population policy.

These suggestions are set forth below, more or less in the order required, logically, for prior questions to be answered authoritatively before derivative issues are tackled. The first activities are designed to provide a definitive assessment of the levels of population growth that can be expected from expanding to the maximum current voluntary control mechanisms; these studies would offer an answer to the basic question, "Does the U.S. need an explicit population policy?" If there then will still remain some definable problem of population growth in the U.S. on a best-judgement basis, the second group of studies would attempt to clarify the terms of the discourse over alternative policies by removing the value-laden assumptions which have thus far distorted professional and public thinking. Then, it is proposed that a wide range of public policies in the other areas -- and their underlying theoretical bases -- be examined disinterestedly to determine what impact, if any, they have had on population trends. Finally, the list of potentially effective alternative policies which emerges would be critically assessed in terms of their likely political and social consequences in a stratified society.


I. The Uses and Limits of a Contraceptive Society

The U.S. has achieved near-universal practice of some form of fertility control (including ineffective methods). The argument for a U.S. population policy rests on the expressed preference of U.S. couples for an average ideal family of 3+ children which will result in a rate of growth which is said to be impermissible. (It is important to note that the number wanted is usually less than the number regarded as ideal.) Yet, current fertility experience appears to go in the opposite direction: the annual fertility rate is now about 85 which, if continued, would result in an average completed family size of about 2.6 children; this is being accomplished in spite of present state of technology, ranging from relatively efficient-to-inefficient contraceptive techniques and, for all practical purposes, with no legal abortion backup; current fertility therefore includes a sizeable number of unwanted births and conceptions. (Data from the 1965 National Fertility Study yields a minimum estimate of 850,000 unwanted births annually from 1960-65, or 21 percent of all births.* While overall fertility has declined since 1960-65, it seems highly likely that current fertility includes at least a 15 percent incidence of unwanted births. If this is valid, the "wanted" fertility rate currently is between 70-75, which is replacement level, if it continued.)

There are, of course, excellent reasons for caution in projecting future trends based on current fertility experience: the fertility preferences of American couples are not static and vary in response to conditions which are only dimly known. But the same caveat applies even more strongly to extrapolations from the post-World War II pre-pill period (upon which much of the demand for a U.S. population policy is based): these projections appear to have been rather considerably modified by the availability of improved contraceptive techniques since 1960 and the degree to which these methods contributed to delaying first births and introducing longer intervals between subsequent births. Moreover, the interaction between improved fertility control and fertility preferences are only beginning to be clarified by scholars like Freedman, Westoff and Ryder who have shown that "later equals fewer".**

I imagine that it was data such as these which led Coale last November to state that there seems to be as much reason to believe that the U.S. will shortly worrying about too few births as about too many. ***

Since the U.S. has the resources to make truly efficient contraception truly available to everyone and to complement this with abortion on demand, it could thus provide a test of the uses and limits of voluntary action in solving the population problem.

http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif
*Jaffe, Frederick S. and Alan F. Guttmacher, "Family Planning Programs in the U.S.' Demography (forthcoming).

** Freedman, R.C. Coombs and L. Bumpass, "Stability and Change in Expectations About Family Size - A Longitudinal Study" ,Demography 1965 V.2: N.B. Ryder & C.F. Westoff, "The Trend of Expected Parity in the U.S. - 1955, 1960, 1965" , Population Index, April-June, 1967.

*** At PPWP's Annual Meeting Symposium.
http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif


The following work appear indicated:

1) a definitive study of the current number of unwanted births in the United States.

2) A definitive study of the current number of illegal abortions in the United States.

3) From 1 and 2, an assessment of the likely rate of growth following the virtual elimination of unwanted pregnancy in a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all who want it and abortion is available on demand as a backup measure.

4) Delineation of the necessary and sufficient conditions for achieving such a society:

     a) public and private resources: funds, professional cadres, priority.

     b) efficient contraceptive technologies.

     c) distribution systems.

     d) legal, political and institutional changes (and the requirements for inducing them).

     e) open questions requiring additional research.


5) Assessment of the political, social economic and cultural consequences of the likely rate of growth indicated in 3, or the benefits against which the costs of achieving a truly contraceptive society (as in 4) could be weighed.

The hypothesis underlying these proposals is that the achievement of a society in which effective contraception is efficiently distributed to all, based on present voluntary norms, would either result in a tolerable rate of growth, or go very far toward achieving it. If this hypothesis is basically confirmed, it would negate the need for an explicit U.S> population policy which goes beyond voluntary norms.


