"But Mummy, if We Take the Corn and Wheat Subsidy Money Aren't We Supporting the Government's Over Involvement in Agriculture Price Fixing" or Times when I've Been Told to Shut Up

      So I like to think of my mother as a great lady (who would not let me say "fart" as a child) but, when talking about not taking advantage of the government subsidy programs, that give our family farm money for doing nothing, she will down right start swearing like she just came to port on shore leave. It's hard to not say "thank you"when someone is giving you money but in this case I tend to feel like I and my family are being part of the problem by being involved in the price fixing for the corn industry.
   Okay so what is the Corn and Wheat subsidy? Well if you have a number of acres that have been assessed as able to support crops, then you can get a check twice a year for not growing anything on them. So what's wrong with that? Well, this is a major way for the government (USDA) to support the corn industry by keeping their prices high. I personally don't think that the USDA has the right or duty to support any industry. It's like "okay well how about making broccoli $10 a pound" at least actual vegetables are good for people, but high fructose corn syrup is more profitable. I guess the thing I like least about programs like these is that they aren't transparent enough, it feels like hush money. "Here's $1000 you didn't see anything" and all the farmers/ people with extra land say "Nope, you're right I am not noticing anything going on in the world of agriculture."
    So why do I take the money and run? Well, it offsets my property tax and Mom (who I so know is listening to Rush, it's the worst kept secret) does not believe in property taxes, so this is a way for us to get a huge coupon on our taxes. No joke, my mom has been putting tea bags in the envelope with her tax check since the 80's. And I agree, I don't feel the government has the right to tax my property, I mean I thought we weren't in a feudal system damn it! However, subsidies aren't the way to achieve living tax free. It's just a way to fuel the corporate machine that is strangling the country in every arena. I am happy to report that is were we agree. No one in the Hilderbrand/ Whitmill house believes in the corporate takeover of America, after all we are in the DAR and believe firmly in our complete freedom, wether it's from a government or any other entity.

    To conclude, subsidies bad, money good? Let's just say it's complicated. And I guess that's the best way for me to end this blog, It's Complicated. Everything is; in politics, environmental issues, economy, culture, blah blah blah. Once you are sure that you have the right idea on any issue, give it time cause you'll be wrong. As sure as the sun no one has the right answer and there is no one solution. If the experts were always right there wouldn't be any need for further research and advancement. Not that I would give advice, because that's the surest way to piss people off, but if you are unwilling to be flexible then you will break. Investing too much emotion into any conviction is the best way to become disillusioned once it all blows up in your face.  Is the world getting better or worst? Hell if I know, cause even though the economy is in the toilet and our CO2 problem is becoming unbearable at the same time I, a woman, am able to pursue my education and drive, something my grandmother was not allowed to do.  So even though our technological and social advancements barrel though the delicate china shop of the natural world, that just means we need to be prepared to assess the damage and repair it while trying not to do anything that can't be fixed.  This world produced Stalin and Mel Brooks so that's proof that this is a complicated place, in the last 100 years there has been huge suffering and great advances too. So   how do we proceed into the future? Carefully.
                                                                                

 p.s.

I have enjoyed the class, you haven't changed my mind on anything, but all the same.  Your attitude could have been better, but I'm sure mine could have been better too. I do believe that you show potential at being a good teacher but, you may want to ask yourself if you would want to be in your class, sometimes it was difficult. And I have liked the bloging it's been fun to fully rant about topics. So my opinion, not that it's worth much to anyone else but me, interesting class, sometimes I wanted to scream, but I did like how you formatted it. So Bravo! And best of luck!

Can You Tell Me How to Get to... Marth-topia?

             

  Welcome to paradise! I don't normally write fantasy but here it goes. I choose to pretend that the last 200 years happened in a completely different way due to the fact that fixing  the problems of the industrial revolution creates a complicated problem that no one has a real solution for.  So I will simply describe utopia as if it just worked without there being a tyrannical agency forcing people to be happy and get along. This all comes down to balance. The role of government is to defend citizens against foreign and domestic threats, provide courts to settle disputes amongst citizens, and provide services that protect citizens from social problems. The funny thing is I believe that that was the fantasy of the founders, however things have gotten a little out of whack. I will be speaking as if I were describing life in this idealized society as a citizen. We the People of Marth-topia... are so much cooler than any other utopia. Take that Thomas Moore!

