Ok not exactly... but they do promote world instability (Mexico, Nigeria), they promote diabetes and obesity in America, and most importantly, as noted below, they funnel your tax dollars and mine (the professional classes who aren't rich enough to dodge paying taxes) into the hands of rural Republican voters (aka the spawn of Satan). Check out this awesome article on the cost of farm subsidies.
Here's a letter I wrote to Sen. Patty Murray on the issue:
Dear Senator Murray:
I am writing to you in regards to this year's farm bill legislation. As I am sure you are well aware, The Washington Post has conducted an in-depth investigation of where farm subsidy dollars are going and how they hurt far more Americans than they help. This weekend, the New York Times magazine ran an article on the implications of the farm subsidies on the American diet and its impact on our neighbor Mexico.
Preserving our rural communities is a big challenge but also represents an amazing opportunity to change the agenda. The current farm bill promotes waste, obesity, graft, and vote-buying -- the redder a county, the more farm money it gets, almost 1:1. The biggest problem as I see it is that the subsidy formula is only based on quantity. The more corn you grow, the more money you get.
This leads to the US government subsidizing soda pop ("liquid corn"), inefficient corn ethanol, and dosing the ground with destructive chemicals, instead of healthy local produce and efficient cellulosic ethanol products using renewable and sustainable farming techniques. Not only that, through subsidies, farmers are able to sell their products for less than what they cost to grow, leading to gross price distortions that have worldwide impact.
Mexicans are going to work on farms, but because of our farm bills, they work here instead of in Mexico. Cotton-growing countries in Africa can't compete with our subsidized corn. Tortillas in Mexico have grown very expensive as corn-ethanol becomes a hot product. Of course I get a chuckle of the "free market" Republicans showing once again that free to them means my tax money is free for the taking to subsidize their constituents.
I understand that things are more complex than they seem, and that there are a lot of politics involved, but your are my favorite senator and representative in this state and I have faith and confidence that you will do the right thing, which is usually the harder thing -- because that's what you usually do.
4/25/2007 Sen. Murray's response:
Dear Mr. Shapero:
Thank you for your letter regarding federal commodity payments to farmers and the 2007 Farm Bill. It was good to hear from you.
As you may know, for over seventy years the federal government has dispensed farm support payments to American farmers. Through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Commodity Credit Corporation, certain farmers are eligible to receive financial payments for income support, disaster loss, and a number of conservation activities. Under the 2002 Farm Bill, funding for these payments is authorized through 2007. Reauthorization of these programs, as well as agricultural conservation initiatives, food stamp programs and a wide range of rural development, trade, research, farm credit and energy programs, will be considered during a 2007 Farm Bill.
The majority of these payments are in the form of commodity support, or income support that is dependent on market prices. Of approximately $16 billion dispensed to farmers annually, commodity support accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the funding. In 2002, for example, commodity support made up nearly 75% of all farm payments. This leaves a relatively small percentage of funding for disaster loss and conservation activities, two efforts that are critical to many farmers. Unfortunately, the majority of farmers in the greatest need of federal financial assistance do not benefit from these programs. It is estimated, for example, that 10% of all agricultural producers receive over 70% of commodity support payments. This 70% goes primarily to large farms and agribusinesses in just a handful of states, such as Texas, Nebraska, Iowa, and others located in the nation’s Corn Belt. Of the commodities produced, corn, cotton, soybeans, wheat, peanuts, and rice are those that are most heavily supported. Most American farmers – including most in our state – receive very little, if any, commodity support. In fact, fruit and vegetable farmers receive very little support from USDA.
The system has also had an adverse effect on important conservation and research programs. With USDA’s focus on commodity payments, little is left for conservation efforts that give farmers tools to manage difficult environmental and regulatory challenges. What we have seen is more funding going to a small number of farmers in the Midwest and fewer resources for Washington state farmers. Instead of funding vital research, marketing programs, and conservation efforts that would help our state, USDA continues to focus its resources only on a small percentage of farmers with commodity payments.