II Clarifying the Terms of the Discourse

The present discourse on population policy is loaded with assumptions, biases and judgements about the causes and determinants of fertility behavior, and these assumptions are imbedded (sic) in the very terminology employed. Some of these assumptions go back in the literature for decades and centuries (e.g., Malthus' "population bounty") but have never been subjected to empirical verification. Instead, they have been accepted as conventional wisdom and in turn, tend to impede and distort clarification of the issues involved in assessing alternative policy proposals.

It is proposed, therefore, that certain key terms and assumptions be clarified and subjected to empirical test, to the extent data and research would permit:

1) Are free social services "pro-natalist"?

The idea that provision of free social services has a pre-natalist effect is accepted almost uncritically in the literature and in turn, becomes a major postulate on which alternative proposals are based. Empirical analysis is needed to determine the extent to which this characterization is valid as to outcome (as distinguished from the rhetoric advanced to justify adoption of the particular policy in the first place).

For example, is there any evidence that fertility among comparable classes is higher in countries, states or communities which make the following services available, free, to large numbers of couples than in countries,
states or communities which do not?

      Maternal and Child Medical Care
      Maternity Leave and Benefits
      Child Care Facilities
      Compulsory Public Education Through High School
      College Education (or scholarships liberally available)

These services of course, have positive benefits to society which go beyond fertility (although some may have a subsequent effect on fertility also - and not in the pro-natalist direction). They appear to be characterized as "pronatalist" only because they do not directly penalize child-bearing but there appears to be no evidence that they do indeed encourage fertility, in the United States or elsewhere. In fact, areas and nations providing more free social services appear, on superficial analysis, to have lower fertility, but this may be explained on other grounds (e.e. higher living standards). Nevertheless, the influence or lack of influence of these services on fertility should be established.

2) Economic "incentives" to fertility

A special case of (1) relates to the presumed "incentive" to fertility in such programs as family and children's allowances. These allowances were (and are) legitimated politically as a means of increasing the birth rate, but the only analyses thus far of the actual results yield no support for their presumed pro-natalist effect. Yet, based  on the initial justification and the ensuing terminological/ideological set, many proposals are advanced to reduce, eliminate or block family allowances on fertility grounds.

A definitive empirical study is needed of the fertility outcome of family allowance programs, both to inform the forthcoming U.S. debate on restructuring the welfare system and to shed light on the potential usefulness of economic incentives (and thus disincentives) in shaping fertility trends.

A definitive empirical study is also needed of the specific American variant in this area - namely, the frequent allegation that AFDC mothers have more children in order to increase their monthly allotment. This notion is widely held among influential citizens and policy makers and is one of the powerful stimulants behind the demand for a U.S. population policy.


III Assessment of the Impact on Population Trends of Other Public Policies

Considering the theoretical importance which is attached to social and economic factors in shaping population trends, it is remarkable how little attention has been paid to the effects on fertility of public policies in areas affecting basic social and economic structure. Only recently, for example, it has been suggested that differential welfare standards are a factor stimulating migration (with little or no empirical evidence).

It would seem useful, therefore, to seek some assessment of the actual or anticipated effect on population of current policies, such as:

1) Fiscal and Monetary Policy which appears to regard inflation as a concomitant of full employment and thus, to accept relatively high (or at least preventable) unemployment levels as necessary. Yet, more women enter the labor market under conditions of full employment and the relationship between employment of women and lower fertility seems to be well established. An examination is needed of, in effect, the question: How much inflation could or should we risk to achieve lower fertility? (X% risk of inflation - Y% increase in women's employment = Z% reduction in fertility.)

2) Education Policy; At least two aspects seem worth study:

a) The effect on fertility of policies to encourage higher educational levels for everyone (assuming that the alleged "pro-natalist" effect of free education discussed in II can be reconciled with demographic research showing the inverse relationship of education and fertility); and

b) The effect on fertility of current policies and programs regarding the education of women (for example, to prepare them either for motherhood or labor force participation, earlier or later marriage, etc.), and the likely effects of alternative policies.

3) Manpower Policy -- this is closely related to 1 and 2: the extent to which current policies, ranging from training and apprenticeship requirements to transferability of pension plans, encourage or discourage women to work should be examined. A specific aspect of this analysis would be the extent to which public policy facilitates or discourages the employment of young mothers through provision or denial of child care facilities (assuming again a reconciliation program with the alleged "pro-natalist" effects discussed in II).

