This podcast highlights some stories from this week's edition of the Capital Press. We'll take a look at farmers' share of the Thanksgiving meal, hear a selection from the Capital Press Opinion page and gain some insight about the yearlong forecast for the West Coast, and what La Niña and El Niño weather patterns mean for farmers.
Subscribe to this podcast in iTunes or your favorite RSS reader.
To listen, click here.
Robert Minch, a crotchety ol' real estate broker from Red Bluff, Calif., who briefly wrote a column for my Sunday supplement when I held down the Redding Record Searchlight's bureau there, later reclaimed his familiar Friday spot on the Red Bluff Daily News' editorial page.
You might get a kick out of some words of advice he passes along to his readers today:
If you are so inclined to donate to the Humane Society of the United States, be advised that this organization does not own, operate, or directly control a single animal shelter in our country, despite a budget of over $100 million! Tsk, tsk.
That was Redding Record Searchlight editorial page editor Bruce Ross's response to my post over at Jefferson Journal regarding Michael Shaw, a critic of the United Nations who was a guest on a local radio talk show.
You can see or join the discussion here.
Michelle Malkin today skewers Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" campaign, and uses a study done in the Pacific Northwest as ammunition. (Hat tip: Laura Ingraham)
Take another East Wing pet project: leaning on private businesses to print expanded front-package nutrition labels warning consumers about salt, fat and sugar. The first lady's anti-fat brigade assumes as an article of faith that her top-down designer food labels will encourage healthier eating habits. It's a "no-brainer," Mrs. Obama insists.
However, the latest study on this very subject -- funded by no less than the left-wing Robert Wood Johnson Foundation -- confirms other recent research contradicting the East Wing push. A team led by Duke-NUS Graduate Medical School's Eric Finkelstein, published in the peer-reviewed American Journal for Preventive Medicine, found that mandatory menu-labeling in Seattle restaurants did not affect consumers' calorie consumption. "Given the results of prior studies, we had expected the results to be small," the researchers reported, "but we were surprised that we could not detect even the slightest hint of changes in purchasing behavior as a result of the legislation."
Will the first lady and her food cops be chastened by the science that undermines their spin? Fat chance.
After Michael Coffman's keynote speech Thursday for the Sierra Cascade Logging Conference, media reports -- mine and others -- mostly glossed over his lengthy segment detailing what he sees as the global aims of environmental true-believers. Lest we let any misconceptions linger, it's fair to take a closer look at what he said.
Coffman started by asserting that much of the nation's current cultural divide can be traced back to two men in the 18th century -- John Locke, the English philosopher who believed property was a natural right, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French writer who heavily influenced the French Revolution and was "the father of European socialism," according to Coffman. Put another way, we're in a "battle of worldviews," with one side believing rights come from God and the other thinking they come from government, he said.
America's Founding Fathers believed that the purpose of government was to preserve private property, Coffman said. Thomas Jefferson was one who believed strongly in distributed government, which necessarily makes government less efficient, he said.
Today you hear calls for government to be more efficient, but "the only way government can be more efficient is to take your liberty away and put it in the hands of bureaucrats," Coffman said. "That's exactly what's happening."
Private property
Why are private property rights so important? Because according to recent data, Americans' average annual income of $45,000 was well above "socialist" Europe's $34,000, while the income in former communist countries was just $2,000 a year, Coffman said.
"The amount of regulation determines your gross domestic product and the average income of your citizens," he said. "It's a striking relationship, one we need to be aware of because we're struggling with more and more regulation." In the U.S., some 50,000 pages of new regulations are introduced each year, he said.
After a trip to France during the revolution there, Thomas Jefferson believed "Washington would become oppressive" if it followed the French model, Coffman said.
"He knew what was going to happen," Coffman said. "He could see the day we're living in today and realized Washington ... would become venal and oppressive and it's happening before our eyes."
All of this leads to the modern environmental movement, whose leaders mostly hold to the collectivist idea that private property is evil and have embarked on a slow, decades-long offensive against property rights worldwide, he said. Here, Coffman noted that he doesn't believe every environmentalist thinks private property is evil, but many of their groups' leaders do. And he said these people don't make up a large segment of the population, but they're present in many vestiges of power around the world -- particularly in the United Nations.
