Can you see yourself standing in this field?

Well, not by yourself. You'll actually be there with hundreds of thought leaders, entrepreneurs, investors and activists from around the country. Under a big tent. Next to Lake Champlain. Comparing notes with folks from Austin, Seattle, Boston, New Orleans and many other places where Slow Money initiatives are emerging.  

And listening to Bill McKibben, Joel Salatin, Gary Hirshberg, Eliot Coleman, Will Raap, Erika Allen and many other inspiring leaders at Slow Money's National Gathering at Shelburne Farms June 9-11.

The event is filling up, so don't delay.  Register today.

[I also read on their FB page that if you join Slow Money with a donation amount, that they'll significantly discount the registration fee for this event. So check out the Slow Money website and you can also follow them on Facebook.]


Thanks to our Sponsors who make this event possible!

Mary's Gone Crackers RSF Social Finance Betsy and Jesse Fink Foundation Organic Valley Solidago Foundation Calvert Foundation Castanea Foundation Chelsea Green City Market Clean Yield Clif Bar Recycled Paper Printing Sandy River Charitable Foundation Vermont Sustainable Jobs Fund Trillium Gardener's Supply Wainwright Bank Merritt & Merritt & Moulton Vermont Venture Network Investors' Circle University of Vermont Marketing Partners

1% For the Planet BALLE Burlington CEDO Edible Communities Publications eTown Vermont Fresh Network Intervale Local Harvest First Affirmative Financial Network Shelburne Farms Slow Food The Kathleen Show Transition US Vermont Commons NYU

What I want to know is this:  Where are these people today?

They must be in their 50's or 60's by now. Did they disband? Are there still some surviving 'settlements' tucked away somewhere? Did they sell out? Did they somehow mix or morph into the generic 'green' movement that's happening today?

If anyone has some insights here, please come forward. We settlers of the next generations need you!

The excerpt below is taken from a book we checked out from the library, Home Work: Handbuilt Shelter by Lloyd Kahn.


The New Settlers of New Mexico


During the cultural revolution of the '60's, many young people with inquiring minds and adventurous spirit set out to create new lives in rural areas of America. New Mexico, with its open spaces, cheap land, and sparse population, drew thousands of new settlers. It was a time of optimism, faith, and yes - drugs - but also a lot of hard work building and repairing adobe houses, raising children, tending animals, and living communally in the psychedelic years.

Irwin Klein was a photographer from NY who shot black and white photos with a Leica during five visits of about three months each to NM from 1966-71. he was working on a book he called The New Settlers of New M.exico. Irwin died a tragic death in 1974.

Here are excerpts from the introduction to Irwin's book, along with his beautiful photos. This will bring tears to the eyes of many who were there in those years, a time before the harsh realities of life intruded on youthful idealism and gentle optimism.

Though some photographs were shot on communes, most of them are of people living alone, in couples, families, or small groups in the little Spanish-American towns in the backcountry. It is sometimes hard to distinguish between a group of friends who share certain resources and spend a lot of time together and a commune, but I think that a commune has to have a sense of consciously shared responsibilities and probably, a certain formal structure. Most of my subjects live in what I would call settlements rather than communes.

Many of these people are children of the urban middle class who have abandoned the drug ghettos of large cities, though some come from rural backgrounds. There are dropouts from the universities and relatively ‘straight’ walks of life and a few old beatniks. As I explored the evolving situations, certain patterns and themes unfolded. There seemed to be a rite of passage from innocence to experience, and a development away from the image of the hippie toward older American archetypes like the pioneer and the independent yeoman farmer.

Some might look upon this as just a photo collection of hippies. While it’s true that the pictures reflect the style and décor of a particular moment which is already passing, what interested me more was that the adventure I depict is part of a timeless movement, the perennial attempt of human beings to renew the pattern of their lives. My subjects are trying, with varying degrees of seriousness, to develop a viable way of life outside our urban technological complex, drawing whatever resources they can muster from our common past and disintegrating culture. [Italics mine]

My own role was as much that of a participant as an observer. I came to NM with much the same motives as the people I photographed. In almost every case a certain bond of friendship or intimacy was established before I began working. The New Settlers is part family album, part document, part myth. I consider it as much a collective expression as my own work.

[Perhaps these are the first contemporary Green Pioneers!]

So what's that supposed to mean? Boycott the Census 2010. (Or just answer the one (1) and only question provided by the Constitution: How many in your household).

All census bureau agents/hacks/busy-bodies are not allowed on our property, and additionally, any other potential wannabe meddlers. If the shoe fits, wear it.

