FIRST, you are not 99%. You are a small, pitiful group of a few thousand rude, obnoxious, loud, privileged spoiled brats who have no idea what suffering or want truly are, or what tyranny and cruelty actually look like.
The banks have never abused you and you have never known want. The very tents you sleep in are available because of your prosperity and the riches of this country. You women dress as you please and go where you would like, freedoms unavailable to most women of the world. You men condemn the manly and destroy civilization and safety that other men have sought so hard to build.
It is America’s wealth and freedoms that afford you the possibility to do what you are presently doing. None of you are at slightest risk of being gunned down by the forces of a mad dictator. Your relatives are not at risk, and you will not disappear. In most countries of the world you would not have been allowed to do what you are doing for even one night without terrible bloodshed and great risk.
The truth is you are not 99% no matter how many times you say it and how often the stupid media repeat it for sales. There are others who also know how to use the internet and social media sites and WE are truly legion. You should be afraid that you will accomplish what you hope, for then you will find out how few, how cowardly, how foolish, and how weak you truly are.
SECOND! Hatred of other men is wrong! It is evil! I do write this message because I hate those who disagree with me. I write this message because others, and those who I disagree with, must know that there is determined, courageous, and equally noisy opposition.
To condemn a human for being black is racist. To condemn one because of their culture is bigotry. To condemn the Jews is not only a form of both, but is the basis of nearly every evil action taken in western history. I am shocked, appalled, and furious at the language I have heard in recent days coming from loud ignorant protestors who are either dumb or evil.
To see a black women attack a group of people because they are Jews is almost unbelievable. To see political leaders and academics endorse the same accusations and hatred that has been heard time and again in history, and as recently as the last century, is simply unbelievable. But my eyes and ears cannot deceive me.
Perhaps worst of all is to listen carefully for the condemnation and courageous refutation from our countries leaders, public officials or even loan citizens and to find there is none. The few loan voices are timid or drowned out by the silence of acceptance from the masses. Well, listen closely. JEW HATERS ARE EVIL, IGNORANT BIGOTS!
THIRD! Taking money by force, even the force of government and giving it to someone else is theft. Theft is the epitome of GREED. Those who demand social justice are guilty of the crime of which they accuse others. Consider the complaints against the banks and society at large.
“I want what you have” is the cry of spoiled children. “You don’t deserve what you have” is playing God. You may not believe in God, but I do not believe human judgment is superior. (In fact your behavior proves my point.) “I deserve more than I have” is so arrogant as to be almost unbelievable. “It’s not fair” is what my children used to say.
Do you not understand that in nearly every other society in history, and even in present day, that people have NO chance to improve their lot in life? There is NO chance to change economic circumstances. Capitalism is the first and only system that makes it possible for common people to work and improve their lot in life. In fact, most of you protestors are able to protest because your parents improved their lot through capitalism.
There may be none greedier than the poor and the envious. Most of you in the streets do not know what poverty is, so I am left to assume you are simply greedy.
FOURTH AND LAST! The unions no longer represent oppressed workers. There was a time when people were often forced to work in inhuman and dangerous conditions. Pay was inadequate and workers were oppressed. That is obviously no longer true in America. American teachers are NOT oppressed. I know I am one as are others in my family. American union workers live well and have excellent working conditions.
The unions no longer have any moral ground on which to represent anyone. They now fight for control and power for the union, not the worker.
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Saturday, October 8, 2011
DID YOU KNOW?
Did you know that grazing wheat or alfalfa stubble with goats reduces wheat and alfalfa pests the following year? Who knew?
Did you know that grazing animals on certain forages can reduce the intestinal worm burdens sufficiently that medications may not be needed? Who knew?
Well, my Grandfather, for one.
Did you know that grazing animals on harvested fields can reduce fertilizer requirements the next year significantly? Who knew?
My other Grandfather . . . and just about every living person born prior to 1945.
I smile at some of the research being generated by S.A.R.E. (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education). Not because it is wrong, but because they are discovering what almost every person knew when most people lived on small farms.
When the federal government subsidized corporate farms following WWII they killed the small farmer. Then as the corporate farms plowed from fence row to fence row, dumped on petroleum based fertilizers, destroyed natural habitat for productivity, and in general turned food production into agricultural factories we are discovering that this doesn’t work.
