03/01: Farm Subsidies
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Should the Federal Government subsidize American agriculture?
Here are a few reasons to answer "yes."
1. No nation can achieve national security if it is a net food importer. A nations's "agricultural infrastructure" must be maintained. So long as "free trade" results in the importation of cheaper food products from abroad, then some sort of subsidy may be needed. We could, of course, use import controls as a sort of indirect subsidy.
2. Excessive concentration in any one sector of the economy is bad, be it monopoly or oligarchy. Allowing a situation to develop in which a handful of agribusiness corporations create an effective oligarchy (say, 80% of one production area) could allow many bad things to happen. We can all boycott Detroit for a year if we wish, postponing car buying; we cannot boycott food production for a year. Regulation can only go so far. Subsidies, specifically targeted to small, independent producers, can help prevent this.
3. Within the U.S. we have a system of inspections to try to achieve safe food. We also ban numerous pesticides and herbicides. We also have regulations regarding feed additives for cattle. These safeguards are not present in many of our trading partners. Rather than a direct subsidy, of course, we could use import controls as an indirect subsidy.
Here are a few reasons to answer "yes."
1. No nation can achieve national security if it is a net food importer. A nations's "agricultural infrastructure" must be maintained. So long as "free trade" results in the importation of cheaper food products from abroad, then some sort of subsidy may be needed. We could, of course, use import controls as a sort of indirect subsidy.
2. Excessive concentration in any one sector of the economy is bad, be it monopoly or oligarchy. Allowing a situation to develop in which a handful of agribusiness corporations create an effective oligarchy (say, 80% of one production area) could allow many bad things to happen. We can all boycott Detroit for a year if we wish, postponing car buying; we cannot boycott food production for a year. Regulation can only go so far. Subsidies, specifically targeted to small, independent producers, can help prevent this.
3. Within the U.S. we have a system of inspections to try to achieve safe food. We also ban numerous pesticides and herbicides. We also have regulations regarding feed additives for cattle. These safeguards are not present in many of our trading partners. Rather than a direct subsidy, of course, we could use import controls as an indirect subsidy.
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
Watching the funeral yesterday for President Ford, I was struck several times by Henry Kissinger's eulogy. At least twice in his speech, it seemed to me that Kissinger might be speaking as much or more to two ex-presidents as he was speaking about Gerald Ford. For example, he spoke of how Ford did not exhibit an obsession with his place in history, and, how Ford did not undercut his successors. I hope they were listening.
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
From Nazareth: it appears that Muslims are trying to intimidate the dwindling numbers of Christians in the boyhood home of Jesus into leaving. Here
From Cordova: the Christian bishop has rejected Muslim requrests to conduct prayers in the cathedral, a former mosque. Here. Good for him. Notice the history of this church: He was quoted as saying that joint use would not help relations and that in any case the church was there first, as the eighth-century Córdoba Mosque from the Moorish rule of Spain had been built on the ruins of a church erected by the Visigoths. In the Muslim mind, your holy places deserve no respect and once Islamic always Islamic.
From Thailand: two Buddhist teachers killed and bodies burned. Here
From France: 400 cars burned on New Year's Eve. Here
From Iran: Christians arrested. Here.
Links from Jihadwatch, Gateway Pundit, and Wizbang.
From Cordova: the Christian bishop has rejected Muslim requrests to conduct prayers in the cathedral, a former mosque. Here. Good for him. Notice the history of this church: He was quoted as saying that joint use would not help relations and that in any case the church was there first, as the eighth-century Córdoba Mosque from the Moorish rule of Spain had been built on the ruins of a church erected by the Visigoths. In the Muslim mind, your holy places deserve no respect and once Islamic always Islamic.
From Thailand: two Buddhist teachers killed and bodies burned. Here
From France: 400 cars burned on New Year's Eve. Here
From Iran: Christians arrested. Here.
Links from Jihadwatch, Gateway Pundit, and Wizbang.
02/01: Gerald Ford's Christianity
Category: American History and Politics
Posted by: an okie gardener
I had known about Ford's Episcopal membership and worship attendance. And, anecdotes over the years had convinced me that he probably was a sincere believer. I did not know some of the history revealed in this TIME article.
We apparently had two very devout men representing the major parties in the presidential race of 1976: only one made a big deal of it.
We apparently had two very devout men representing the major parties in the presidential race of 1976: only one made a big deal of it.
02/01: Mainline Decline, cont.