 Upon arrival the first thing one realizes in Marth-topia is that there aren't any super large cities. Learning from Cholera epidemics in London, we all realized that the expense of dealing with the waste that a large population produces was simply not worth it. High population density leads to disease, pollution, and crime. To insure that people could stay spread out while experiencing economic prosperity we created market centers. Places were people come together to buy and sell, like cities however, people produce their products and live outside of these market centers. We continue to have advancements in technology, medicine, and education that are a result of our responsible management of capitalism however, we have retained a deep value in artisanship, equality, and holistic approaches. 

  Above all we value high quality and the number one way we strive to achieve a high quality of life is through education. Everyone not only achieves an academic education but, also a vocational education. There is also a lot more time for people to achieve this high level of education due to our culture not assigning time limits on education based on age but skill level. People are encouraged to achieve their personal best and if that is fourth grade for a sever autistic then they will be the best fourth grader ever. Additionally no job is lesser than any other job, so if there is someone who is an awesome janitor than no one should bring any shame on them likewise, if there is a doctor who's negligence is killing people, than our community looks down on them and they are driven out of their practice due to no one trusting them. 

  Our laws are simple and are based on the premise that no individual or entity shall bring harm to a citizen or their property. Additionally citizens have the right to privacy and independence. Therefore there aren't any "morality" laws such as alcohol laws or drug laws, the people are free to live as they see fit provided they do not injure anyone's body or property. Courts are used by citizens to settle disputes fairly. Fairness is not just based on the impartiality of the court but also the cost. When one brings a case before a judge they are required to pay little money since the lawyers, judge, and his/her clerks are agents of the government and are funded through taxes. 

  Our taxes are kept low due to only requiring the public to pay for the necessities of a functioning society. Our courts, education and libraries, defense (both military and domestic police), public health clinics and aid to citizens that need additional help, roads, fire departments, and administrative offices and agencies are funded through taxes. We have no public funding for offensive wars, foreign aid, aid to non citizens, programs that do not directly help citizens, or any aid to private companies. 

  Our natural landscape is a treasure that we highly value for it's beauty and utility. The dense forest provides shade and oxygen while also preventing erosion and cleaning the water. Our trees are considered a national treasure and we live in a dense canopy with a few clearings that are areas where we cultivate sun loving crops. Because we have a high value for technology that does not interfere with our ecology, we have developed agricultural practices that do not utilize caustic chemicals, including the use of high tunnels and heirloom varieties . Using high tunnels allows us to have a varied diet with out having to transport our foods over long distances or use pesticides. Heirloom seeds and root stocks also allow us to conserve water because they are naturally resistant to drought and require less fungicides since they also are naturally more resistant to plant diseases. Besides agriculture we resist the use of any caustic chemicals in any other industry. Our people would sooner take up arms than allow a company to pour poisonous into our water ways and our soil and such behavior is considered criminal. Likewise, medical practitioners try to avoid chemical treatments at all costs and only in sever cases are they used. 

  Because the foundation of our constitution is based in harm coming to none we have formed and honored treaties with the indigenous people of our land and they are allowed to remain on their land and follow their cultural practices. In fact we enjoy each others company and have learned a lot from each other. 

  Additional fun facts about Marth-topia are our national dish is balsamic glazed chicken with Brussels sprouts and garlic potatoes, national heros are Leonard Cohan, James Burke, Tina Fey, and Steven Moffit. Our national past times include camping and creative writing and our largest exports are smart ass writers and dry draft ciders. Come to Marth-topia and share in our ideals of efficient, responsible, and organic capitalism. 

Holy Sustainable Living Batman, It's Scott Russell Sanders!

