As we watch, we are seeing the campaign season heat up for the next Presidential election cycle. Interestingly, we are hearing the GOP party machinery attempt to model their campaign along the "winning" strategy of Senator McCain's failed '08 bid, which tells us to ignore social issues and focus on the economy. Meanwhile the Democrats tell us that we've recovered and Mr. Obama's policies have been a great success; 9% unemployment and a housing market worse than the Great Depression are bumps in the road.
Both parties are tap-dancing around the fact that elections are actually all about the social issues. Economic policies are formulated along ideological lines.
Take a look at Tim Geithner's testimony to the House Small Business Committee, for example. Geithner testified that the taxes on small business must go up to ensure funding government programs at the current level. Geithner's ideology makes it unthinkable that government could conceivably be smaller.
Then there's Ben Bernanke's statements indicating that the Federal Reserve Bank doesn't have a "precise read" on the nation's current economic situation. Their economic theory confidently predicted , and their ideology let them to believe, that the economy simply could not fail to recover under the impetus of the Obama Stimulus. The Fed, believing in the borrow-and-spend theory, engaged in a massive "Quantitative Easing"which poured massive amounts of cash into banks. Most of that money seems to have gone into boosting the stock market, and little into the hands of the middle and lower economic classes. Strangely enough, since most of the new money went into the hands of the well-to-do, the Fed has seen the new money produce little in the way of economic recovery. So they are puzzled.
The debt ceiling negotiations are stalled right now, and it's about ideology. The Democrats have already floated the idea of raising taxes and passing another, perhaps even larger, Stimulus package, because their ideology drives massive government based on taxing, spending, printing, and borrowing massive amounts of money. Meanwhile the Republicans are proposing a reduction in government programs and spending to control the ballooning debt, which their social theory calls for limited government and little, or eventually no, debt.
It is all about ideology and social theory. The Democrats tell us that the economy has already recovered, and push their social agenda. The moderates in the GOP need to realize that both parties claim their ideology will "help the economy." Moderates in the GOP need to get on board and push the conservative social agenda, using the failed Stimulus and other failed Democrat policies to show that the Democrat social agenda has failed. Talking about the economy without providing a plan to fix it will not win elections.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Friday, June 24, 2011
LGBT Rights, the United Nations, and Secular Liberalism
The United Nations has recently passed a resolution recognizing the human rights of the LGBT community. It passed by a vote of 23 in favor, 19 opposed, and 3 abstentions, or 23 to 22. Without the vote of the United States, and the 3 abstentions, this measure would have failed.
Evidently, the United States lobbied for this resolution. This subject, according to a CNN article, is near and dear to the heart of our Secretary of State Clinton.
The passage of this Resolution highlights a couple of interesting points. First, there was no report of any discussion or even any consideration given to the inherent conflict with the sincerely held religious views of those whose religions do not accept 'alternative lifestyles,' particularly the three monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. People in the secular community, which generally encompasses the LGBT community, do not accept religious teachings counter to their feelings and inclinations. They often use harsh, if not hateful, language towards believers who hold to teachings laid down hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yet these religious teachings created thriving, healthy civilizations, whereas cultures which have accepted homosexuality have collapsed within decades.
Parenthetically, the first chapter of the Book of Romans in the Bible suggests that acceptance of homosexuality is a particular judgment upon those that refuse to recognize God. This does not mean that homosexuality is a "worse" sin, since the Bible teaches that all sin, whether theft, adultery, coveting, lying, or homosexuality, is a result of rejecting God. The relevant verses are as follows:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
At any rate, all of these major religions include directives to their adherents to go forth and teach their religious beliefs. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution expressly protects religious activity. Yet the U.N. Resolution here calls for the promotion of the gay lifestyle. Can the promotion of the politically correct gay lifestyle be balanced with the Constitutionally protected promotion of a Godly lifestyle which prohibits the gay lifestyle? Not likely. And in modern American Courts, it is often the Constitution that is ignored in a contest with correctness.
The second interesting point is made in the comments of Suzanne Nossel, a deputy assistant secretary of state, who told CNN, "It really is a key part in setting a new norm that gay rights are human rights and that that has to be accepted globally." She also said, "It's not from scratch. On women's rights, on minority rights, it builds up over time. So this is really a critical beginning of a universal recognition of a new set of rights that forms part of the international system." It shows the self-contradictory thinking that liberalism engages in. While she says its not from scratch, she says in the same breath that it is the fabrication of a new set of rights, and that is precisely what "from scratch" means.