Category: Mainline Christianity
Posted by: an okie gardener
Mainline Protestant denominations, which have declined sharply since their heyday in the 1960s, lost hundreds of congregations during 2006 and possibly are poised to lose even more in 2007.
Three of the denominations – the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church (USA) – lost nearly 300 congregations after their national governing bodies began abandoning their historic ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals.
The largest loss occurred in the United Church of Christ, a congregationalist denomination that – unlike the PCUSA and ECUSA – allows its churches to leave with their property.
Read the entire article from the Layman.
Three of the denominations – the Presbyterian Church (USA), the United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church (USA) – lost nearly 300 congregations after their national governing bodies began abandoning their historic ban on ordaining practicing homosexuals.
The largest loss occurred in the United Church of Christ, a congregationalist denomination that – unlike the PCUSA and ECUSA – allows its churches to leave with their property.
Read the entire article from the Layman.
Recently I had a wide-ranging conversation with frequent commentor photognome. He raised some questions regarding hybrid cars. [typically cars that use both internal combustion engines and batteries, running sometimes on one, sometimes on the other].
He questions the actual environmental benefits from the hybrids. Batteries tend to be high impact on the environment, both in manufacture and beyond. [We and Europe have good environmental and OSHA regs in place for the manufacture and disposal of batteries, but where are the batteries being manufactured?]
And in case of wrecks? photognome reported that emergency responders he has talked with have expressed concern over the chemicals and current they may be getting into.
With new high-efficiency automotive diesels getting about 50 mpg, are these not a better choice than hybrids?
[Yes, I do think the question WWJD applies here. I cannot see Jesus tooling down the interstate at 80mph, by himself, in an SUV. How we relate to the environment is a Christian concern.]
He questions the actual environmental benefits from the hybrids. Batteries tend to be high impact on the environment, both in manufacture and beyond. [We and Europe have good environmental and OSHA regs in place for the manufacture and disposal of batteries, but where are the batteries being manufactured?]
And in case of wrecks? photognome reported that emergency responders he has talked with have expressed concern over the chemicals and current they may be getting into.
With new high-efficiency automotive diesels getting about 50 mpg, are these not a better choice than hybrids?
[Yes, I do think the question WWJD applies here. I cannot see Jesus tooling down the interstate at 80mph, by himself, in an SUV. How we relate to the environment is a Christian concern.]
I am convinced that most people believe what seems plausible to them. That is, made aware of an idea or assertion, most people will believe what fits with their previous experience and world-view. Truth rarely is considered in social isolation.
In the most recent issue of The Princeton Seminary Bulletin (my seminary alma mater), James Edwards reviews the book Above All Earthly Powers by David Wells (the 4th volume of Well's critique of "modern Western culture"). In the book Wells argues that the Church cannot accept the tenets of postmodernism. According to Edwards, Wells discusses the social factors involved in pluralism. The social setting for multiculturalism and postmodernism. His book points to the Immigration Act of 1965 as having had a tremendous impact on the American religious landscape. I knew this, but the statistics cited by Edwards got my attention. To quote:
Of the 35 million immigrants to the United States between 1820 and 1964, 82 percent were European, 3 percent Asian, and 15 percent were Canadians or Latin Americans. Of those immigrants, 94 percent considered themselves Protestants, Catholics, or Jews. With the Immigration Act of 1965, however, the country opened its doors to the world and the picture was virtually reversed. The total number of immigrants to America since 1965 has been lower, about five million, but Europeans now account for only 15 percent, with the remaining 85 percent coming from around the globe and bringing with them every religion, from Animism to Zoroastrianism. The United States is now the world's most religiously diverse nation.
more below
In the most recent issue of The Princeton Seminary Bulletin (my seminary alma mater), James Edwards reviews the book Above All Earthly Powers by David Wells (the 4th volume of Well's critique of "modern Western culture"). In the book Wells argues that the Church cannot accept the tenets of postmodernism. According to Edwards, Wells discusses the social factors involved in pluralism. The social setting for multiculturalism and postmodernism. His book points to the Immigration Act of 1965 as having had a tremendous impact on the American religious landscape. I knew this, but the statistics cited by Edwards got my attention. To quote:
Of the 35 million immigrants to the United States between 1820 and 1964, 82 percent were European, 3 percent Asian, and 15 percent were Canadians or Latin Americans. Of those immigrants, 94 percent considered themselves Protestants, Catholics, or Jews. With the Immigration Act of 1965, however, the country opened its doors to the world and the picture was virtually reversed. The total number of immigrants to America since 1965 has been lower, about five million, but Europeans now account for only 15 percent, with the remaining 85 percent coming from around the globe and bringing with them every religion, from Animism to Zoroastrianism. The United States is now the world's most religiously diverse nation.
more below
02/01: Worth Reading
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
Writing from the Middle East, Michael Yon has a post worth reading on the world situation. Here. Link from Instapundit.