4) Farm Policy -- The extent to which the governing U.S. farm policy of encouraging the amalgamation of family farms into "agrobusinesses" has contributed to rural-urban migration during the last 20 years should be examined.

5) Welfare Policy -- The extent to which unlivable assistance levels and inadequate medical and social services, coupled with stimatization (sic) of recipients, have contributed to higher fertility should be explored.

6) Housing Policy -- To which extent has the policy of encouraging small home ownership and suburban development encouraged higher fertility levels? What would be the likely effects of alternative special policies?

7) Economic Theory and Policy -- a special case is the area of economic policy because it is widely believed that population growth is indispensable to economic growth. Whether we like it or not, this is probably the controlling idea in the business community and among the economist, and it is highly unlikely that a population policy aimed at lower rates of growth will be adopted until this concept is replaced. Two approaches are suggested:

a) A study tracing the function -- explicit or implicit -- of population growth in the models propounded by economic theorists historically. The aim of the study would be to answer, in theoretical terms, the question: Among the theories of economic growth in advanced countries which control policy and business decison-making (sic) today, is continued population growth an indispensable or dispensable element?

b)  Encouragement of work by appropriate economic theorists to develop a substitute for population growth in advanced countries.

The studies outlined above would shed light on the effect on population trends of some existing public policies; identify the interests benefiting from these policies; and hopefully identify some points for intervention to encourage lower fetility (sic) without the adoption of an explicit population policy.


IV Assessment of the Effectiveness of Population Education In Influencing Fertility Preferences

Expansion of educational activities designed to increase awareness of the population problem has been advocated, both in terms of its intrinsic merits and as a part of an overall population policy. Projects should be undertaken to delineate the content, scope and limits of such activities as a guide to programs in the schools and by private groups, and studies should be conducted to test the effectiveness of these programs in actually influencing fertility preferences.

In this area, it seems particularly important to distinguish between education and indoctrination. Whatever may be the merits and effectiveness of truly educational effort, an indoctrination campaign may well have only negligible effects on fertility values, but may provide unintended support in building a public opinion which seeks legalized compulsory fertility control for selected groups (particularly welfare recipients). The adverse political consequences of such a development on the population and family planning fields, nationally and internationally, could be quite serious.


V Assessment of the Political and Social Consequences of Alternative Population Policies in a Stratified Society

The debate in the United States thus far has proceeded with almost no explicit acknowledgement of the fact that the U.S. is an economically and racially stratified society. Yet it is clear that most of the policies proposed as alternatives to family planning cannot be expected to affect all segments of the population equally. The attached table attempts a rough sorting of the principal measures discussed, according to whether their impact would be universal or selective. Clearly policies which are primarily economic in effect -- tax policies, incentives and disincentives -- cannot be expected to have equal influence on the behavior of rich middle-class and low-income families. Other proposals - e.g., compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies -- can be expected to be applied selectively against those out-of-wedlock pregnancies which are visible, and this has racial overtones. Social stratification thus raises sharply the issue, "Who shall decide whose fertility -- and for whose purposes?"

It seems urgent therefore, that the policies which emerge as apparently useful from the work proposed in I-IV above be subjected to critical scrutiny in terms of the realities of a class-and race-stratified society. Such an analysis should establish which policies can be administered universally and which can be expected to have a differential impact on various segments of the population. The political consequences of such differentiation should be examined, in an effort to provide working answers to questions such as these:

1) Is it feasible to expect that society will accept policies which curb fertility universally -- or is it more likely that those who are powerful will favor and adopt policies which affect primarily those who have less power or are powerless? Is such differential treatment politically viable?

2) Is it possible to propose and justify universal fertility control policies without reinforcing and legitimating -- politically, philosophically and ideologically -- the existing body of opinion which, for reasons having little to do with the population problem, already seeks selective compulsory fertility control of welfare recipients and minority groups?

These studies, in my view, would be necessary for a clear answer to the key questions surrounding an explicit population policy in the United States namely:

Do we need one -- and if so, how soon?

Is the anticipated gain worth the likely cost?


http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

Text of the notorious table on page 9 of the memo:


PROPOSED MEASURES TO REDUCE FERTILITY BY UNIVERSALITY OR SELECTIVITY OF IMPACT IN THE U.S.