Liberals, not accepting the notion of any external foundation for morals or rights, believe that governments are the source of rights. That might work well during those times when there are benign leaders in charge, but benign leaders are the exception, not the rule. You can't include America in any list of countries with benign leaders, because America was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system which drew on God and the Bible as the external source of human rights. Look back through history at the leaders of countries that do not have such a heritage, countries where the government watches over and cares for you and gives you the "rights" it believes you deserve: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Quaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and many others. If you are going to place your faith in the inherent goodness of mankind to give and protect your "rights," history is not on your side.
Evidently, the United States lobbied for this resolution. This subject, according to a CNN article, is near and dear to the heart of our Secretary of State Clinton.
The passage of this Resolution highlights a couple of interesting points. First, there was no report of any discussion or even any consideration given to the inherent conflict with the sincerely held religious views of those whose religions do not accept 'alternative lifestyles,' particularly the three monotheistic religions of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. People in the secular community, which generally encompasses the LGBT community, do not accept religious teachings counter to their feelings and inclinations. They often use harsh, if not hateful, language towards believers who hold to teachings laid down hundreds or thousands of years ago. Yet these religious teachings created thriving, healthy civilizations, whereas cultures which have accepted homosexuality have collapsed within decades.
Parenthetically, the first chapter of the Book of Romans in the Bible suggests that acceptance of homosexuality is a particular judgment upon those that refuse to recognize God. This does not mean that homosexuality is a "worse" sin, since the Bible teaches that all sin, whether theft, adultery, coveting, lying, or homosexuality, is a result of rejecting God. The relevant verses are as follows:
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another."
At any rate, all of these major religions include directives to their adherents to go forth and teach their religious beliefs. The Bill of Rights in the American Constitution expressly protects religious activity. Yet the U.N. Resolution here calls for the promotion of the gay lifestyle. Can the promotion of the politically correct gay lifestyle be balanced with the Constitutionally protected promotion of a Godly lifestyle which prohibits the gay lifestyle? Not likely. And in modern American Courts, it is often the Constitution that is ignored in a contest with correctness.
The second interesting point is made in the comments of Suzanne Nossel, a deputy assistant secretary of state, who told CNN, "It really is a key part in setting a new norm that gay rights are human rights and that that has to be accepted globally." She also said, "It's not from scratch. On women's rights, on minority rights, it builds up over time. So this is really a critical beginning of a universal recognition of a new set of rights that forms part of the international system." It shows the self-contradictory thinking that liberalism engages in. While she says its not from scratch, she says in the same breath that it is the fabrication of a new set of rights, and that is precisely what "from scratch" means.
Liberals, not accepting the notion of any external foundation for morals or rights, believe that governments are the source of rights. That might work well during those times when there are benign leaders in charge, but benign leaders are the exception, not the rule. You can't include America in any list of countries with benign leaders, because America was founded on a Judeo-Christian belief system which drew on God and the Bible as the external source of human rights. Look back through history at the leaders of countries that do not have such a heritage, countries where the government watches over and cares for you and gives you the "rights" it believes you deserve: Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Quaddafi, Saddam Hussein, and many others. If you are going to place your faith in the inherent goodness of mankind to give and protect your "rights," history is not on your side.
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
Hostilities and Helplessness, or There's No War Here!
The Obama Administration has released a document styled "United States Activities in Libya." It's fairly short as such things go, only 32 pages. Buried on page 25 is a meager one-paragraph analysis of the legal basis for the Administration's actions in Libya.
The President has authority to conduct limited military actions without consulting Congress, or getting Congressional approval, which is true under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. At that point, though, the analysis gets tricky, because that power is limited to 60 days. Where hostilities go beyond 60 days, Congressional approval is required. To avoid this 60-day limit, the President is claiming that (1) he is operating under a United Nations Resolution which defines the extent of the military action, and (2) it's not legally called "hostilities" since the Libyans are not able militarily to respond to the airstrikes against them.
That type of legal analysis shows the extent to which the current Administration disregards the concept of the "rule of law" on which America is (or, in the Administration's view, apparently was) based. A U.N. Resolution does not and cannot grant the President exemption from American law. Furthermore, the President cannot say "We are killing them, but it's not going to become hostile unless they start shooting us, so really, there's no war here!" Hostilities do not have to be mutual, although I suspect Quaddafi does harbor hostility towards the U.S., despite his helplessness to express it.
It is time for the Congress to step in and hold this rogue President accountable.
The President has authority to conduct limited military actions without consulting Congress, or getting Congressional approval, which is true under the 1973 War Powers Resolution. At that point, though, the analysis gets tricky, because that power is limited to 60 days. Where hostilities go beyond 60 days, Congressional approval is required. To avoid this 60-day limit, the President is claiming that (1) he is operating under a United Nations Resolution which defines the extent of the military action, and (2) it's not legally called "hostilities" since the Libyans are not able militarily to respond to the airstrikes against them.
