Blogging on bureaucracy, organizations, USDA, agriculture programs, American history, the food movement, and other interests. Often contrarian, usually optimistic, sometimes didactic, occasionally funny, rarely wrong, always a nitpicker.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Justice for Rich and Poor?
I don't know this case,but I'm pretty sure that a false claim for prevented planting for wheat on 31,000 acres amounts to a lot of money (6 digits, maybe 7). Yes, they're old and probably pillars of the community. But stealing money is against one of the ten commandments. At least on a day I'm feeling grumpy, I doubt whether there's a lot of equity here.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Fence Row to Fence Row
Those words were a motto of the 1970's, when grain prices also peaked after the Nixon deal with the USSR. Apparently they may also be the motto of the 2000's, when ethanol spikes the grain prices. See this report from Ducks Unlimited on the land going out of Conservation Reserve Program and into crop production.
Friday, January 04, 2008
Reading and Surfing Go Together
Not quite like a horse and buggy, but almost, according to this Reuters article on MSNBC, reporting on a survey of library users. Apparently the young (18-30) use the libraries the most, often to use the computers.
And the Myths Continue--Free Gas for Farmers
From a piece on the EWG blog:
Anyone reading that would get the wrong understanding about the last two items. I've seen a similar meme in the Kingsolver book I blogged about last year. Not sure of the origin--fuel for farm use used to be taxed less than for on-road use. Not sure if that's still the case.How does the Government Skew the Market?
The government encourages planting of selected crops, providing low-cost loans, crop insurance, research, weather forecasts, fuel and pesticides.
Warm Fuzzies, Obama, and McGovern
It seems as if Obama's win in Iowa is giving many people warm fuzzy feelings. See David Brooks' column this morning. I'm not immune to the sentiment. I get warm fuzzy feelings myself when I go to the supermarket and see the diversity of people working and shopping there. Coming from a swan-white rural neighborhood in upstate New York, the idea of people of different backgrounds, ethnicities, races, religions, and sports teams coming together peacefully is great. What cola company did the great ad about teaching the world to sing?
But...
As I promise in my profile, I'm contrarian. I also got a haircut this morning. (Very macho barbershop, not one of these new-fangled unisex shops that have been around for 35 years.) The conversation was mostly about the Redskins amazing run and their chances in the playoffs. The little talk about Iowa showed some male chauvinism, plus a lot of dislike of Clinton, and surprising acceptance of Obama. This is Virginia, the leader of the Old South, but it's also the first state to elect a black governor this century. (Whoops, last century.) We had warm fuzzy feelings when we elected Mr. Wilder Governor. Didn't make him a good governor, didn't make him a bad governor, did make us feel good about ourselves for a little while. But all of this leads me to the question: is it more acceptable to be a male chauvinist than a racial bigot? The answer is neither are acceptable. But while neither sentiment can be openly expressed, except by comics and rap artists, both are still present in society.
I shouldn't deprecate the significance of warm fuzzy feelings. To the extent that people share in them, or simply understand them, we reestablish our image of the U.S. as a good and caring country, open to all. And if the U.S. is good, then its citizens must be good. While the logic sucks, in human terms it's much better to live in a country where people have those images than in a country, like Kenya, which is teetering on the edge of ethnic violence. (Suggestion for Mr. Obama--grab Mr. Richardson and head for Nairobi to try to mediate a settlement--that would be a better campaign move than anything he could do here.) It just reaffirms the old WASP sentiment--some things are best left unexpressed.
Speaking of letting everything hang out, as was the meme in the late 60's, to some extent I'm now reminded of the 1972 election, with Howard Dean filling the role of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Clinton in the Ed Muskie role, and Obama as George McGovern. McGovern too was all about process--increasing the influence of the people in governance and eliminating the influence of the evil ones, like the party bosses. McGovern too brought hordes of young enthusiasts, even including Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton, to participate in politics. McGovern too had a record that got lost during the campaign. Of course, McGovern's crusade fell short of the White House and would have failed even without Tricky Dick and his dirty tricks brigade.
Fortunately so far the Dems have been able to campaign without splitting the party, and the current signs promise success in the fall. McGovern had a split party, facing a popular President, and little chance of success. And McGovern had proposals which the Reps were able to mock. So I'm hopeful regardless of which of the Democrats becomes the party's nominee.