Farming is basically a nurturing process. It works best when there is a love for the land, an understanding of the natural order, and the patience to live in that world. Unfortunately this nurturing process is often pitted against millions of dollars.
Growing animals that fertilize the crops that feed the animals (including humans) is as important as growing crops that feed the animals that fertilize the crops. Growing more than one crop, rotating them, and including animals in the products enhances the health of the land, the plants, the animals, and the humans.
I applaud S.A.R.E. for their efforts. However, the efforts are doomed until public policy ends subsidies for large farms and provides incentives for the small nurturing activities. These can only succeed if we decentralize food production and processing. The big money will see to it that that never happens.
Did you know that grazing animals on certain forages can reduce the intestinal worm burdens sufficiently that medications may not be needed? Who knew?
Well, my Grandfather, for one.
Did you know that grazing animals on harvested fields can reduce fertilizer requirements the next year significantly? Who knew?
My other Grandfather . . . and just about every living person born prior to 1945.
I smile at some of the research being generated by S.A.R.E. (Sustainable Agriculture Research and Education). Not because it is wrong, but because they are discovering what almost every person knew when most people lived on small farms.
When the federal government subsidized corporate farms following WWII they killed the small farmer. Then as the corporate farms plowed from fence row to fence row, dumped on petroleum based fertilizers, destroyed natural habitat for productivity, and in general turned food production into agricultural factories we are discovering that this doesn’t work.
Farming is basically a nurturing process. It works best when there is a love for the land, an understanding of the natural order, and the patience to live in that world. Unfortunately this nurturing process is often pitted against millions of dollars.
Growing animals that fertilize the crops that feed the animals (including humans) is as important as growing crops that feed the animals that fertilize the crops. Growing more than one crop, rotating them, and including animals in the products enhances the health of the land, the plants, the animals, and the humans.
I applaud S.A.R.E. for their efforts. However, the efforts are doomed until public policy ends subsidies for large farms and provides incentives for the small nurturing activities. These can only succeed if we decentralize food production and processing. The big money will see to it that that never happens.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
WHAT ARE WE GOING TO DO?
People don’t want to own things. People want to do things.
The other day I overheard a conversation between students. One of them had a new cell phone. It suddenly struck me that the others weren’t interested in the phone, but in what it could DO.
Isn’t that why people buy boats, campers, hot tubs, swimming pools, fishing rods, duck blinds and whatever? People like to do things. They even often enjoy puttering around with cleaning the pool and maintaining the camper. After all, there is no farm to care for.
At first I thought about how people like movies, television, and entertainment. But then I realized that what those things do is make you believe you are doing something. The sounds, visuals, conflict, romance, and even news reports convince us for awhile that we are doing those very things. For a little while, we think we truly matter.
Of course, when the movie ends we discover that we haven’t done anything at all, we feel even more useless than before. That is the danger of modern entertainment.
There was always something to do on the farm. One could do something different every day of the week and still have things to do. But in the urban setting it is much harder to find things to do that are constructive and productive.
I am not sure how to use this insight productively. People need things to do. Do you have any ideas?
The other day I overheard a conversation between students. One of them had a new cell phone. It suddenly struck me that the others weren’t interested in the phone, but in what it could DO.
Isn’t that why people buy boats, campers, hot tubs, swimming pools, fishing rods, duck blinds and whatever? People like to do things. They even often enjoy puttering around with cleaning the pool and maintaining the camper. After all, there is no farm to care for.
At first I thought about how people like movies, television, and entertainment. But then I realized that what those things do is make you believe you are doing something. The sounds, visuals, conflict, romance, and even news reports convince us for awhile that we are doing those very things. For a little while, we think we truly matter.
Of course, when the movie ends we discover that we haven’t done anything at all, we feel even more useless than before. That is the danger of modern entertainment.
There was always something to do on the farm. One could do something different every day of the week and still have things to do. But in the urban setting it is much harder to find things to do that are constructive and productive.
I am not sure how to use this insight productively. People need things to do. Do you have any ideas?
Thursday, September 15, 2011
GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT (GNP) AS DISEASE INDICATOR
Can a country survive when it is more profitable to be sick or broken than to be well or repaired? Soon the major portion of our Gross National Product will not be about production but about health care. No one can make money out of keeping people healthy, so we are worth more to our country sick and well. What if you stop receiving unemployment benefits? Will the GNP go down because you have nothing to spend. Of course, these ideas are only true if the only measure of value is the economy.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be very worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
But they will be worth more, financially, to the economy, if they divorce. They will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and there will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community generally, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries?
