John's on a good roll at his blog. I'm not sure I agree with his ending on this one. In effect, he compares farmers to beggars for taxpayer dollars, dependent on compassion. He has a point--he's commenting on a Daniel Gilbert column about a beggar who seemed disabled, but then was seen walking. People don't like mixed messages. If farmers are going to get taxpayer money, they'd damn well better be both grateful and needy. That's a reason for the rhetoric about corporate farmers, agribusiness, payments going to the rich, etc.
It's funny, I started writing this post saying I disagreed with the ending, but now I've almost changed my mind. It's terrible to get old and not be consistent.