Some excerpts:
This war has a thousand faces. A couple weeks ago in Singapore, an opportunity arose to speak with a clutch of field-grade officers, most of whom were foreign veterans of the worldwide war. These officers were from countries such as Singapore, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. A common theme among our foreign allies is a concern that we Americans seem to think we are standing alone against a world teeming with enemies. Our military leaders of course know that we are not alone and that enemies do not lurk in every cave or under every rock. They know, too, that we have more allies than enemies, and even more who fit into neither category.
This war is strange. I never hear soldiers worried about their own morale sagging. Contrary, the war-fighters here are more concerned to bolster the morale of the people at home. Here in Kuwait, where the dining facilities are bedecked in Christmas decorations, soldiers stream in from Iraq on convoys and stream back north along those bomb-laden roads. The service members here are not all rear-echelon people who never see fighting or blood. Yet their overall morale obviously is high. Few of them know I am a writer, and so they speak freely at the tables around me. In Qatar, from which I’d just departed, I spoke with troops taking four-day R&R passes, some having just returned from the most dangerous parts of Iraq, and others heading straight back, and their overall morale was also very high. The morale at war is higher than I have ever seen it at home; makes me wonder what they know that most Americans seem to be missing.
Some excerpts:
This war has a thousand faces. A couple weeks ago in Singapore, an opportunity arose to speak with a clutch of field-grade officers, most of whom were foreign veterans of the worldwide war. These officers were from countries such as Singapore, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, New Zealand, Australia and the United States. A common theme among our foreign allies is a concern that we Americans seem to think we are standing alone against a world teeming with enemies. Our military leaders of course know that we are not alone and that enemies do not lurk in every cave or under every rock. They know, too, that we have more allies than enemies, and even more who fit into neither category.
This war is strange. I never hear soldiers worried about their own morale sagging. Contrary, the war-fighters here are more concerned to bolster the morale of the people at home. Here in Kuwait, where the dining facilities are bedecked in Christmas decorations, soldiers stream in from Iraq on convoys and stream back north along those bomb-laden roads. The service members here are not all rear-echelon people who never see fighting or blood. Yet their overall morale obviously is high. Few of them know I am a writer, and so they speak freely at the tables around me. In Qatar, from which I’d just departed, I spoke with troops taking four-day R&R passes, some having just returned from the most dangerous parts of Iraq, and others heading straight back, and their overall morale was also very high. The morale at war is higher than I have ever seen it at home; makes me wonder what they know that most Americans seem to be missing.
01/01: Happy 2007
Category: America and the World
Posted by: an okie gardener
According to this report, with links, the official web site of the nation of Iran is proclaiming that the return Mahdi is near, possibly by the spring equinox.
For those of you who have not kept up, in Shiite apocalyptic, this means the end of the present world order with lots of bloodshed in Armageddon style. Given that the Iranian government has spoken of itself as an agent of the Mahdi's return, this announcement makes me wonder if the Irananians expect to have usable nuclear weapons by spring equinox. Peace on earth postponed again. For previous posts see here.
For those of you who have not kept up, in Shiite apocalyptic, this means the end of the present world order with lots of bloodshed in Armageddon style. Given that the Iranian government has spoken of itself as an agent of the Mahdi's return, this announcement makes me wonder if the Irananians expect to have usable nuclear weapons by spring equinox. Peace on earth postponed again. For previous posts see here.
Hillary Clinton is still the most likely person to be elected the forty-fourth president of the United States in 2008 (see Part I). If she is elected, America will endure (see Part II); perhaps, we will even prosper.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
Clinton-44: Part III. Why it might even be good:
1. We have reason to hope that Republicans will better inhabit the role of loyal opposition than the erstwhile players.
2. Most importantly, if Mrs. Clinton remains faithful to her record and rhetoric, her election will commit the Democratic Party en masse to the global war on terror. Just as Harry Truman and the Democrats owned the Cold War until Dwight Eisenhower came along and embraced the policy, the War on Terror at this moment is a unilateral Republican policy. It is vital for American survival that the Democrats have a partisan interest in our success in the larger war on terror.