Perhaps the GNP could be used as a measure of just how bad and inefficient our nation is: the higher the GNP the worse off we are in all the things that matter most. Is the GNP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? What happens to the GNP when people are paid to not work? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
This is true of almost everything. For example, instead of talking about the life of one person, what if we examine the value of one marriage and family. If a husband and wife are united in their goals and committed to their marriage, they will work diligently to purchase a home, care for it properly, raise children, educate them, and try to be productive in the community. They will be of great worth that community as will their children as they grow into responsible adults. But they will not be very worth as much financially to the community because they will be frugal and consume less.
But they will be worth more, financially, to the economy, if they divorce. They will no longer be able to help each other out. There won’t be two people to help with the children and there will have to be two houses instead of one. Instead of producing part of their own food they will have to purchase more because there is no time to garden. They will have to purchase more processed foods because there is less time to cook. They will eat out more often. There will be legal bills, and trips back and forth to share children, and more cell phones so the children can stay in contact. More computers, TV’s, stoves, refrigerators, furniture, cars and such will be needed for two households.
The divorced family is worth so much less to the community generally, but so much more to the financial economy. Could the same thing be said for neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and countries?
Perhaps the GNP could be used as a measure of just how bad and inefficient our nation is: the higher the GNP the worse off we are in all the things that matter most. Is the GNP a direct predictor of divorce? Could it be used as an indicator of ill health or failing communities? What happens to the GNP when people are paid to not work? I haven’t done the statistics, but it sort of seems like someone ought to look at that.
Thursday, September 1, 2011
AGRICULTURE POLICY
In the last fifty years government policy has favored large agriculture which has displaced the population off of the farm and into cities. Now we find:
• the mega-farms in trouble,
• environmental contamination and degradation due to industrial farming practices,
• agricultural subsidies a huge drain on the government money (mostly to large corporate farms)
• increasing difficulty with food safety,
• and a huge regulatory industry on production and processing.
Of course, the displaced farmers all moved to the cities. They went to work in large industrial factories. The result has been:
• crowding in cities,
• expansion of suburbs onto farm land,
• increased demand for city services,
• increased taxes to pay for city services,
• increased land cost as land competed with housing,
• urban decline.
• And, as the economy falters, joblessness.
This change could, only come at the price of cheap energy. For under the US agricultural system for the last fifty or sixty years:
• food had to be produced in mass requiring greater energy and fertilizer,
• food had to be shipped long distances to processing plants,
• often food had to be shipped again for packaging,
• and then shipped again to the consumer
While this was going on:
• the factories required increased energy of operations,
• commuters required increased energy for traveling to work,
• and cities required cheap energy to meet the demands of growth.
Now one of the nation’s greatest concerns is joblessness, and it is the small businesses of the United States that are the greatest employers. Obviously government policy has promoted, even required, these changes, resulting in our present predicament. Yet these policies have destroyed one of the most successful small businesses available to men, the small farm. We now talk about farms and business as if they were separate things. A FARM IS A BUSINESS.
There is no question about whether we will run out of oil. The only debate is about when. If the earth is a hollow ball filled with oil we will run out in several hundred years. If that is not true it will be sooner. Either way, we will not see cheaper energy again. Can the present system, based on available and cheap energy, be maintained? Of course not!
So what kind of government policy could help us move into the future? While it will take many years and enlightened leadership to resist the existing establishment, policy that moved production, processing, packaging, and consumption back into local and regional centers would provide additional small businesses, employment, food, places to live, and use less energy. Present policy makes these changes impossible.
For example, a bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature in the spring of 2011 that would have allowed certain home businesses to sell food products under reduced regulations. These were low risk products such as honey, jellies, and fresh baked goods. The bill was defeated, presumably on public safety grounds. But the major opponents were supported by large agricultural producers, processors, packagers, and retailers.
Yet this bill would have been a step towards relieving financial suffering for many families, especially on the western slope, and would have been a step towards local production, consumption, energy savings and economic stimulus.
I do not wish to return to an earlier day. I would hope that changes in agricultural policy would create a more thriving economy, but one that was decentralized, regionalized, efficient, and economical. America does not need jobs. America needs work: meaningful, productive, satisfying, and rewarding work.