This worldview in the 1960s and '70s led to the creation of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Environmental Protection Agency, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and other regulatory vehicles to control what happens on both public and private land nationwide, he said. In 1973, the Adirondack Park Agency was created in upstate New York, which "gave a state agency total control absolute control over anything that could happen in the park" which included public and private lands in a huge swath of the state. That became a model for similar land-use-controlling agencies around the world, Coffman said.
The United Nations
This brings us to the U.N., and specifically its Department of Economic and Social Affairs' Division of Sustainable Development. Its core document is Agenda 21, which Coffman characterizes as a 40-chapter document that spells out how every human being is going to be controlled. Here's how the UN's Web site describes it.
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
Section 11 of the GBA states that there are too many people in the world living at too high a material standard, and offers two options for how to address this. The first option is for most human beings to live as “peasants”, which would allow for a population of 5 to 7 billion people. Alternatively, the GBA states, that “a reasonable estimate for an industrialised world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion.""What can we do to heal America?" Coffman said. "We need to expose the progressives in Congress and in the legislatures and let people know who they are. They are extremely dangerous.
Under Section 12, the GBA condemns Christianity by denouncing the “western worldview” for its “denial of the sacred attributes of nature which became firmly established with the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religious traditions” It contrasts this with the "traditional worldview" where humans see “themselves as members of a community that not only includes other humans, but also plants and animals as well as rocks.... People are then members of a community of beings -- living and non-living. Thus rivers may be viewed as mothers. Animals may be treated as kin."
The GBA also attacks property rights stating that they should be “usufructual.” The concept of usufructual rights was established during the Roman Empire and meant that everything is owned by Caesar, who distributes the right to use property by permit.
Michael Coffman is probably the antithesis of what you'd call a "greenie." He's a veteran of the property-rights wars in the woods, perhaps most notable for his role in killing the U.S. ratification of the Convention on Biological Diversity in the 1990s. On the Redding Tea Party's Sunday radio show, "We The People," Coffman talked about how the modern environmental movement is based more on an almost religious adherence than it is on sound science.
So I had to get a kick out of the announced venue for his keynote speech Thursday at the Sierra Cascade Logging Conference's kickoff breakfast -- the uber-eco-conscious Gaia Hotel and Spa in Anderson. For those who don't know, Gaia in Greek mythology was the goddess of the earth. So chances are, Coffman may well wax poetic about the perceived idiosyncracies of the environmental religion -- at a shrine to the goddess of the earth. It'll be sort of like an atheist giving a lecture on the errors of Catholicism in the sanctuary of Sacred Heart Catholic Church.
Hey, I'm not criticizing the logging conference for booking the Gaia. For one thing, it's one of the few venues in the area that's big enough to accommodate a large crowd, as last year's kickoff breakfast at the Holiday Inn was a little cramped. And it lets the conference keep its ties with Anderson, which hosted the conference for many years before it moved to the Redding Convention Center last year.
I just thought it was funny, in an ironic sort of way.
Jeff Fowle, a rancher from Etna, Calif., blogs:
Arguments against Roundup Ready alfalfa are flying around the internet like “flies on stink.” Ironically, that is pretty much what the arguments against GMO alfalfa are…”stink.”
We have been growing alfalfa for more than 30 years on our ranch, for personal use and for sale, averaging roughly 6.5 tons per acre on 130 acres. I am very familiar with the attributes of alfalfa, its growing patterns, nutritive needs, life span and harvesting.
For those throwing out arguments against GMO alfalfa, it is very apparent that they have no understanding of the production of the forage.
Opines Redding Record Searchlight editor Silas Lyons:
Arnold Schwarzenegger is an actor whose primary thespian talent was appearing brave and invincible when he was ridiculously overmatched.
Of all his traits, this is probably the one that served him best as governor of Kahli-four-nya, and he’s not about to give it up now.
Expect him to leave the smoldering capital with his head held high. On a motorcycle, in a black leather jacket, would be a nice touch.
But like the fight scenes in Schwarzenegger’s movies, this act is hard to buy.
This week's Capital Press editorial explains why rural voters largely rejected the Obama-Reid-Pelosi triumvirate.