A crucial time. Mrs. Clinton is at a crossroads right now. Does she stand pat on her Iraq position? Or should she hedge her bet? During the next few days, President Bush will reaffirm his commitment to winning in Iraq, and he will announce a "surge" in troops (very likely a number larger than many of us are prepared for). Will Mrs. Clinton support the President? Or will she join John Kerry and John Edwards, who have both repudiated their 2002 support and are vocally advocating for an expedited withdrawal? Hillary's choice will be the most important decision of her political career, and not merely vital for her personally; her determination goes a long way toward shaping our future as a nation.
Her political calculation: To win the general election, Mrs. Clinton must cast herself as a moderate Democrat, tough on terror, strong on defense, realistic on taxes and sane on the cultural issues. She has steadily constructed this political persona for almost a decade. For the most part, she has succeeded grandly. As a result, most of the other moderate Democrats are fleeing the field, leaving the canvass to Mrs. Clinton.
An aside: Most handicappers have this race down to Hillary and Barack Obama (the candidate who has burst onto the political scene from nowhere to become a viable choice with astonishing momentum). Not invested in the original decision to invade Iraq, Obama has made the safest bet: he opposes increased troop levels (his statement here ). This is clearly the best route for him, as it highlights his original opposition to what has become an incredibly unpopular military action. His compelling answer to the inevitable question of experience: "My opponent may have a few years on me, but I have enough common sense to avoid a debacle." Notwithstanding, there are weaknesses in this strategy (see below).
Back to Clinton: Although she wobbled a bit this week, significantly, Mrs. Clinton has not laid the predicate for supporting a precipitous exit from Iraq. Why has she remained firm thus far? She understands that success in Iraq is in her interest. Best case scenario for candidate Clinton in 2008? A passive Iraq quietly building strength below the media radar. In fairness to her, she also understands that wresting a stable Iraq from the current chaos is in America's vital national interests, comprehending the catastrophic consequences of a humiliating withdrawal.
The Politics: Mrs. Clinton is the frontrunner. She is a superstar; she sits atop the best organization in the contest; she has unlimited access to money, and she (in partnership with her husband) has spent a lifetime locking in endorsements, racking up favors and collecting promises from all the key players in the upcoming primary battle. But she has a dilemma. If a volatile Iraq continues to deteriorate through January 2008, her opponents in the Democratic primary will inflict monumental damage depicting her as George Bush's enabler. Can she survive that? Impossible to say.
On the other hand, staying the course may be the wiser political move. She is not in a desperate position like John Edwards, who must publicly and repeatedly repent to resurrect his 2008 viability. She does not need to appeal to the most radical elements in her party, who detest the war. A degree of hawkishness and faith in American good intentions helps her in the heartland.
The McCain factor: More significantly, if she abandons ship, and the plan to increase troop levels succeeds, she is in real trouble in the general election. Surprisingly, John McCain seems now in position to secure the Republican nomination. Increased troop strength is John McCain's recipe for success. He has been sounding this call for three years. If this last gasp works, John McCain (with the willing aid of President Bush) takes full credit for the change in tactics. If Hillary deserts the cause at this late date, and the new plan works, she cedes the foreign policy high ground to her Republican opponent. On the other hand, if she stays true to her previous commitment, she fights McCain on even ground in November of 2008.
This is an extremely vexing political decision. But it is momentous. If she holds firm, the Democratic Senate leadership in the Senate will back her. With the support of Mrs. Clinton, Joe Biden and Joe Lieberman, the United States gets one more chance to snatch victory from the awful struggle in Iraq.
Dick Morris wrote an insightful piece a few weeks ago (read it here courtesy of Jewish World Review).
He begs us not to elect Hillary Clinton and enumerates a long list of reasons why she would be a disaster. Undoubtedly, he has a lot of this right. I agree with much of his unflattering character profile. Morris is a canny operator and an insightful observer with expert knowledge of the Clintons. Having said that, Morris's analysis is always flavored by his hatred for them (especially intense for Hillary), which clouds his judgment.
Even so, Morris points out that Hillary, in contradistinction to Bill, is rigid and stubborn, inclined to make up her mind and "charge ahead and do what she thinks needs to be done, the torpedoes be damned." Morris sees this as a horrendous flaw, and I would agree with him in ordinary circumstances; however, in this case it may work to our national benefit. We need stubborn more than practical right now.