That type of legal analysis shows the extent to which the current Administration disregards the concept of the "rule of law" on which America is (or, in the Administration's view, apparently was) based. A U.N. Resolution does not and cannot grant the President exemption from American law. Furthermore, the President cannot say "We are killing them, but it's not going to become hostile unless they start shooting us, so really, there's no war here!" Hostilities do not have to be mutual, although I suspect Quaddafi does harbor hostility towards the U.S., despite his helplessness to express it.
It is time for the Congress to step in and hold this rogue President accountable.
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Obamacare and the Commerce Clause
[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
The argument over the constitutionality of Obamacare (or rOBAMAneycare, depending on whether or not you realize that Obamacare was based on Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts) is turning on the definition of "regulate".
Obama's attorneys are arguing that "regulate" means the government can control all activity or inactivity which does or does not result in interstate commerce. They think this extends even to requiring an activity which might affect other activity in interstate commerce. In other words, they believe the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited control over all activities of all individuals, even the power to cause activity.
This flies in the face of any concept of limited government as envisioned by the founders, and it also corrupts the meaning of the Constitution's language. The commerce clause does not contain the word "cause". Regulate and cause are not synonyms;
Regulate- to control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules or regulations
Cause- a thing which gives rise to a condition or activity.
Therefore, given the actual language, the federal government is not given the right to "cause" interstate commerce, only to regulate that which actually exists.
The outcome of the Obamacare cases will eventually depend on whether the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to stretch the Constitution beyond all reason to give the federal government unlimited power over all activities of all individuals, or whether there is some vestige of the founding father's concept of limited government still alive and kicking.
Article I, Section 8, Clause 3.
The argument over the constitutionality of Obamacare (or rOBAMAneycare, depending on whether or not you realize that Obamacare was based on Romneycare in the state of Massachusetts) is turning on the definition of "regulate".
Obama's attorneys are arguing that "regulate" means the government can control all activity or inactivity which does or does not result in interstate commerce. They think this extends even to requiring an activity which might affect other activity in interstate commerce. In other words, they believe the commerce clause gives the federal government unlimited control over all activities of all individuals, even the power to cause activity.
This flies in the face of any concept of limited government as envisioned by the founders, and it also corrupts the meaning of the Constitution's language. The commerce clause does not contain the word "cause". Regulate and cause are not synonyms;
Regulate- to control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules or regulations
Cause- a thing which gives rise to a condition or activity.
Therefore, given the actual language, the federal government is not given the right to "cause" interstate commerce, only to regulate that which actually exists.
The outcome of the Obamacare cases will eventually depend on whether the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to stretch the Constitution beyond all reason to give the federal government unlimited power over all activities of all individuals, or whether there is some vestige of the founding father's concept of limited government still alive and kicking.
Thursday, June 2, 2011
The Price of Food and the Food Production System
If you have been paying attention to the news, you will have noticed the undercurrent of concern over the rise of food and commodity prices. One report by Oxfam International, an aid agency, suggests that the price of food may more than double in the next 20 years. “The food system is buckling under intense pressure from climate change, ecological degradation, population growth, rising energy prices, rising demand for meat and dairy products, and competition for land from biofuels, industry, and urbanization,” Oxfam said in its report “Growing a Better Future.”
The factors Oxfam lists are all undoubtedly relevant. Climate change has always been a factor in agriculture. For people who have never lived in a rural environment, it's easy to believe that the climate is a static system in which the seasons repeat with a dull regularity, each year like the one before, but that's never the case. Growing up on the farm, I remember my dad telling me about the hot and dry years of the early 1950's, and I remember some pretty wet years in the early 1970's.
Population growth creates a demand for farm products, and also creates competition for energy resources that drives up the price of fuel needed to operate the farms. In that respect these two factors can offset each other, as an increased demand can drive up prices and provide funds needed to pay higher operating costs. On the other hand, ecological degradation is a factor which may come into play in a differnent sense than that which is widely taught in schools. In the 1960's, chemicals were widely introduced into farming and laid the groundwork necessary for the transition which occurred in the 1980's. Before the 1980's, farms were small and labor-intensive family operations. Even with the advent of mechanization, many trips over the fields were needed to plow, disk (twice), harrow, plant, hoe (twice), cultivate (as many as four times) and harvest a crop. The small farmer of that era typically kept some combination of cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, geese, and the like, some of which were taken once or twice a year to be sold for slaughter. These all had to be tended at least twice a day. Also, the feedlots had to be cleaned regularly, a process which fertilized the land.