   Scott Sanders is a notable writer and english professor who has taken on the task of writing "A Conservationist Manifesto"and I believe the objective of the book is to inspire and inform a technologically insulated public to preserve the earth's natural majesty. To summarize the work (so far) Mr Sanders borrows heavily from the sustainable living/homesteading genre and advocates for a more local scene, plenty of organic gardens, and social programs. He also suggests, in reference to stewardship, that ideas that divert from the secular are convoluted and damaging to the environment. I tend to disagree, "The LORD God placed the man in the Garden of Eden to tend and watch over it." (Genesis 2:15). Now, I understand why in the modern world its fun to rag on the Bible since Christian fundamentalists have hijacked it to find credibility for their cornucopian life styles and they would give anything to have legitimacy to stone somebody, but come on can't we leave the ancient text of a people alone? Perhaps it is solely the fundamentalists that he is referring to, *deep breath* any way I digress. He goes further to reeducate us on the meaning of certain key words that often get misused in the American parlance when discussing environmental and political policies such as economy, which actually means "management of a household" instead of solely about currency. He does this to illustrate a point that the people who designed english were creating a vocabulary that would show their environmental respect, such as the Iroquois did, I'm not so sure about that, but interesting all the same.
  If I could be so bold as to give my opinion on this book it be that I don't believe he is successful in his objective to inspire me to weep at a sunset then go sort my recycling. I too am from Bloomington and have played witness to all of the local points he is making. Additionally I also worship at the temple of sustainability and advocate hard for a more natural life style (please don't hold the chicken poop on the bottom of my shoes, from my free range flock, against me). However, the flowery construction of his book is condescending at worst and just plain boring at best, I get it Walt Whitman is a big influence. It also feels like he's being a little too nostalgic for a utopian past that was never there. I wish he would instead use himself as an example of sustainable living such as Barbara Kingsolver did in "Animal, Vegetable, Miracle" perhaps I'm speaking too soon and he will later on. I was inspired to refab my great grandparent's home and live along side livestock while letting go of packaged foods as a direct result of reading about others finding happiness living "the simpler life"not by being guilted into not driving because I am a party to the destruction of the natural world. I get what he's saying and I do agree with him I just think that "A Conservationist Manifesto" is an all natural alternative to Ambien.
(Ooooh was that too mean, Sorry! And I promised myself I wasn't going to be too cynical this time, oh well maybe next time.)

Oops! A Shameless Plug *teehee*

Ron Paul will visit Indiana University in Bloomington, Indiana on October 25 for a speech starting at 7 pm at the IU Auditorium. The event is free and open to the public.

*Sigh* Obama, why the lies? or That's funny, I thought dictators wore funny uniforms?

 

  " Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold."   Spencer, Herbert
   This is a huge can of worms that is in danger of going terribly off topic, but I will try to remain strong and keep this about the environment. The caveat to this is policies can have a domino effect and will eventually set a precedence that will effect other issues. Before we jump into Obama's environmental promises, um I mean policies, allow me to share my connection to the Obama administration. I not only voted for the man I campaigned for him. In fact on Yom Kippur night my husband and I were at the Democratic headquarters writing postcards to registered voters in Lawrence County asking them to end a Republican controlled White House while we were waiting to break our fast with granola bars. So I feel my feelings of disappointment are legitimate. That being said let us begin.
    As I do research on this topic I am struck with a sense of misunderstanding when I look into Obama's position on the environment. It seems that energy policy has now become synonymous with environmental policy, and this is where there is a butting of heads between environmentalists and Washington. The funny thing is Obama has actually kept some of his campaign promises, however he is doing it in a way that many feel is not sustainable. For example his promise to reduce carbon emissions "Calls for cutting U.S. carbon dioxide emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Would accomplish this through a cap-and-trade system that would auction off 100 percent of emissions permits, making polluters pay for the CO2 they emit." (grist.org August 22, 2008), however it now seems the way Mr. Obama wants to reduce CO2 is by using nuclear power and has stalled on cap and trade according to politifact.com. To be fair he did talk about using nuclear during his campaign and is working on seeking safe disposal of nuclear waste. The problem with his love affair with nuclear is that it isn't sustainable because even though there is an endless amount of Uranium-238 the waste it generates can not easily be stored and requires additional resources plus people are scared of it. When I looked into the White House's position on energy the website refers to energy independence as a form of national security "Today, we export billions of dollars each year to import the energy we need to power our country. Our dependence on foreign oil threatens our national security, our environment and our economy. We must make the investments in clean energy sources that will put Americans back in control of our energy future, create millions of new jobs and lay the foundation for long-term economic security." and in effect that's why we need more off shore drilling I had to chuckle remembering Sarah Palin's "Drill baby drill!" slogan and saw how in his attempts to come more to the middle he is in effect going way past middle and all the way right completely alienating his base, most of whom are environmentalists. However there are consequences to that kind of talk and are they worth it? The base mobilized and pounded the pavement turning undecideds into voters and now he stands watch while one of the worst environmental catastrophes takes place and underestimates it, "The Obama administration lost the public trust and may have sabotaged clean-up operations in the Gulf of Mexico by grossly underestimating the amount of oil gushing from BP's broken Macondo well, according to a White House commission appointed to investigate the spill.

In a scathing critique of the administration's handling of the disaster, the two co-chairs of the commission yesterday said government officials made a serious blunder by releasing early estimates of the spill that were about 60 times too low." (Guardian.co.uk) Drill baby drill? or Kill baby kill?Additionally the big rub a lot of environmentalists are feeling is Obama's appointments such as Ingnacia Moreno who was nominated to be the head of environment division of the Department of Justice, raising many eyebrows at the EPA since she is a former attorney for GE. By the way according to opensecrets.org GE contributed $499,130 to his campaign. Now I'm not naive enough to believe that lobbyists don't get jobs in Washington, but wasn't putting an end to that another campaign promise. 