A snippet:
People who wager their livelihood on the weather and the markets each growing season don't run scared every time the economy tanks. They deal with the issues up close and personal every day, and they have a clear understanding of the facts.The upshot:
They are not against government. Even the most conservative farmer or rancher understands that there are a few big things government does well -- defense, air traffic control and law enforcement, for instance. They are against a big, intrusive government that reaches into the smallest aspects of their lives.
They resist unreasonable rules and regulations formulated by unelected and unseen functionaries. They resent the patronizing paternalism of the nanny state.
Rural voters are unwilling to surrender their independence. They don't want a government that dictates what they should eat, what they should think, what they should do with their own property. They are tired of the arrogance of a ruling class that assumes Washington bureaucrats know better than the rest of us how we should live.
The elite might say it's simplistic, but farmers and ranchers really do expect a legislator to read and understand those 2,000-page pieces of legislation before voting "yes." It's just common sense.
Many farmers and ranchers still unapologetically believe in America's exceptionalism. To them this is still a special place, where great things happen. It's a country where people of the most humble origins can make something of themselves if they are willing to work hard. They believe in providing a helping hand to those in need, but balk at creating ever larger groups dependent on entitlements.
Farmers and ranchers are the epitome of individual responsibility and self-reliance. Faith in themselves, and in the grace of God, drive them to plant the next crop, raise their families and provide stewardship for the resources in their care. And rather than bitterly clinging to these values, they happily embrace them as the guiding force of their lives.
Candidates who hold similar values earn their support.
Into my in box this morning:
I felt a real need to forward this to you and ask you to do the same.... Please don't misread my intentions. I am in NO way in agreement with any type of gun control, but after seeing this..I am, unfortunately, in agreement that something needs to change...
If you agree with this please send to the powers that be. Hope we can stop it.
While I always agree that hunting is an ethical God given right, we think that we would have to agree with the author on this one. Fox hunting in Colorado should be banned!
Please help ban fox hunting in Colorado ~
THIS MADNESS MUST STOP!!
Signed,
Peter Cottontail
Bugs Bunny
The Easter Bunny
Thumper
U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack has made a big deal about wanting to entice young people to stay in agriculture, and in particular ranching, where the number of producers is reportedly dwindling.
But the National Cattlemen's Beef Association raises this question about the rule proposed by the Grain Inspectors, Packers and Stockyards Administration.
Will cattle producers be helped or hurt by the proposed GIPSA regulation that is intended to provide protection for producers against unfair, fraudulent or retaliatory practices in the livestock business?
That is the question that many in the cattle business are asking now, less than two months after the rule was proposed. Many of the smaller cow-calf producers that the rule is supposed to benefit are expressing serious reservations about the profound impact it could have on their livelihoods.
Meet Robbie LeValley, a lifelong cow/calf producer who operates a ranch with her husband Mark and two sons in Hotchkiss, Colorado. Her family operation is one of six that together own Homestead Meats, which offers natural beef for sale direct to consumers, retailers and restaurants. The six families also own a USDA inspected packing plant where they market their own animals and provide custom processing. LeValley is also president of the Colorado Cattlemen's Association.
She is worried the proposed rule could have a negative impact on her family business. One concern for Robbie is the long term impact of the proposed rule on the next generation of livestock producers, like her two sons who represent the fourth generation in her family business.
"We operate on a very thin margin already, so the potential for additional government intervention or increased litigation just reduces that margin even more," she said. "Is there enough of a margin to bring in that fourth generation?"
LeValley would like to see an in-depth, cost-benefit analysis done on the proposal before it is rushed into implementation.
"Where is the research that shows there is problems in the marketplace and that these proposed rules will do anything to address those problems?"
Blogger and radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt writes for the Washington Examiner:
The American Enterprise Institute's Arthur Brooks has quite accurately described America as a 70/30 nation, with the 70 percent presently massively underrepresented in the federal government, the Manhattan-Beltway media elite and academia.So taking this idea to heart, do 70 percent of those involved with the beef cattle industry want the federal government to keep its mitts off their marketing agreements? Judging at least by the membership numbers of the industry's respective organizations, I would say that's probably about right.
The 70 percent is appalled by the placebo economics practiced by the president and the Congress over the past two years, shocked by its profligacy with the wealth of the republic, and sickened by the looting of the next generation's opportunities.