The large industrial agribusiness operations of today typically operate in a totally different manner. Grain operators produce only grain crops, planting a 70 or 80 foot wide stripe in one pass, applying insecticide and herbicide for pest and weed control, with no tillage needed. While there may be an additional application of chemicals before harvest, that is all the fieldwork that some operators will perform. This process is very efficient, of course, and it does reduce soil erosion. Livestock operations meanwhile focus only on the production of a meat product. Feedlots produce, for example, thousands of head of beef contracted to processing companies. These feedlots also produce unpleasant odors and tons of waste product, which is the ecological degradation that often comes to mind. These operations also require fleets of trucks to supply grain for the livestock.
The ecological degradation I fear is more subtle. In the small farms of yesteryear, animal waste was applied to the land in a rotation which covered all the crop and pastureland every few years. Until the late 1960's, with the advent of chemical farming, I do not recall ever hearing about dangerous concentrations in groundwater or runoff. The concentration was very low and provided a beneficial return of fertilizer and trace elements to the land, and the odor dissipated very quickly. Although many people believe trace elements are a necessary component of foodstuffs, modern agribusiness does not provide this return of trace elements. The natural fertilizer which the small farmer used is concentrated at the large feedlot where it is a nuisance rather than a benefit. Trace elements are typically not considered, so the land becomes depleted of these. Modern agribusiness treats land as a production machine: inputs in, crop out. Fertilizer is provided only in terms of the chemicals N, P, and K needed to produce a specific crop. Treating the land as a machine system may lead to a long term degradation in the quality and richness of the soil.
Oxfam's report notes that the rate of growth of food production has been cut in half in the past few years. This is a result, oddly enough, of the intersection of the demand for efficiency in farm operations and the reality of farms. Farms, in most areas, are broken up into fields of various sizes and shapes, not because it is most convenient, but because the lay of the land demands it. In addition to property lines and roadways, there are rivers, streams, ditches, hills, swales, ledges, and tree lines. Depending on the area, arable tracts might be as small as one or two acres. An 80 foot wide machine can't really even be used in such a small tract. Such machines have to be unfolded from road transport configuration to be used, and refolded after use, and that process takes longer than the time to work small fields. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and efficiency demands that they be used in larger fields to minimize time waste, so the small fields are abandoned. If you look at the land as you drive through, for example, eastern Kansas, or Missouri, or any area which has had smaller farms, you can see for yourself that fields are being abandoned to brush and trees. In the days of horse-powered farming and early mechanization, a farmer might work a strip up to 8 feet wide, or as little as 12 to 14 inches. It might take half a day to plow that small field, but it would be put into production, whereas today it is not. So the consequence of improved efficiency results in fewer acres used, and the any increase in the rate of production per acre begins to be offset as acreage is abandoned.
Another component of the agribusiness system is vertical integration. Vertical integration simply means that the business controls everything from plow to plate. As food-producing corporations gain more influence in agribusiness, a major change in emphasis can be seen. The older, traditional free enterprise system included thousands of small farms, each maximizing its production to bring home the maximum income. The free enterprise system (unlike the communist system, which produced only starvation) tended to produce a bonanza of food, so much so that the government stepped in to "help" in the 1960's, with payments to farmers to take land out of production because there was an oversupply and prices were low. Corporations are in business to make money, however. They will seek to maximize their profit, and with vertical integration, a corporation can control the market and minimize competition to ensure profitability. They will do this by producing the optimum amount of food to be sold at the optimum price, and there are formulas to calculate this. "Optimum" definitely does not mean an oversupply with low consumer prices. It will mean that amount of food which will sell at the highest price that most (but not all) people can pay.
While there will continue to be small farms, these will become "boutique" operations specializing in higher quality and higher prices to compete with the megafarms. And heaven help us if the government steps in. The government managed the farms in the USSR and just about starved their people to death, as no one was actually accountable for or profited from food production. In short, expect food prices to rise while quantity and quality decrease.
The factors Oxfam lists are all undoubtedly relevant. Climate change has always been a factor in agriculture. For people who have never lived in a rural environment, it's easy to believe that the climate is a static system in which the seasons repeat with a dull regularity, each year like the one before, but that's never the case. Growing up on the farm, I remember my dad telling me about the hot and dry years of the early 1950's, and I remember some pretty wet years in the early 1970's.
