Slow Food, No; Slow Medicine, Yes

I eat. I've previously blogged about my skepticism of "slow food", "locavore", etc. Carbon taxes, which would raise the cost of transportation (and of production on industrial ag operations), are fine. But I don't like the romanticism surrounding the movement (don't like movements, mostly).

I live, for a while longer, but this article on "slow medicine" in the NY Times today makes me lean to approving it:

Grounded in research at the Dartmouth Medical School, slow medicine encourages physicians to put on the brakes when considering care that may have high risks and limited rewards for the elderly, and it educates patients and families how to push back against emergency room trips and hospitalizations designed for those with treatable illnesses, not the inevitable erosion of advanced age.

My sister and I used a hospice for my mother, who was old, had Alzheimer's, and was diagnosed with cancer of the pancreas. That example is one reason why I like "slow medicine", but her case also gives a caution. Mom broke her hip while she was in her late 80's, but she was able to recover quite well. It's easy to think about being close to the end of life, but more difficult to tell when one is there.

Senator Roberts Opines

Senator Pat Roberts is not one of my favorite people. Back in 1996 he was the father of "Freedom to Farm", the bait and switch deal. Sold by the Republicans as a way to phase out farm payments it got converted into the ongoing direct payment program in 2002. (No, I don't know he planned it that way, but any realistic observer of farm programs knew in 1996 it wasn't going to work the way he described it.)

Anyhow, now I've vented a bit, the High Plains Journal quotes him and Rep. Moran as having problems with the way the bill is going. Read it here.

One thing I'll point to, just in case any one from NASCOE reads this--the $50 fee for going to the county office. I understand the logic, but that would be a good way to move farmers from visiting the office to working on-line. :-) That's not what NASCOE would like, I guess.

Pay Limit--Confusing Reports

From the ARgus Leader in SD:

"The tentative deal would base farm program payment limitations on whether the recipients are farmers or non-farmers, Herseth Sandlin said. In 2009, landowners with adjusted gross incomes of more than $750,000 who are not farmers would be prohibited from receiving farm payments. The amount would fall to $650,000 in 2010 and to $500,000 in 2011, she said. The income cap for farmers would be $950,000.

Farmers making more than that could still benefit from farm programs but would lose 10 percent of their direct payments for every $100,000 in income over the $950,000 cap, Herseth Sandlin said.

The tentative deal would also prohibit the U.S. Department of Agriculture from closing Farm Service Agency offices for two years, she said.

"(However) nothing is really final until the end," she said."

Not sure what "a farmer" means in this context. This might mean a three tier system:

1. An owner of cash-rented land who doesn't share in the risk of the crop is neither actively engaged nor a farmer--no payments, period.
2. An owner of share-rented land is not a farmer but does share in the risk so can receive payments providing AGI is under the cap.
3. A tenant (by share or cash lease) is actively engaged in farming and a "farmer", so can receive payments but at declining rate if AGI is over the cap (which means no payment if AGI is $2 million or more).
   

As the senator says, we'll see.

Small Farm Provision

The House-Senate conferees on the farm bill are reported to be looking after the small farmer--they're prohibiting small farmers (less than 10 acres of ?) from getting payments. Not clear what the "?" means nor what "payments" means. I can hear the rhetoric now, particularly when people (like Ken Cook or Tom Philpott) search around and discover a very deserving, struggling small farmer.

(Not that I don't have some sympathy for the logic here.)

Uncle's Folly? Do College Freshmen Read?

Brad DeLong proposes to buy subscriptions for four periodicals for his nephew, who is off to college. I don't know whether to celebrate the idea that college freshmen still are familiar with printer's ink or the idea that uncles (and parents) are always out of touch with the real interests and concerns of the next generation.

Locavores--Think Rabbit

Yes, the best way for you locavores who haven't turned vegetarian yet to get your meat is the backyard rabbit hutch. You too can eat Flopsy, Mopsy, and save Peter Rabbit for Sunday dinner. In doing so, you'll be following in the footsteps of those in the home of great cuisine and terroir--France. See this piece on "Alice and Marcel", Mr. Beauregard's neighbors.

"Marcel lives for, and almost in his garden. From May to October he is out tending his veg at 6.30, just before he cycles to work. At 12, he comes home for lunch and does a quick bit of weeding before heading back for his afternoon stint at the arms factory. At 6pm, he is home again, and back in the garden until nightfall.

It would actually be wrong to call Marcel’s garden a garden. It is a veritable little biosphere. Aprt from fish on Fridays, pretty much everything that the family eat is from the garden. Fresh fruit and veg in summer and bottled, pickled preserved produce in winter."

It's a way of life for many in France, but fading.

U.S. and Foreign Courts--Their Interaction

Justices Stephen Breyer and Antonin Scalia have debated whether U.S. jurisprudence should be cognizant of developments in other countries, as in defining "cruel and unusual". That's a hot issue among some attorneys and even more so on cable news--the conservative types tend to say "no way", while the liberals say: "of course". (Actually, that's way over-simplified and, to a cynical old man, often depends on whose ox is gored. The usual context seems to be social issues: death penalty, etc.)

Now comes a review on H-Net of a book on the Warren Court and its influence on foreign law. (Of course, conservatives might view U.S. law, at least pre-Warren, as a model to be followed, a "city on a hill"; while liberals might be skeptical. Seems that maybe the court's example had an effect, but different in different regions.

Update on "King Corn"

An interesting discussion of Iowa ag vis a vis the documentary "King Corn". Iowa Public TV interviews two farmers/ag leaders on the subject. A couple excerpts:

"We've heard different times over the last 20 years how everything had changed. 1996 we had higher prices for corn. We had prices change in 1988 and in the early 90s as well. And each time seemed like it was forever, it wasn't....

"Yeager: But if I was to go into a banker tomorrow and try to get money to go farm, I want to take my father's 160 and farm it, I want to turn it from corn into rutabagas or rhubarb or something like that. The banker is probably going to laugh me out of the room.

Kirschenmann: Sure, and there's no way that you could do it because even -- some of the research that we have done at Iowa State University makes it very clear now that if farmers added a third crop to that corn and soybean rotation they would get a lot of benefits from that. It would reduce their disease pressure, the weed pressure.

So, there would be a lot of things that would reduce their costs. But you talk to a farmer and say, well, why don't you raise this third crop? The first question is, which one, what do I add to it? And, of course, we know that we can raise wheat in Iowa but some of the farmers that I talk to, at least in Central Iowa say, if they were to raise wheat they'd have to haul it 200 miles to find a place even that will buy it. So, that adds to the cost.

Yeager: Because their structure is set up -- we have a grain co-op in basically every town and every county across the state -- the infrastructure is there.

Why I'm Optimistic on Global Warming

It's because of articles like this one from Technology Review, indicating we're starting up the learning curve on silicon solar panels.

Changing Payment Limitation Rules in Midstream

One thing I haven't posted on, nor have I seen much discussion on is "status date". (I think that's the term.) Anyhow, for payment limitation purposes under current law, FSA offices have to determine the way a farming operation is set up as of a certain date, which may be May 1. At least, that's the way it used to be.

So, if Congress changes the rules relating to limitations, the only way they can be fair about it is to extend current rules for 2008 and make the new ones effective for 2009.