The 70 percent did not want Obamacare, but it has been thrust upon them.
The 70 percent did not want federal judges to declare "game over" in the complex discussion of what marriage is and means.
The 70 percent want a fence on the border that works, and do not want their concern over unregulated immigration dismissed as nativisim.
The 70 percent are not ashamed of their belief in God, deeply resent being labeled bigots because they view ground zero as land that ought not to be exploited for "messaging" of any sort by any group, and are enraged by the scorn which they encounter everywhere in media except Fox News and talk radio.
The 70 percent believe that the federal government is remote and clueless, and that the Constitution's principles of enumerated and limited powers and the sovereignty of the states are vibrant, important core values to the republic.
The 70 percent think Iran is in the grip of an evil, theocratic fascism, and that Israel is our true friend and ally deserving of our full-throated support.
Today's Capital Press editorial weighs in on the infighting that's going on among national beef organizations, which we detailed last week. It starts with some history:
Back before the turn of the last century, the nation's farmers got all worked up over the power of the railroads, their only ticket for moving large quantities of fruit, grain and livestock from rural areas to urban centers, where their customers lived.
The beef industry is set up for "us vs. them" mind sets. There are over 900,000 cattle producers in the country, most of them in the business of raising calves for sale. Then there are margin operators, who get a percentage of the price, regardless of whether the cost of calves is up or down. Both cattle feeders and meat packers are targets of complaints -- sometimes justified.
Everyone complains about the bankers, who call the shots when the line of credit is maxed out.
From the Pacific Legal Foundation:
Today’s Supreme Court decision affirming the constitutional right of Chicago residents to possess firearms for personal protection is “an important moment in constitutional history,” said Timothy Sandefur, principal attorney at Pacific Legal Foundation, who authored the Foundation’s friend of the court brief in McDonald v. Chicago. “While some parts of the decision are disappointing, the bottom line is that the State of Illinois may not legally disarm law-abiding citizens. They have a constitutional right to defend themselves from criminals who never have obeyed anti-gun laws themselves.”
The 5-4 decision held that the constitutional right to possess firearms for personal protection— which was the subject of the Supreme Court’s decision in District of Columbia v. Heller last year—applies to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment’s “due process of law” clause. PLF’s brief urged the Court to use a different provision of the Amendment called the “privileges or immunities” clause, a provision of the Constitution that has been virtually ignored since an 1873 case called the Slaughterhouse Cases.
“It’s very unfortunate that the justices still ignore the crucial privileges or immunities clause,” said Sandefur. “Almost 150 years ago, the Fourteenth Amendment’s authors intended that to be the central part of the Amendment and, instead, the Supreme Court has refused to enforce it. This is sad, because that provision would offer Americans much stronger protection against unjust state laws.”
That's an expression that was used by a county supervisor I used to cover, and it applies to this question I have.
Continue reading.
From one of this week's Capital Press editorials:
Water wars are nothing new to the West, where agriculture has been caught in the crossfire for decades.
With these studies and strategies in the making, who could blame farmers and ranchers for being more than a little skeptical, and nervous.
Blogger Troy Hadrick at Advocates for Agriculture is appalled that the Humane Society of the United States apparently hired an "independent investigative reporter" to do a hit piece on lobbyist Richard Berman, whose Center for Consumer Freedom advocates protecting consumer choices.
Continue reading.
President Obama and his newly minted Supreme Court nominee seem to think so, if their recent and not-so-recent comments are any indication.
For more, read the Jefferson Journal at CapitalPress.com.
Former presidential advisor Karl Rove comments to the Capital Press about immigration, cap and trade and agriculture here.
Talent, Ore. farmer Ken Muller writes on today's Capital Press opinion page:
Without drastic and immediate change, we risk losing many of Oregon's current farmers and ranchers and driving away those young entrepreneurs who would be the future of agriculture. The existing rules and regulations pertaining to food and agriculture in Oregon are set up to be "one-size fits all," meaning that family-scale farms and ranches are subject to many of the exact same regulations that are required of industrial-style farms.
We would never require a bicyclist to have a commercial driver's license to share the road with an 18-wheeler. Yet that's what we do when it comes to regulating Oregon's farms and ranches.