UPDATE 3-19-10

After making the above post, and responding to my brother, Clint's, comment below, we clicked over to the U.S. patent & trademark site to check out the registration mark of the United States Census Bureau. It appears that we (or our stats) are more valuable than we're being told.  We're forced to comply by law with no compensation under the auspices that this is merely a 'head' count of sorts...and an 'opportunity' to receive govt. cash...with grave assurances that our info will be kept private. What's your definition of private? Better yet, what's the Govt's definition of 'private'...could it be 'private' enterprise perhaps? Then today I found this article below:

Privatizing The Census
While Perverting Its Purposes By Jim Kirwan
3-19-10  

Taking the senders on the envelope in which the Census arrived and trying to find out who these agencies are and what they have to do with the Census; things got very foggy, very quickly. The U. S. Department of Commerce is the parent agency for the U. S. Census Bureau. The Economics and Statistics Administration is responsible for examining the 2010 Census and its effect upon the economy and as far as the web is concerned The U. S. Census Bureau just hires people to actually take the census.   Nowhere is there a clear budget for the 2010 Census; as to its costs: All we know about this is that an $89.5 million contract for the next nine years was given to IBM (which was not announced by the government); who probably devised the questionnaire and will run the results through their computers.

To try to figure out what the costs of this census really are; is to enter a Labyrinth of government agency connections and overlaps that leave you wondering why so many different agencies all have their hands in each others pockets: and why this particular project that is supposed to happen only once every ten years, requires so much of the attention of so many bureaucrats; and why apparently the Census is now an annual event, as opposed to only once every ten years?  

Here's part of the latest spin from the US Department of Commerce:   "WASHINGTON, March 18 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- As 2010 Census forms arrive in more than 120 million mailboxes across the country this week, several 20-foot-high replicas of the form began touring the nation today. The U.S. Census Bureau's Giant 2010 Census Form Tour is part of a large-scale effort to encourage households to take 10 minutes to fill out and mail back their census forms.   (Logo: http://www.newscom.com/cgi-bin/prnh/20090226/CENSUSLOGO)

The forms will be on display at popular public sites in a number of major cities this week, such as Times Square in New York, Union Station in Washington and Daley Square in Chicago. Other cities include Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Dallas-Fort Worth, Detroit, Los Angeles, Phoenix, St. Louis and San Francisco.   SOURCE U.S. Census Bureau (1)   So the US Department of Commerce is holding a huge bash to promote Census 2010: But at what cost, and with what oversight to insure that what Commerce, the Economics & Statistics Administration & the Census Bureau say will happen to what you are being forced to send in?  

It seems that there really are no lines between the almost completely privatized US Department of Commerce and the government. There are also no clear accounting procedures for either the costs or for what happens to the data collected; in terms of everything that is being collected which does NOT involve the counting heads. That's critical because that is the only reason for there to be a U. S. Census Bureau: to count US Citizens in this country, once every ten years! So why is the US Census Bureau involved with Foreign Markets; in terms of their official logos?   "How much is the COMMERCE Department offering for your personal information?   Read more

And just found essentially the same article with links highlighted.


Here's another article citing the Constitutional grounds for census and the obscuring of the intentions:

The Federal Government Distorts the Purpose of the Census

On their web-page, the Census Bureau explains the purpose of the Census as follows:

The U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 2) mandates a headcount of everyone residing in the United States.  The population totals determine each state’s Congressional representation.  The numbers also affect funding in your community and help inform decision makers about how your community is changing.

The reader will note that the federal government’s statement of purpose does not comport with the Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.  Since decisions about our communities are not within the class of powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 1), the reader will not find a reference to it in the limited powers granted to the federal government (see constitutional principle No. 2).

No More Census Long Forms

On their web-page, the Census Bureau states the long form used in the past has been replaced with a new short form:

In the past, most households received a short-form questionnaire, while one household in six received a long form that contained additional questions and provided more detailed socioeconomic information about the population.

The 2010 Census will be a short-form only census and will count all residents living in the United States as well as ask for name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure – taking just minutes to complete.

The more detailed socioeconomic information is now collected through the American Community Survey. The survey provides current data about your community every year, rather than once every 10 years. It is sent to a small percentage of the population on a rotating basis throughout the decade. No household will receive the survey more often than once every five years.

The reader will note that the additional information requested on the 2010 form will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

The American Community Survey

As stated above, the Census Bureau will be using the American Community Survey to extract personal data that it previously received on the old long form.  Once again, this information will have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.

Authority for the Census and the American Community Survey

On their web-site, the Census Bureau claims the American people are “required by law” to provide the information requested on either form and our response is “mandatory.”

For the Census, they cite the provision of the Constitution referenced above as their authority to request the information.

For the American Community Survey, they cite Title 13, United States Code (U.S.C.), Sections 141 and 193 as their authority to request the information.