• the mega-farms in trouble,
• environmental contamination and degradation due to industrial farming practices,
• agricultural subsidies a huge drain on the government money (mostly to large corporate farms)
• increasing difficulty with food safety,
• and a huge regulatory industry on production and processing.
Of course, the displaced farmers all moved to the cities. They went to work in large industrial factories. The result has been:
• crowding in cities,
• expansion of suburbs onto farm land,
• increased demand for city services,
• increased taxes to pay for city services,
• increased land cost as land competed with housing,
• urban decline.
• And, as the economy falters, joblessness.
This change could, only come at the price of cheap energy. For under the US agricultural system for the last fifty or sixty years:
• food had to be produced in mass requiring greater energy and fertilizer,
• food had to be shipped long distances to processing plants,
• often food had to be shipped again for packaging,
• and then shipped again to the consumer
While this was going on:
• the factories required increased energy of operations,
• commuters required increased energy for traveling to work,
• and cities required cheap energy to meet the demands of growth.
Now one of the nation’s greatest concerns is joblessness, and it is the small businesses of the United States that are the greatest employers. Obviously government policy has promoted, even required, these changes, resulting in our present predicament. Yet these policies have destroyed one of the most successful small businesses available to men, the small farm. We now talk about farms and business as if they were separate things. A FARM IS A BUSINESS.
There is no question about whether we will run out of oil. The only debate is about when. If the earth is a hollow ball filled with oil we will run out in several hundred years. If that is not true it will be sooner. Either way, we will not see cheaper energy again. Can the present system, based on available and cheap energy, be maintained? Of course not!
So what kind of government policy could help us move into the future? While it will take many years and enlightened leadership to resist the existing establishment, policy that moved production, processing, packaging, and consumption back into local and regional centers would provide additional small businesses, employment, food, places to live, and use less energy. Present policy makes these changes impossible.
For example, a bill was proposed in the Colorado legislature in the spring of 2011 that would have allowed certain home businesses to sell food products under reduced regulations. These were low risk products such as honey, jellies, and fresh baked goods. The bill was defeated, presumably on public safety grounds. But the major opponents were supported by large agricultural producers, processors, packagers, and retailers.
Yet this bill would have been a step towards relieving financial suffering for many families, especially on the western slope, and would have been a step towards local production, consumption, energy savings and economic stimulus.
I do not wish to return to an earlier day. I would hope that changes in agricultural policy would create a more thriving economy, but one that was decentralized, regionalized, efficient, and economical. America does not need jobs. America needs work: meaningful, productive, satisfying, and rewarding work.
Sunday, August 28, 2011
GREAT GRASS MAKES GREAT BEEF
Does American business produce what Americans want, or does American business make Americans want what they produce?
Don’t get me wrong. I am not mad at capitalism. I participate myself in my own small way. The B-B Ranch sells honey, beeswax, bees, solitary bee nests and bee hives. But I also think that a lot of what business does is convince people that they want what they make, instead of making what people want.
I bought a shotgun at Wal-Mart a year or so ago. I couldn’t leave the store until the background check was completed. That turned out to be about three hours. I am now very familiar with the products available in Wal-Mart. I probably don’t need ninety percent of it, and that only on occasion.
Do people want campers, boats, sporting goods, ten pair of shoes, jewelry, musical instruments, new dishes, and on and on? Or do people want close families, good friends, peaceful lives, fulfilling goals, meaningful work, and freedom? How many ads on television make it appear that the way to have the latter is to own the former.
In fact, people seldom own things. Things own people. You may spend a weekend with your family on the boat. But you will spend many hours before and after the outing getting the boat ready, cleaning the boat up, paying for the boat, insuring the boat, buying the boat, repairing the boat, and talking about boats. Most of that won’t be done with your family, but will, instead take you away from your family. You probably could have spent more time with them on a hike, reading together, or playing a game.
If you own a boat don’t be mad at me. The same thing can be said of guitars and mandolins, my personal weaknesses. My point is that people sometimes don’t think very carefully about what they really want to produce. Successful marriages, independent children, strong communities, beautiful farms are all forms of production also.
However, it’s difficult to sell them. Now honey! That will bring you good health and delicious toast.
Don’t get me wrong. I am not mad at capitalism. I participate myself in my own small way. The B-B Ranch sells honey, beeswax, bees, solitary bee nests and bee hives. But I also think that a lot of what business does is convince people that they want what they make, instead of making what people want.