UNIVERSAL IMPACT

Social Constraints

Restructure family:
a) Postpone or avoid marriage
b) Alter image of ideal family size

Compulsory education of children

Encourage increased homosexuality

Educate for family limitation

Fertility control agents in the water supply

Encourage women to work


SELECTIVE IMPACT DEPENDING ON SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS

Economic Deterrents/Incentives -

Modify tax policies:
     a) Substantial marriage tax
     b) Child tax
     c) Tax married more than single
     d) Remove parents' tax exemption
     e) Additional taxes on parents with more than 1 or 2 children in school

Reduce/eliminate paid maternity leave or benefits

Bonuses for delayed marriage and greater child-spacing

Pensions for women of 45 with less than N children

Eliminate Welfare payments after first 2 children

Chronic Depression

Require women to work and provide few child care facilities

Limit/eliminate publicly financed medical care, scholarships, housing, loans and subsidies to families with more than N children


Social Controls -

Compulsory abortion of out-of-wedlock pregnancies

Compulsory sterilization of all who have two children except for a few who would be allowed three

Confine childbearing to only a limited number of adults

Stock certification permits for children

Housing Policies:

     a) Discouragement of private home ownership
     b) Stop awarding public housing based on family size


Measures Predicated on Existing Motivation to Prevent Unwanted Pregnancy

Payments to encourage sterilization

Payments to encourage contraception

Abortion and sterilization on demand

Allow harmless contraceptives to be distributed nonmedically

Improve contraceptive technology

Make contraception truly available and accessible

Improve maternal health care with family planning as a core element

Tuesday, August 5, 2014

We're in for Twice the Fun


Hey CNN, in Hawaii, we call them Hurricanes, not Cyclones!

In rare event, 2 tropical cyclones aimed at Hawaii
By Mariano Castillo and Tony Marco, CNN
updated 8:18 PM EDT, Tue August 5, 2014

(CNN) -- Tropical cyclones in the Pacific do not worry some Hawaiian residents because direct hits historically have been so rare on the islands. Hawaii is a small target in a large ocean.

But the state finds itself prepping ahead of what could be a pair of back-to-back smacks from Hurricane Iselle and Tropical Storm Julio. Even if these two storms weaken or don't make landfall -- as is usually the case around Hawaii -- they can still cause damage, including flooding and debris, experts warn.

So I went to the store today to buy some hearthealthywholegrains (which I use to make my own chicken feed; not for human consumption,) and was bemusedly observing the circus of panic shopping going on as folks cleared the shelves of toilet paper, rice, bottled water, ramen noodles and canned food.

I was able to grab my single bag of hearthealthywholegrains and go up to a single cash register designated for purchasing items that could be hand carried from the premise. Anyone with a shopping cart had to stand in a line that wound around the entire premise of the store. I heard folks grumbling that they were in line for over an hour.

There was no one waiting at the hand carry register.

I was in and out in under 10 minutes.

Once again, I rest somewhat easier than most of my fellow Hawaii residents, simply because I've always adhered to the boy scout motto: Be Prepared.

Now it's time to clean the guns, sharpen the blades, oil the chain on the saw, and batten down the hatches.

A hui hou.



Wednesday, July 23, 2014

Deliberate Obesity Pandemic




Time to don the tin-foil constructed, conspiritard food magic cap once again, and point out that there are conspiracy theories and then there are conspiracy facts.

Here's one conspiracy fact - we are in the midst of an obesity pandemic, and it is in fact a pandemic that is deliberately instigated through subsidization by the federal government of USA Inc.

By annually borrowing more money from the Fiat Usury Cartel to exponentially and perpetually increase the compound interest due to further cast the increasingly expanding American serfs into irreconcilable debt bondage, THEY subsidize the Farm Bills for Big Ag Corps to manufacture and distribute the poisonous feed that drives the rise in the numbers of shambling mounds of the malnourished and morbidly sick, lumbering about from sea to shining sea, all across the bloated plains.

The sightings of such specimens are becoming increasingly more common everywhere in our brave new world order. You can find them at almost anytime, any day if you care to go looking for examples of what I'm describing here. They can be found parking there autos in handicap stalls with their State sanctioned placards of parking privilege, to then laboriously waddle over to the motorized shopping carts near the store entrances, so they can then scoot around their local global-corporate cartel distribution center, to load up on more of the processed feed that made them this way in the first place.


But there's far more to this equation than just simply considering the annual Federal Farm Bills passed by the stooges in congress, duly compensated for continuing the subsidizing of the RoundUpReady soy-corn-wheat industrial complex.

No sirree, it is now a virtually enshrined right, an entitlement benefit to ensure the average citizen has the subsidized means to acquire and consume these manufactured products that cause exponential corporeal expansion at an alarming rate.