  Now does the executive branch have the power to really do anything close to all of Obama's campaign promises? No, at least it's not suppose to. Under the constitution the Congress is the one with the real power, however President Sweetie Pie is finding a little loop hole around that pesky Congress, "representatives of the people" *psh*. Mr Obama has his czars, they'll do the work he wants with out all those cumbersome checks and balances. "Senator Byrd wrote a letter to President Obama in February, criticizing the president’s strategy of creating czars to manage important areas of national policy. Senator Byrd said that these appointments violate both the constitutional system of checks and balances and the constitutional separation of powers, and is a clear attempt to evade congressional oversight."(opengov.ideascale.com ) So this has huge consequences not only for the whole nation, it in effect could lead to a dictator, but it also could put a corporate lobbyist in a serious position of power to rule over environmental issues.  Now czars have been around for a while such as the drug czar but by some counts Obama is up to 16 and this is scaring the crap out a lot of people, tea anyone? A president is suppose to keep watch, steer the boat, and keep everyone calm while the Congress does all the heavy lifting, but many feel he is inciting panic by behaving like he's the daddy that knows how to handle all of our problems. To quote  Men in Black  (and how often can you do that) "A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it. " We ran under the banner of change and we wanted change, change from the corporate interest wiping their ass on our constitution and destroying the natural beauty or our nation. Did we get it? Under Mr. Obama I don't think so. 

I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.

-Leonard Cohen

Regulations (or The Big Band-Aid)

   The issue with regulations is that there is a major paradox about them. On the one hand it is absolutely important for there to be regulations in place to prevent the big bad companies drunk on greed from destroying the water, air, soil, and the whole world so that they can make an additional billion before they die and leave a planet in tatters in their wake. However, on the other hand regulations usually don't actually do anything but fine large companies that can afford the fines while pushing out small companies that can't comply. They also stink at enforcing the criminal behavior of some of these companies because they either A) don't actually care or B) afraid of the political back lash by their wealthy lobbyists. I have been thinking of this image of me with crates of the old fashioned thermometers and cracking them open, depositing the mercury into a major water way. Now what do you think would happen if I did that? I'd get put in jail. Yet large corporations are doing that very thing every day and may get a slap on the wrist. In my opinion regulations are treating the symptom of a much larger problem, which is big business. I'm all in favor of money but, I question if the wealthiest nation on the planet isn't also the dumbest. Meaning is it better to have a million small companies that make jobs and are law abiding or a hand full of super corporations that have done nothing for the world except contaminate it and brought down the economy?
   Congress, due to public out cry, stood up and said "yes we care about the environment too, and we're going to do something about it"(I'm paraphrasing of course) so under Nixon they started up a bunch of regulatory agencies including the EPA and passed the Clean Air Act and others. Through all the administrations between Nixon and Obama the congress has had the environment on their minds. Whether they actually cared or simply were doing this out of feeling the political tide turning doesn't really matter, what dose matter is that they were completely unqualified to handle this multi- headed beast and several times refused to listen to the data that was coming in from the researchers. For example The Ocean Dumping Act of 1988, according to Rosenbaum Making Policy: Institutions and Politics after the beaches in New York were contaminated with medical waste and raw sewage there was a public out cry to correct this problem that lead to an impassioned Congress to pass an act that would halt any ocean dumping, however they ignored the experts' testimony that the actual cause was an over flow problem of the dilapidated sewer system and it would take billions to correct it. "... the New York City sewer system is the greatest cause of water pollution in the region. But a sewer system isn't sexy. It's expensive to fix, and nobody wants to hear about it."(the chief engineer of the regional waste management agency,  Rosenbaum Making Policy: Institutions and Politics p75). Additionally I question if the people making these decisions are not in effect the fox in the chicken house since several have corporate ties for example Representitive Dingell Head of the House Energy Commerce Committee is the husband of Deborah Insley Dingell, a longtime senior executive at the General Motors Corporation. If I were to site every time the compromise was made between solving the problem and a quick and dirty rubber stamp way of conducting business I would be writing into my aged years. I also can't say I blame them that much because the problems are expensive and highly emotional. So what is an inept government to do? Well perhaps the problem can be examined more meticulously if one was to notice that these problems began with the industrial revolution and have become exacerbated by the continued growth of industry. If we could help to redesign the size of business by having many small companies spread over the whole country we could reestablish ourselves and enter into an era where we are economically supreme with the modern technology to improve and stabilize the environment. By doing this we can redistribute the wealth more evenly.  Additionally, environmental regulators could enforce laws more easily by monitoring the company's waste stream and if there is an increase in pollutants such as heavy metals that are poisonous to citizens then the company should be prosecuted for committing a public health hazard.

