OT: Re: [CH] Faux Chipotle
Rael64 (z42dkm@yahoo.com)
Mon, 2 Jun 2008 11:44:27 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Mon, 6/2/08, jim@wildpepper.com <jim@wildpepper.com> wrote:
> From: jim@wildpepper.com <jim@wildpepper.com>
> Subject: Re: [CH] Faux Chipotle
> To: "Rael64" <z42dkm@yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Chile Heads" <chile-heads@globalgarden.com>
> Date: Monday, June 2, 2008, 9:48 AM
> I *knew* without even opening it that it was going to be a
> rant from
> Rael :-) I grinned as soon as I saw the sender, knowing it
> was 'soap
> box' time!
My box is bigger than yours... :)
> Here's a couple of points for general discussion....
>
> At what point does a small manufacturer cross over to
> "evil corporate
> mass marketer type"? I enjoy a certain amount of good
First: realize that I generalize, and greatly so. Many of my "you's" are you in the plural. Second, not all corporations are evil any more than all human beings are evil. Yet, many (too many) are, corporations (unethical, generally) and humans (immoral, generally, or at least wildly selfish). Thirdly, yes, I know. Ethics/morality from Rael. It doesn't get much funnier...
Anyway, a corporation is "evil" when:
1) the company becomes monopolistic;
2) the HQ is set up out of country to avoid paying US taxes;
3) company operations are set up out of country or outsourced to avoid paying US labor;
4) the product (its quality, etc.) is secondary to profit;
5) the public good/welfare is secondary to profit;
6) the product/company causes or contributes to great environmental, social, economic, etc. damage;
Any one of the above, and others I did not consider, contribute to "evil corporations" in my opinion.
I don't necessarily think it is a size issue per se, although some problems seem inherent with huge corporations. Also, corporations enjoy some freedoms, as it were, and protections that individual human beings do not enjoy. This is wrong if not for the simple fact that a corporation can do far more damage to the general public than can an individual, generally. Simply put, if a corporation is guilty of, say, misleading the public and doing some great harm, more often than not, the company endures. Someone(s) is fired, a fine is levied, and that's about it (if lucky). I would prefer that the corporate charter be revoked, the corporation be liquidated, and all wrongs set right.
> will and have a
> decent reputation (I think ;-) but my goal is, as a
> business, to make my
> Chipotle Sauce the number one seller in the world. At what
> point in
> that goal do I go from 'artisinal maker' to
> 'mass marketer' and from
> good to evil? Since the formula and taste of the sauce
The quick and easy answer would be: when you, as a corporation (I'll leave the rant on personal wealth for another day...hehe), get too damned greedy, or powerful. (I note that theoretically, power and wealth can be put to good use, which is the common claim of libertarians, etc. I'll believe it when I see it.)
> Can the point not also be made, that by 'dumbing
> down' some of this
> stuff, that we are in fact converting legions of people to
> the CH side
> who otherwise would not have dared? We've talked about
In a word, no. Well, okay, you can make the claim, but its false. Generally said, the idea of "converting" people to the CH side is, with all due respect, said from the point of view of a businessman, someone not wishing to convert people to the wonderful world of El Grande, but to chile consumption. One does not dumb down, say, religion (not mention a few tenets, for example) in order to gain new converts. Well, okay, many religions do just that. Bad analogy.
If people wish to eat chiles, they should eat chiles. As we all know, far better than most, there are many chiles with many flavors and many heat levels. Some bell peppers have a slight bite to them. I've had pimentos that were just damned (damned) fine chiles with great flavor and a nice little bite. But to adulterate a jalapeno, for example, to make it something less than it is is, in my humble opinion, grotesque and speaks to that uniquely human desire to phuck with nature just to satisfy a whim, an ego, and, generally, make some profit. There is no need for it. Make a jalapeno hot sauce and dilute it; eat banana peppers; eat roasted bell peppers. If chiles are too hot, why the hell is someone interested in eating one to begin with? It's like wanting a brussels sprout that is red (more aesthetically pleasing) and tastes like cherry. Why not just eat a phucking cherry?