The frequently condemned subsidized Big Ag farm bills (rightly so!) are only one part of this equation. We have to also consider the EBT/SNAP program and it's junk food "loophole." As one lady wrote into the letters department of the Augusta Chronicle last year, Why does EBT fund junk?

I am totally confused! The government is now regulating the type of food and fat content in schools. If the government is so concerned about obesity in young people, then why don’t they place restrictions on food bought and paid for by government EBT cards?

When I go grocery shopping, I see people in front of me in the checkout line with carts full of cookies, candy, chips and soft drinks, and they pull out their EBT cards to pay. All over supermarkets, you see junk food labeled “EBT-approved.” Why can’t EBT cards be restricted to nourishing staple foods such as chicken, beans, vegetables, milk, juice and healthy foods?

I regularly see the same thing here in Hawaii that a flummoxed taxpayer in Georgia notices as well. A commenter on the letter makes the same point I've made many times before:

Why junk food? Higher profit margins and large corporate lobbies. The individual receiving EBT assistance is only the middleman in the spending chain -- ultimately EBT money ends up largely in the pockets of the processed food industry, which has huge lobbying influence and deep pockets. They buy Congress, Congress makes sure spending continues to flow to their coffers. Excluding junk food from EBT would withhold money from heavyweights like Kraft, General Mills, Pepsi/Coke, FritoLay, etc.

Of course, if the likes of Kraft, GM, Pepsi/Coke, FritoLay, Nestle, Nabisco, Sarah Lee, et al are the heavyweights, let's not forget the 30000000 lbs. Godzilla in the room.... but I digress.

Michael Pollan is one guy who's been at the forefront of pointing out the key role the Federal Farm Bill plays in fomenting our deliberately subsidized obesity pandemic for the profits of Big Ag:

It’s an old story: the “hunger lobby” gets its food stamps so long as the farm lobby can have its subsidies. Similar, if less lavish, terms are now being offered to the public health and environmental “interests” to get them on board. That’s why there’s more money in this farm bill for nutrition programs and, for the first time, about $2 billion to support “specialty crops” –farm-bill-speak for the kind of food people actually eat. (Since California grows most of the nation’s specialty crops, this was the price for the state delegation’s support. Cheap indeed!)

There’s also money for the environment: an additional $4 billion in the Senate bill to protect wetlands and grasslands and reward farmers for environmental stewardship, and billions in the House bill for environmental cleanup. There’s an important provision in both bills that will make it easier for schools to buy food from local farmers. And there’s money to promote farmers’ markets and otherwise support the local food movement.

But as important as these programs are, they are just programs–mere fleas on the elephant in the room. The name of that elephant is the commodity title, the all-important subsidy section of the bill. It dictates the rules of the entire food system. As long as the commodity title remains untouched, the way we eat will remain unchanged.

The explanation for this is straightforward. We would not need all these nutrition programs if the commodity title didn’t do such a good job making junk food and fast food so ubiquitous and cheap. Food stamps are crucial, surely, but they will be spent on processed rather than real food as long as the commodity title makes calories of fat and sugar the best deal in the supermarket.

....and of course, let us also not forget to include the other profiteers of this great porking-up pandemic, the Banksters 2B2F.

JP Morgan is the largest processor of food stamp benefits in the United States. JP Morgan has contracted to provide food stamp debit cards in 26 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. JP Morgan is paid for each case that it handles, so that means that the more Americans that go on food stamps, the more profits JP Morgan makes. Yes, you read that correctly. When the number of Americans on food stamps goes up, JP Morgan makes more money.

 In short, there's a lot of money to be made in the fattening up of the American sheeple, and there is just too much momemtum, too much profits, and too much vested interest by too many entities to ever hope for any meaningful change to ever come about in our current political system based on balanced bullshit and perpetual peonage of We the Sheeple to the Fiat Usury Cartel.

http://www.blogblog.com/scribe/divider.gif

In the mid-90's, Wal Mart first came to Hawaii in a town called Mililani, a small suburban community in the center of the island of O'ahu. For a short while, it was the number one Wal Mart in terms of sales in the entire country. (I only know this because an old high school friend worked there when they first opened).

People from all over the island would drive one to two hours just to go there to save a few bucks on toiletries, cleaning supplies and textiles made in China, that no other stores or chains anywhere else on the island could hope to compete with...not to mention it was the first store to remain open for business 24 hours a day here. The people of Hawaii went Wal Mart crazy the first few years they opened their doors here.