I bought a shotgun at Wal-Mart a year or so ago. I couldn’t leave the store until the background check was completed. That turned out to be about three hours. I am now very familiar with the products available in Wal-Mart. I probably don’t need ninety percent of it, and that only on occasion.
Do people want campers, boats, sporting goods, ten pair of shoes, jewelry, musical instruments, new dishes, and on and on? Or do people want close families, good friends, peaceful lives, fulfilling goals, meaningful work, and freedom? How many ads on television make it appear that the way to have the latter is to own the former.
In fact, people seldom own things. Things own people. You may spend a weekend with your family on the boat. But you will spend many hours before and after the outing getting the boat ready, cleaning the boat up, paying for the boat, insuring the boat, buying the boat, repairing the boat, and talking about boats. Most of that won’t be done with your family, but will, instead take you away from your family. You probably could have spent more time with them on a hike, reading together, or playing a game.
If you own a boat don’t be mad at me. The same thing can be said of guitars and mandolins, my personal weaknesses. My point is that people sometimes don’t think very carefully about what they really want to produce. Successful marriages, independent children, strong communities, beautiful farms are all forms of production also.
However, it’s difficult to sell them. Now honey! That will bring you good health and delicious toast.
Sunday, August 7, 2011
DIVIDED
We are a divided people. We are no longer Americans. We are Black Americans, Spanish Americans, Italian Americans, and multicultural Americans. How is this different than a group of tribesmen?
But perhaps more importantly, we are divided from our purpose. This began when our living became separated from our work. I noticed this first when I visited rural Kentucky and went in search of a dulcimer. I had wanted to buy a dulcimer to learn to play and had planned an extended trip to shop for one. However, our trip was cut short and I found myself with just one afternoon in which to find a handmade dulcimer. My daughter and I went shopping.
We had the name of a man and an obscure rural address. After driving around for some time, even with a Google map, we had not found the home we were looking for. (Google is not really reliable once you leave paved roads.) There were a few homes along the road and we stopped at several, but no one seemed to know which house we were looking for.
There was an old, small house, back off of the road considerably, that we eventually approached. An elderly woman came out onto the small porch and we told her we were looking for a man who made dulcimers. She went out back and called her husband from a small shed. Mr. James Horn from Finchville, KY came out to visit with us. He eventually brought out some of his dulcimers to the front porch and played for us. His “pride and joy” wasn’t for sale, but I purchased a beautiful instrument from him. His business card said he was the maker of “Handcrafted Mountain Dulcimers”.
But what is important is how his home was set back off the road. I have noticed that in older rural areas, the homes are set back off the road. On modern hobby farms the homes are set close to the road. This, perhaps more than any other characteristic divides America, and it is clear now who is the minority.
You see, when the home is set close to the road it is easier to go to town, but it may take considerable effort to go to the barn or out to the field. But when the home is set back off the road it is easier to go to the barn and work the land. We are divided people.
But perhaps more importantly, we are divided from our purpose. This began when our living became separated from our work. I noticed this first when I visited rural Kentucky and went in search of a dulcimer. I had wanted to buy a dulcimer to learn to play and had planned an extended trip to shop for one. However, our trip was cut short and I found myself with just one afternoon in which to find a handmade dulcimer. My daughter and I went shopping.
We had the name of a man and an obscure rural address. After driving around for some time, even with a Google map, we had not found the home we were looking for. (Google is not really reliable once you leave paved roads.) There were a few homes along the road and we stopped at several, but no one seemed to know which house we were looking for.
There was an old, small house, back off of the road considerably, that we eventually approached. An elderly woman came out onto the small porch and we told her we were looking for a man who made dulcimers. She went out back and called her husband from a small shed. Mr. James Horn from Finchville, KY came out to visit with us. He eventually brought out some of his dulcimers to the front porch and played for us. His “pride and joy” wasn’t for sale, but I purchased a beautiful instrument from him. His business card said he was the maker of “Handcrafted Mountain Dulcimers”.
But what is important is how his home was set back off the road. I have noticed that in older rural areas, the homes are set back off the road. On modern hobby farms the homes are set close to the road. This, perhaps more than any other characteristic divides America, and it is clear now who is the minority.
You see, when the home is set close to the road it is easier to go to town, but it may take considerable effort to go to the barn or out to the field. But when the home is set back off the road it is easier to go to the barn and work the land. We are divided people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