(To be fair to Obama, and because I always like Charles Peters, read his op-ed in the Post today.)
But...
As I promise in my profile, I'm contrarian. I also got a haircut this morning. (Very macho barbershop, not one of these new-fangled unisex shops that have been around for 35 years.) The conversation was mostly about the Redskins amazing run and their chances in the playoffs. The little talk about Iowa showed some male chauvinism, plus a lot of dislike of Clinton, and surprising acceptance of Obama. This is Virginia, the leader of the Old South, but it's also the first state to elect a black governor this century. (Whoops, last century.) We had warm fuzzy feelings when we elected Mr. Wilder Governor. Didn't make him a good governor, didn't make him a bad governor, did make us feel good about ourselves for a little while. But all of this leads me to the question: is it more acceptable to be a male chauvinist than a racial bigot? The answer is neither are acceptable. But while neither sentiment can be openly expressed, except by comics and rap artists, both are still present in society.
I shouldn't deprecate the significance of warm fuzzy feelings. To the extent that people share in them, or simply understand them, we reestablish our image of the U.S. as a good and caring country, open to all. And if the U.S. is good, then its citizens must be good. While the logic sucks, in human terms it's much better to live in a country where people have those images than in a country, like Kenya, which is teetering on the edge of ethnic violence. (Suggestion for Mr. Obama--grab Mr. Richardson and head for Nairobi to try to mediate a settlement--that would be a better campaign move than anything he could do here.) It just reaffirms the old WASP sentiment--some things are best left unexpressed.
Speaking of letting everything hang out, as was the meme in the late 60's, to some extent I'm now reminded of the 1972 election, with Howard Dean filling the role of Eugene McCarthy in 1968, Clinton in the Ed Muskie role, and Obama as George McGovern. McGovern too was all about process--increasing the influence of the people in governance and eliminating the influence of the evil ones, like the party bosses. McGovern too brought hordes of young enthusiasts, even including Hillary Rodham and Bill Clinton, to participate in politics. McGovern too had a record that got lost during the campaign. Of course, McGovern's crusade fell short of the White House and would have failed even without Tricky Dick and his dirty tricks brigade.
Fortunately so far the Dems have been able to campaign without splitting the party, and the current signs promise success in the fall. McGovern had a split party, facing a popular President, and little chance of success. And McGovern had proposals which the Reps were able to mock. So I'm hopeful regardless of which of the Democrats becomes the party's nominee.
(To be fair to Obama, and because I always like Charles Peters, read his op-ed in the Post today.)
Thursday, January 03, 2008
The Face of the Future Is Organic Restaurants
How do I know? When the restaurants on Capitol Hill go organic, it's saying something.
Wednesday, January 02, 2008
FSA Versus NASS
John Phipps gives kind words to FSA in comparison to NASS (national Agricultural Statistics Service) because his MAC using Firefox blew up the NASS online ag census.
I'm not sure that's fair--presumably NASS only does online censuses when they do the ag census, so they don't get much practice. FSA has to write checks much more often. And they've had their own problems with going online.
I'm not sure that's fair--presumably NASS only does online censuses when they do the ag census, so they don't get much practice. FSA has to write checks much more often. And they've had their own problems with going online.
GW a Traitor?
I'm expecting the right-wing nuts to label our President a traitor as soon as they read this NY Times article on how the administration has eased the rules on high-tech exports to China. After all, a little more than 10 years ago, when the Times ran a similar article (actually a series of articles) on the Clinton administration, we ended up with a Congressional investigation, lots of loose talk about traitors, and nothing significant.
(It feels good to get my first shot in at the Republicans in this election year. I hope to restrain myself, perhaps only one cheap shot a week, but I fully expect the politicians to test my resolve.)
(It feels good to get my first shot in at the Republicans in this election year. I hope to restrain myself, perhaps only one cheap shot a week, but I fully expect the politicians to test my resolve.)
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Changing Genders, Changing Agriculture
More farm operators are women, according to this article in the WiscNews.com site (Sauk County). And some have full-time jobs at FSA.
Losing Privacy--How Did We Win It?
William Saletan writes about how technology is depriving us of privacy here.
It's all true and interesting and worrisome, but:
how did we get all that privacy in the first place? I wait for a historian to write about the advance of privacy.
It's all true and interesting and worrisome, but:
how did we get all that privacy in the first place? I wait for a historian to write about the advance of privacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)