I remember one incident fairly well. I was at a different shopping center in the same town, and a car of local people pulled up to me as I was walking along the sidewalk, and asked me if I knew where the new Wal Mart was. They told me they were from Waimanalo - the far Eastern end of the island, a good 2 hours drive away at that time - and that they had never been to Mililani before.

To most folks in the USA Inc., 2 hours drive is literally nothing to ya'all. But on a small, densely populated island like O'ahu, two hours of driving through our winding, crowded and often gridlocked freeways and streets just to go to shopping at a store is not normal behavior.

I was amazed at how far these folks would drive just to shop at Wal Mart.

20 years later, we have Wal Marts, KMarts, Target, and Walgreens, and all sorts of National Chain super store/big box retailers all over, and nobody has to drive more than 15-20 minutes to get to one.

Prior to the arrival of these big National chain stores, Hawaii had a number of small, locally owned retail stores, some even family owned for several generations. Most of these are all gone now, and the one drug/sundries/retail chain that has been in business in Hawaii for a really long time and has a loyal following of locals that have kept it profitable in the face of big box competition, Longs Drugs, has been bought out by CVS.

Now Longs Drugs also had stores in California and a few other West Coast States, but in Hawaii, Longs has such a loyal customer base, it is the only place for which CVS opted to keep the name Longs Drugs for all it's stores, while all the Mainland stores have been changed to CVS.

This may seem like I'm going off on a tangent here, but stick with me for a bit more and you'll see what I'm getting at here with regards to this topic...

...anyhow, back when Wal Mart first opened, I remember shopping there pretty frequently, as I lived in a neighboring town at that time, about 10 minutes drive away. After a few years, I remember going into the store one day and noticed that they had started selling fresh produce. Not much, just a few crates of fruits and vegetables, and a single aisle of refrigerators selling a token amount of dairy and some processed meat products. At that time, I had also been to stores like Wal Mart, Target, Walgreens and other big box retailers on my trips to the mainland, and none of them carried fresh produce that I could remember.

Shortly thereafter, Longs Drugs followed suit, installing a very small "produce" section in the store. Like really small. A single, open air, refrigerated shelf, with a few heads of lettuce, apples, some processed American cheese slices, a few cartons of factory farmed eggs and some gallons of milk. I was always puzzled at why a store like Longs and Wal Mart, would have those dinky little produce sections...especially since that Wal Mart and nearly all Longs stores all over the island, were mostly located to prominent grocery store chains in their respective shopping centers.

I also noted that most of the time, this produce was of marginal quality and it usually looked like no one ever bought any of it, and it was almost never on sale and usually priced more expensive than the same produce brands and products found in any other Hawaiian grocery store. In fact, I even remember on a few occasions seeing Longs Drugs store employees loading up an entire cart of produce that had not sold and spoiled, and re-stocking the meager shelf with a new batch of most likely never-to-be-purchased produce.

I often wondered about the business decisions of a company like Longs Drugs and Wal Mart to waste floor space for a rinky-dink produce section, when they are immediately adjacent to popular grocery stores. Why would anyone buy there produce from a drug store or a Wal Mart? Why do these stores even bother trying to sell such meager offerings when customers need only walk 20 yards next door to a grocery store with much better selection and variety of produce at better bargain prices?

Several months ago, it finally dawned on me when I was buying some batteries from Longs, and I was in line at the register, observing another victim of the American Obesity Pandemic, unloading her shopping cart of cases of soda, snack cakes, chips and twinkies... then I watched her pay for it with her EBT card.



Stores like Longs Drugs could care less if they had entire cases of lettuce, tomatoes, apples and bananas rot and get thrown away every few days, never selling a single bit of it.

As long as they offer a minimum amount of fresh produce, they can then accept EBT payments for the copious amounts of obesity-generating feed on sale in the profit aisle. Prior to the addition of a single small "produce aisle" I'm positive the old food stamps where not allowed to be used to purchase all the junk food stores like Longs Drugs had always sold. I now believe the switch over from the old food stamps to the electronically controlled EBT/SNAP system happened at around the exact same time all these stores started getting into the fresh produce business. It's positively diabolical, and most certainly deliberate.


Yes, my fellow food magic conspiritards, I am blaming the American deliberate obesity pandemic on the USDA-Big Ag-Junk Feed-EBT-Big-Box-Store Industrial complex. Then again, we need not try and create a long acronym or such a large hyphenated label for this dastardly and malevolent conspiracy. Just understand that it is all just various facets of the one big Company Store that rules our globalized, "fair-trade" world.