Absurdity justified by a desire for profit.
> Tabasco as a
> common gateway drug for most of us into the CH world, for
> good or ill,
> so why is this any different? People will try the
> 'faux chipolte' and I
> suspect a good many of them will then want to experiment
> further having
> discovered that chiles have flavor and not just heat. How
why is one more likely to try a 'faux chipotle' rather than a real one? Do people start out drinking 'near beer'? Are first sexual experiences with animals rather than humans? Do we eat ice milk before trying ice cream?
> many of us
> would be here if Tabasco were as hot as Dave's? I also
Case in point for the market being full of many products and not controlled by any handful of corporations who dictate what the market is, essentially.
>
> This ever increasing drive to sameness and blandness is on
> an exponetial
> curve at the moment. The government, in all it's
> benificance, has
> implemented yet another sweeping set of food regs that are
> going to
> drive most all small manufaturers out of business if
> rigidly enforced.
> I myself have never been so close to 'chucking it
> all' at the
> frustration of trying to keep up with all the expensive
> (!!) and
> mind-numbing changes. It's just not worth my while.
> And I'm far from
> alone in that! Several other folks you know and love as
> sauce makers
> are near the breaking point as well. As more and more of
> us go out of
> biz at the hands of the gov, your choices as consumers will
> become less
> and less- better get used to faux chipolte ;-)
Who do you think dictates many of these food regs (and I assume that most of them you are referring to are of the HAACP kind, labeling requirements, and so forth)? Large corporations. Oh, they bitch about them, but generally the acquiesce, particularly if they get to help write the reg. They know good and well what will force out the little company. And for those who weather the storm, their lives have been made hell for so long, that when Big Corporation makes a play for the small and successful company, well, some call it a sell-out, some call it Damned Wise. I call it a conspiracy.
Suffice it to say, when the FDA, USDA, and numerous other government agencies are stocked by company insiders and others with agendas of their own, the regulations, overwatch, etc., are designed to exclude and include. They are not designed with public safety in mind and often give little more than lip service to bona fide science.
As to the political portion of your rant, let me reply this way. I'd be all for Big Business regulating itself. I really would. But, certain things would have to change and be unconditional. For example, as I said above, when a corporation is found in the wrong, e.g. price fixing, not paying taxes, polluting, forcing out small businesses, while circumstances must be considered, of course, generally said, the corporation AS A WHOLE must be held accountable. If tainted meat makes it through the system to the consumer, the consumers who suffer should be fairly compensated, the problem should be discovered, fixed, and the company should be fined, and if similar problems happen again, the company shuts down. If the company pollutes (e.g. a mining company), whatever is required to clean up the area must occur. No selling the business, passing on the problem.
Strict standards; strict enforcement; no quarter to offenders. I even support the liquidation of all assets of management of corporations that do irreparable damages, and I mean bankrupt the people, take their houses, holdings, and let them work for a living. I kid you not.
> that they truly believe that. And since both are just as
> complicit as
> the other at getting us to our present state, the finger
> can only be
> pointed at the people that put them there and that would be
> us.
I agree. The ancient Chinese always considered the relationship between ruler(s) and the people to be a sort of quid pro quo (maybe not the right term). Generally, the people obeyed the ruler said as long as the ruler was looking out for the public welfare (food, shelter, safety, etc.). If the ruler defaulted, though, the people retained the right to remove the ruler, and by remove, I mean kill. I support that philosophy myself as it tends to put the idea of public service first and foremost where it should be.
> Group hug now.... :-)
I've always preferred getting nekkid in a pile, but times do change...
Peace, Hendrix, and Chiles.......
Rael"...Monsanto, btw, is the epitome of the Evil Corporation..."64