Section 141 (d) states, in part: …the Secretary, in the year 1985 and every 10 years thereafter, shall conduct a mid-decade census of population in such form and content as he may determine…

Section 141 (e) (2) states: Information obtained in any mid-decade census shall not be used for apportionment of Representatives in Congress among the several States, nor shall such information be used in prescribing congressional districts.

Section 141 (g) As used in this section, “census of population” means a census of population, housing, and matters relating to population and housing.

Section 193 states: In advance of, in conjunction with, or after the taking of each census provided for by this chapter, the Secretary may make surveys and collect such preliminary and supplementary statistics related to the main topic of the census as are necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.

The first thing reader should note is the difference between the statement of authority for the 2 surveys.  The Census falls under the Constitution while the American Community Survey is merely based on a statute passed by Congress.

The second thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the reference to a mid-decade census of population.  There is no constitutional authority for mid-decade census.  See again Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution.

The third thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the information obtained from the mid-decade census cannot be used for the constitutional purpose of the actual Census.

The fourth thing the reader should note concerning section 141 is the statement that the mid-decade census is being used for housing, and matters relating to population and housing.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power concerning these subjects.

This takes us to the other section cited as the authority for the American Community Survey.  Section 193 restricts census surveys and the collection of preliminary and supplementary statistics…to the main topic of the census…necessary to the initiation, taking, or completion thereof.  Constitutionally, the only topic of a census is a head count for apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 does not contain a grant of power for any other census.  The other ones referenced in section 193 fail to meet the constitutional topic of the only census enumerated in the Constitution.

Note: See again the first 2 constitutional principles discussed at the beginning of this article and then apply them to the American Community Survey.

Penalty Provisions for Failure to Comply with Either Survey Request

On their web-site, the Census Bureau states the penalty provision for failing to comply with either survey request is found in Title 13, U.S.C., Section 221.

Pursuant to this section, refusing to provide the requested information or neglecting to complete either survey subjects you to a fine of not more than $100.00.  Willfully giving information that is false subjects you to a fine of not more than $500.00.

Then, in what I believe is a blatant attempt to misrepresent federal law and install fear in the hearts and minds of the American people so they will provide the requested information, the Census Bureau included the following statement after their reference to the section 221 penalties referenced above:

Title 18 U.S.C. Section 3571 and Section 3559, in effect amends Title 13 U.S.C. Section 221 by changing the fine for anyone over 18 years old who refuses or willfully neglects to complete the questionnaire or answer questions posed by census takers from a fine of not more than $100 to not more than $5,000.

A review of Title 18 shows it is entitled:“CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE.”

Section 3559 is entitled: “Sentencing classification of offenses.”  Section (a) states: “Classification.—An offense that is not specifically classified by a letter grade in the section defining it, is classified if the maximum term of imprisonment authorized is—(9) five days or less, or if no imprisonment is authorized, as an infraction.

Section 3571 is entitled: “Sentence of fine.  Section (a) states: “A defendant who has been found guilty of an offense may be sentenced to pay a fine.”  Section (b) states in part: “…an individual who has been found guilty of an offense may be fined not more than the greatest of—(7)for an infraction, not more than $5,000.”  This is the only reference to a fine in the amount cited by the Census Bureau that matches the provision in section 3559 above.


The $5,000.00 fine referenced in section 3571 is a post conviction fine that only applies to an individual who has been charged and convicted of a criminal infraction as defined in section 3559.  Unless an individual has been charged and convicted of some criminal offense connected to the Census and the crime is classified as an infraction, this $5,000.00 fine does not apply.  Thus, their assertion that these sections changed the fines in section 221 to $5,000.00 is…you fill in the blank.  In my mind, it’s a blatant lie that borders on fraud.

My Rules and Plan of Attack

Here are the 3 basic rules I follow when I receive requests for personal information on the Census and/or American Community Survey forms.

* I never destroy or deface the forms.

* I never put false information on the forms.

* I never partially complete the forms.  If I am going to make the assertion that the requested information does not apply to me or the requested information exceeds the government’s constitutional authority to request the information, I return the form with a cover letter explaining why.

Here is my plan of attack for the Census and American Community Survey forms.

When I receive the 2010 Census form I will return it with a cover letter.  In the letter I will give them the number of people residing in the house and state that pursuant to Article I, Section 2, Clause 3 of the Constitution that is the only information they are empowered to request.  My “name, sex, age, date of birth, race, ethnicity, relationship and housing tenure” have absolutely nothing to with apportioning direct taxes or determining the number of representatives in the House of Representatives.  Therefore, neither Congress nor the Census Bureau has the constitutional authority to make that information request a component of the enumeration outlined in Article I, Section 2, Clause 3.  In addition, I cannot be subject to a fine for basing my conduct on the Constitution because that document trumps laws passed by Congress.  Period end of story.

