This hilarious video does a great job of laying out the basics. Big corporations and special interests have been co-opting the Farm Bill for decades. The result? Subsidies only go to 25% of all farmers, in fact 75% of all crop subsidy payouts go just 10% of American farmers. Subsidies are provided for only five crops leading to overproduction and cheap uber-refined sweeteners and fatty oils like hydrogenated corn-syrup and refined soy-bean oil. Worst of all, the dumping of all the excess crop in other countries destroys the market for native farmers. The current Farm Bill helps Big Corporate Ag like ConAgra and Monsanto do what they love to do: make sure the rich get richer and poor get poorer.

A fair Farm Bill would close loopholes so the legal system could enforce subsidy limits, spreading the subsidy money more fairly among farmers. It would subsidize crops in a way that encourages the production of healthy organic foods instead of unhealthy diabetes and cancer causing substances. A fair Farm Bill would ensure that farmers in Africa, South America and Asia do not suffer when the price of their corn or rice plummets because of subsidized American overproduction. A fair Farm Bill would be fairer and healthier for everyone in the world.

The Farm Bill is only re-written every 5 years. So take action now! Sign OxFam America’s and HealthyFarmBill.org’s open letters to Congress and spread the word far and wide!

Please welcome Celeste Hamilton to the Two Hands blog. She’s a dear friend of ours from Peace Corps Guyana who now spends her time working for Idealist.org. Celeste will be contributing pieces to the blog from time to time and we’re very excited about that. Today she introduces us to GOOD magazine. Enjoy!

Alas, a magazine has come along that gives those that are tired of looking at highly airbrushed cleavage and beautiful faces something else (okay, maybe something in addition) to ponder over. Sandwiched in between the throngs of magazines that clutter racks everywhere from your local convenience store to the huge bookstore chain at the mall, if you’re lucky to find it, is a magazine called GOOD.

When I first heard of GOOD, I was intrigued. Was this a publication filled with instructions on how to decorate peanuts with googly eyes and sappy stories that catered to the church crowd? An extension of Gallant, of Goofus and Gallant fame, from the children’s magazine Highlights? Or a snarky, ironic take on society?

Turns out, it’s neither of those things. The first issue I saw had humorist John Hodgman from the Daily Show on it’s cover. Points. I opened it and read a lively article about couchsurfing.com, a site that connects thrifty travelers to a stranger’s couch, and a surprisingly engaging piece on a seed preservation vault in Norway. Did I capture your interest yet? Because GOOD immediately got me. Good. I’m hooked.

If you go to their website, www.goodmagazine.com, you’ll find back articles and illustrations on just about anything that interests you all in the range of sustainable living. There’s advice on how to turn your old vinyl records into dishes and where to recycle your out of date laptop. Musings on the demise of the farm and why we should care. A piece about a drive-in movie theatre at Kakuma, the Sudanese refugee camp where the protagonist of Dave Egger’s What is the What lived for nearly a decade. Inspiration from clowns who are sharing their funny with the developing world. Why an afternoon nap can save your life. A list of the top Green Buildings of 2007. Urban planning cues from the naked-streets movement in the Netherlands. Etc., etc., etc…

More than finally a publication about well, all things good, this is a magazine that frees activists and do-gooders from the socially awkward, uncool stereotype. We listen to Spankrock AND advocate for alternative fuel sources. We’re passionate about fair trade AND have a crush on Zak Galifinakis. We’re in love with all things organic AND This American Life. This magazine finally puts it out to society that yes, we can dork out on saving the world and be hip at the same time.

A subscription to GOOD costs a mere $20. And all of your subscription money goes to one of twelve charities of your choice. What, you’re thinking? How is that possible? Basically, GOOD explains that they’re undertaking this experiment because 1) it’s smart business and 2) they believe in it.

But just when you thought it couldn’t get any better, every issue they embark on consists of an interactive project for its readers. Right now, they’re calling for submissions for a care package like the ones mom used to send you in college to a person or organization of your choice. In the running right now is a range of people from an overworked mom to a lunch program in Madagascar to detained children of immigrants to Lesley Stahl of 60 Minutes. The best item I’ve seen so far? A Skoal tin for Dennis Kucinich.

So go ahead. Give GOOD a try. There’s not another publication out there that makes socially conscious issues easily accessible—and fun to read about—while sincerely believing in the idea that collective creative concern is possible. And for nerds like me there’s the potential for infinite puns, all of which I’m eagerly awaiting.

Ronald Reagan used the term ‘free and fair trade’ in a radio address in 1986 and the term ‘fair trade’ has been thrown around the political landscape ever since. Now, this political ‘fair trade’ movement has little to do with the independent international consumer movement of which Two Hands is a part.

This political ‘fair trade’ movement is pushing for accountability in US trade agreements and it is nonetheless important. The November 2006 election was enormously successful for politicians who are using the term ‘fair trade’ to describe their approach to trade policy. The voters who issued this mandate are still fighting and their focus right now is on stopping the renewal of fast track authority. David Sirota, author of Hostile Takeover, writes that the domestic fair trade movement has just scored a big victory by successfully pressuring Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to reverse his position on the issue. Fast track gives the president authority to negotiate agreements that the Congress can approve or disapprove but cannot amend or filibuster. It was passed as part of the Trade Act of 1974 and is subject to Congressional renewal periodically. The Congress did not renew fast track in 1994 and did not renew it again until 2002, but then by just three votes in the House literally in the dead of night at 3:30am.

Under fast track, the president is authorized to negotiate trade agreements with foreign countries without consulting Congress or state legislators. After the executive branch locks down the terms of the deal and writes the implementing legislation, Congress is only permitted a yes or no vote, while states are virtually left out of the process. Thus, state and congressional officials elected to represent the public interest have no role in the process but to approve or disapprove the whole package.

Without the terms of the trade details subject to debate and amendment in the House or Senate trade deals under fast track nearly always lack provisions most Americans support such as labor rights for foreign workers and a propensity to drastically favor the interests of US-based multinational corporations over the interests of US workers.

While I don’t necessarily agree with every position the ‘fair traders’ maintain, I certainly agree that fast track authority is undemocratic and gives even more power to an already incredibly powerful branch (err… person) of our government. The people should have a say in the terms of trade agreements our government authorizes, not simply a yea or nay vote without possibility of amendment.

What say you on the issue, dear readers?

As the gears of American government begin creaking towards another campaign slaughter, it is encouraging to see one candidate go beyond a sound byte of admitting global warming’s existence.

To achieve carbon neutrality, we’re taking two big steps. First, we’re implementing a number of simple but effective techniques to conserve energy in our national and field offices. And I’ve asked my staff to take concrete steps to reduce their own energy consumption. Conserving energy now is the single biggest thing we all can do as individuals to combat global warming.

But presidential campaigns by their nature use an enormous amount of energy for travel and operations. Which is why today I have also directed the campaign to purchase carbon offsets that support alternative energy production to neutralize the global warming impact from our travel and office energy use

While does nothing to address the astronomical amount of money spent on campaigns, and is not a solution for the environmental footprint left by the speaking stops across the country, this is at least a step in the right direction. Edwards has now thrown the gauntlet towards environmental action, now we wait to see who will take up the challenge. Or better yet, let’s get our voices heard and make each and every candidate step up.