  To conclude this week's ranting, regulations are necessary however they are really a big Band-Aid on the symptom of emissions while the disease is the ultra large corporation. We can preserve our environment while still maintaining our love affair with capitalism by being smart and focusing on small business, reduce waste, and enforcing anti pollution laws by criminal prosecution to serve the public interest.

My Environmental Position (Oh I'm so flattered you asked!)

  The technical term for how I recognize myself environmentally would be an anthropocentric conservationist, meaning I believe in conserving resources in order to promote the interest of human survival.  Humans are apart of the ecosystem and like any other species use resources to increase their population and humans should not be faulted for this biological impulse. The problem however the human species faces is that we have out smarted the natural ebb and flow of nature. The natural cycle of populations is that when a species begins to consume more resources than its environment can supply the population is pushed back to more manageable numbers. However humans have developed technologies to prevent the natural contraction of our population, this is more dangerous than the cornucopians (which can best be defined as duffuses that believe that world has a never ending abundance of resources) believe. With the development of more and more technologies, medical technologies included, we are adding in the natural development of catastrophic population controls including super bugs i.e. drug resistant tuberculosis.  In order for our species to not become extinct we must manage our population to resources ratio.
  Suggesting controls on population and resources is a dangerous thing to say since it implies that some people should die and some should live, people get really upset at this idea and rightly so because it removes the right of the individual, and I do believe in the autonomy of the individual. Still the question remains who should live and who should die? Well I have no problem giving the answer based on history. I, as a human, have evolved to write this because my ancestors chose to survive and reproduce, which is the biological impulse of every individual wether man, insect, plant, or animal. They didn't try make sure the neighboring tribe survived and reproduce. In fact in the ancient world tribes were constantly fighting for resources in order to survive. So who should live and who should die? Well according to the genetic impulse to survive I should live and everyone else should die. Also to ensure my genes go on to the next generation I am also concerned about my families survival.  However in the modern world we have evolved to live in larger communities and developed governments because we have recognized the danger in fighting and we are healthier by ensuring our neighbors wellbeing. Now we are faced with the problem of our success as a species which is over population and a depletion of resources, but we don't want anyone to die, and this puts an incredible amount of stress on our ecosystem.  So what are we to do? People have the right to reproduce and live the way they see fit, so we agree that eugenics and killing people are wrong.  As for the earth we can agree that it has intrinsic and instrumental value so its resources must be conserved and responsibly managed. For example one of the resources that must be mentioned are undisturbed virgin forests, yes they are so pretty but they also serve us by cleaning the air and water.
  As for how this reflects my personal political position, as a true moderate I believe that this is a compromise between both extremes. By the compromise of conservationism we are saving both humans and the environment. The ultra liberal idea of holism I feel places humans outside of the ecosystem and vilifies our existence. While the ultra right view is that the earth is here to be striped of its resources to make a profit which is short sighted and vilifies the natural world. We must see that each position has pros and cons and only through understanding and compromise can we try to achieve the necessary balance needed to maintain the natural and man made worlds. We also can't vilify the people of the past, as they felt they too were doing the right thing based on their resources and information just as we do today. We must continue to right the wrongs of the past while heralding the successes while we keep moving forward.
  My opinion stems directly from my own experiences and relationships with people of several different backgrounds and opinions. I was raised with the idea that questioning inflexible ideas and examining each side of an argument. This way of analyzing ideas leads one to see that almost always either side is extreme and dogmatic and the best answer is usually somewhere in the middle. Learning to be less idealistic and more pragmatic is most likely due to me becoming a parent and trying to make a pile of dirt and weeds into a profitable farm while be responsible enough to not use chemicals due to the fact that they hurt people and the environment. I really can't see my opinion changing, but I am fascinated in how environmental policy effects our culture and how our culture pushes against it.
  As I step down from this weeks soapbox I would like to conclude by restating that my position is based in balance and the environmental problems we face are due to excess in our population leading to a depletion in resources and if we agree that killing everyone is wrong then we must learn to live with in our natural means and conserve. We need to also resist that this has a moral solution. Morals are based on cultures and religious in nature and no one likes to have others religion or culture pressed on them. If we want to save ourselves save the planet, but if you want to save trees because you believe in the wisdom of plants then I'm going to file that right next to virgin birth.