When I receive the American Community Survey form, I will return it with a cover letter.  The letter will simply state that since the Constitution established a federal government of limited enumerated powers and that document does not grant them the general power to request the information, I am under no constitutional obligation to provide it.

If they attempt to distort the law and threaten me with the bogus $5,000.00 fine, as discussed and exposed above, I will send a letter to the Justice Department and request prosecution of the individuals making the threat.

The Coup de Gras to their Unconstitutional Information Requests

Even though I do not like to cite court cases, I either attach this one to my letter or hold it in reserve to support my refusal to comply with their bogus requests because it usually ends the discussion and any threat of a fine.

“Neither branch of the legislative department [House of Representatives or Senate], still less any merely administrative body [insert Census Bureau], established by congress, possesses, or can be invested with, a general power of making inquiry into the private affairs of the citizen. Kilbourn v. Thompson, 103 U.S. 168, 190.  We said in Boyd v. U.S., 116 U. S. 616, 630, 6 Sup. Ct. 524,―and it cannot be too often repeated,―that the principles that embody the essence of constitutional liberty and security forbid all invasions on the part of government and it’s employees of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of his life.  As said by Mr. Justice Field in Re Pacific Ry. Commission, 32 Fed. 241, 250, ‘of all the rights of the citizen, few are of greater importance or more essential to his peace and happiness than the right of personal security, and that involves, not merely protection of his person from assault, but exemption of his private affairs, books, and papers from inspection and scrutiny of others.  Without the enjoyment of this right, all others would lose half their value.’” [The bracketed words added for clarification]

Interstate Commerce Commission v. Brimson, 154 U.S. 447, 479 (May 26, 1894)

Note: This United States Supreme Court case has never been overturned.

If the federal government had been granted the general power to make inquires into the private affairs of the American people through the Census or a congressional mandated survey, then the Supreme Court could not have made this statement.

Now that we know the federal government was not granted the constitutional authority to make general inquires into our private affairs under the umbrella of the Census or a survey, I hope the American people will consider engaging in some civil disobedience and refuse to comply with these unconstitutional requests. Read entire article

From the Farm and Ranch Freedom Alliance:

The USDA has announced that it is dropping NAIS!
2/5/2010

This is a major victory for the grassroots!!   Thank you to the thousands of people who called, wrote, organized meetings, and more.  Dozens of organizations, from across the country and the full range of the political spectrum, worked together on this common cause.
And we succeeded in making our voices heard.

USDA has stated that it is refocusing its efforts on “a new, flexible framework” that will apply only to animals moved in interstate commerce and encourage the use of “lower-cost” technology.  During today’s conference call with USDA, I asked whether the agency would continue using federal funding to pressure states to adopt the program through cooperative agreements.  In response, Secretary Vilsack stated that USDA has gotten a “failing grade” on NAIS and that he does NOT intend to try to implement it through the back door.

You can read more details from USDA at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/animal_health/content/printable_version/faq_traceability.pdf

We still have more work in front of us.  As USDA develops its new framework, we must be involved and vocal, so that agribusiness does not develop yet another high-tech, big-industry boondoggle.  We must be active at the state level to ensure that the state agencies do not implement unnecessary and burdensome rules.  And we must work to roll back the unfair requirements that have already been implemented in Wisconsin and Michigan.  Ultimately, it is up to us – as animal owners, homesteaders, farmers, ranchers, and consumers -- to build a positive vision for our farms and our food.

Thank you all!

Support Our Work Please help us be a strong voice for independent agriculture by joining or donating here


And more from OCA:

Victory of the Week

USDA Drops "Big Brother" National Animal ID Program

Under pressure from small farmers and organic consumers, the US Department of Agriculture announced on February 5, 2010, that it is suspending its controversial National Animal Identification System (NAIS) and offering a new approach to tracking animal disease and food contamination. This is a major victory for the Organic Consumers Association, our allies, and organic farmers and ranchers, who have complained that the USDA's goal of tagging every farm animal in country wouldn't do anything to prevent disease, would be unnecessary and expensive for small and organic farmers, and couldn't be enforced without violations of privacy and religion.

Already, the implementation of NAIS in Wisconsin has resulted in an Amish farmer and a small-scale cattle rancher being charged and fined for not registering, and in Michigan a cattle farmer's herd was put under quarantine and forcibly tagged when he wouldn't submit to the state's mandatory NAIS program.

Go to OCA's No NAIS campaign page for more information

Chicken Tales...or Tails...or...
Some (really lame) Gothic Humour!