Population growth creates a demand for farm products, and also creates competition for energy resources that drives up the price of fuel needed to operate the farms. In that respect these two factors can offset each other, as an increased demand can drive up prices and provide funds needed to pay higher operating costs. On the other hand, ecological degradation is a factor which may come into play in a differnent sense than that which is widely taught in schools. In the 1960's, chemicals were widely introduced into farming and laid the groundwork necessary for the transition which occurred in the 1980's. Before the 1980's, farms were small and labor-intensive family operations. Even with the advent of mechanization, many trips over the fields were needed to plow, disk (twice), harrow, plant, hoe (twice), cultivate (as many as four times) and harvest a crop. The small farmer of that era typically kept some combination of cows, pigs, sheep, goats, chickens, geese, and the like, some of which were taken once or twice a year to be sold for slaughter. These all had to be tended at least twice a day. Also, the feedlots had to be cleaned regularly, a process which fertilized the land.
The large industrial agribusiness operations of today typically operate in a totally different manner. Grain operators produce only grain crops, planting a 70 or 80 foot wide stripe in one pass, applying insecticide and herbicide for pest and weed control, with no tillage needed. While there may be an additional application of chemicals before harvest, that is all the fieldwork that some operators will perform. This process is very efficient, of course, and it does reduce soil erosion. Livestock operations meanwhile focus only on the production of a meat product. Feedlots produce, for example, thousands of head of beef contracted to processing companies. These feedlots also produce unpleasant odors and tons of waste product, which is the ecological degradation that often comes to mind. These operations also require fleets of trucks to supply grain for the livestock.
The ecological degradation I fear is more subtle. In the small farms of yesteryear, animal waste was applied to the land in a rotation which covered all the crop and pastureland every few years. Until the late 1960's, with the advent of chemical farming, I do not recall ever hearing about dangerous concentrations in groundwater or runoff. The concentration was very low and provided a beneficial return of fertilizer and trace elements to the land, and the odor dissipated very quickly. Although many people believe trace elements are a necessary component of foodstuffs, modern agribusiness does not provide this return of trace elements. The natural fertilizer which the small farmer used is concentrated at the large feedlot where it is a nuisance rather than a benefit. Trace elements are typically not considered, so the land becomes depleted of these. Modern agribusiness treats land as a production machine: inputs in, crop out. Fertilizer is provided only in terms of the chemicals N, P, and K needed to produce a specific crop. Treating the land as a machine system may lead to a long term degradation in the quality and richness of the soil.
Oxfam's report notes that the rate of growth of food production has been cut in half in the past few years. This is a result, oddly enough, of the intersection of the demand for efficiency in farm operations and the reality of farms. Farms, in most areas, are broken up into fields of various sizes and shapes, not because it is most convenient, but because the lay of the land demands it. In addition to property lines and roadways, there are rivers, streams, ditches, hills, swales, ledges, and tree lines. Depending on the area, arable tracts might be as small as one or two acres. An 80 foot wide machine can't really even be used in such a small tract. Such machines have to be unfolded from road transport configuration to be used, and refolded after use, and that process takes longer than the time to work small fields. These machines cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, and efficiency demands that they be used in larger fields to minimize time waste, so the small fields are abandoned. If you look at the land as you drive through, for example, eastern Kansas, or Missouri, or any area which has had smaller farms, you can see for yourself that fields are being abandoned to brush and trees. In the days of horse-powered farming and early mechanization, a farmer might work a strip up to 8 feet wide, or as little as 12 to 14 inches. It might take half a day to plow that small field, but it would be put into production, whereas today it is not. So the consequence of improved efficiency results in fewer acres used, and the any increase in the rate of production per acre begins to be offset as acreage is abandoned.
Another component of the agribusiness system is vertical integration. Vertical integration simply means that the business controls everything from plow to plate. As food-producing corporations gain more influence in agribusiness, a major change in emphasis can be seen. The older, traditional free enterprise system included thousands of small farms, each maximizing its production to bring home the maximum income. The free enterprise system (unlike the communist system, which produced only starvation) tended to produce a bonanza of food, so much so that the government stepped in to "help" in the 1960's, with payments to farmers to take land out of production because there was an oversupply and prices were low. Corporations are in business to make money, however. They will seek to maximize their profit, and with vertical integration, a corporation can control the market and minimize competition to ensure profitability. They will do this by producing the optimum amount of food to be sold at the optimum price, and there are formulas to calculate this. "Optimum" definitely does not mean an oversupply with low consumer prices. It will mean that amount of food which will sell at the highest price that most (but not all) people can pay.
While there will continue to be small farms, these will become "boutique" operations specializing in higher quality and higher prices to compete with the megafarms. And heaven help us if the government steps in. The government managed the farms in the USSR and just about starved their people to death, as no one was actually accountable for or profited from food production. In short, expect food prices to rise while quantity and quality decrease.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)