Small family farms are a dying breed, and it is important that we do all we can to ensure their survival. I have always been a staunch supporter of efforts to protect the smaller, independent farms that are so vital to our state, helping to secure research funding, federal disaster assistance, and trade adjustment assistance during difficult times. I have also advocated increased funding for important conservation programs that are beneficial to both agricultural producers and our environment. Despite current fiscal constraints, these efforts will continue to be a priority of mine. Please know that as the Senate addresses these issues, I will keep your thoughts in mind.
If you would like to learn more about my work in the Senate, please feel free to sign up for my updates at http://murray.senate.gov. Thank you again for writing, and please keep in touch.
Sincerely,
Patty Murray
United States Senator
P.S. I'd like to invite you to receive Patty Murray's Washington View, my weekly legislative update by e-mail. If you are interested in receiving my update, please sign up here: http://murray.senate.gov/updates.
24 April 2007
23 April 2007
Let's get reactionary
Letter to the NYTime, RE: a letter with a lot of chutzpah
I usually reflexively hate any limitation of rites, but I find the backwardness and pure chutzpah of this letter to bring out my right wing reactionary side...
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Wilentz is a convert to Islam and does not come from a traditionally Muslim region or country (he is the President of a convert center). While I agree with the principal thrust of Mr. Wilentz's assertions, one must recognize that the moment you set foot into an airport, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a different set of rules, some of which on their face seem to violate freedom of speech. For instance, any joking talk of bombs or weapons in an Airport will get you locked to a chair in a back office faster than you can say fascism.
The reality is that when traveling by air, if you are an Imam, you look like you are probably from a traditionally Muslim country -- perhaps a country where one of the 9/11 terrorists came from -- and you voice anti-American sentiment... you're asking for trouble. It takes an awful lot of hubris for Mr. Wilentz to argue that anyone can expect their Constitutional rights to fully apply in the airport. In other words, the Imam's behavior, in context, was provocative.
Substituting rabbis or Baptists is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Ok, while some radicals out there like to characterize all Jews as Zionist terrorists, we can largely agree that most large scale recent acts of terrorism that have occurred in Western nations were perpetrated by Muslims -- not Jews or Baptists. I for one am a Jew who at best is not a knee-jerk Israel supporter.
There are also many other beliefs and practices of Muslim nations that are not tolerated in America -- we guarantee some freedoms, but not freedom to gang rape a woman who you accuse of immoral behavior; we don't allow women to be caned for not wearing a hijab; we don't allow honor killings; there's a raft of behavior that is not strictly in and of itself a part of Muslim teachings, but it is behavior that many practitioners engage in back home that is not tolerated here, religious or cultural tradition or now. I for one have no sympathy for the chuckleheads who didn't think twice about their actions. If I went to the airport, dressed like a mullah, and started saying "I hate George Bush, I hate America," very loudly, I would be very unhappy if they didn't lock me up.
I usually reflexively hate any limitation of rites, but I find the backwardness and pure chutzpah of this letter to bring out my right wing reactionary side...
I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that Mr. Wilentz is a convert to Islam and does not come from a traditionally Muslim region or country (he is the President of a convert center). While I agree with the principal thrust of Mr. Wilentz's assertions, one must recognize that the moment you set foot into an airport, you are voluntarily submitting yourself to a different set of rules, some of which on their face seem to violate freedom of speech. For instance, any joking talk of bombs or weapons in an Airport will get you locked to a chair in a back office faster than you can say fascism.
The reality is that when traveling by air, if you are an Imam, you look like you are probably from a traditionally Muslim country -- perhaps a country where one of the 9/11 terrorists came from -- and you voice anti-American sentiment... you're asking for trouble. It takes an awful lot of hubris for Mr. Wilentz to argue that anyone can expect their Constitutional rights to fully apply in the airport. In other words, the Imam's behavior, in context, was provocative.
Substituting rabbis or Baptists is a rhetorical bait-and-switch. Ok, while some radicals out there like to characterize all Jews as Zionist terrorists, we can largely agree that most large scale recent acts of terrorism that have occurred in Western nations were perpetrated by Muslims -- not Jews or Baptists. I for one am a Jew who at best is not a knee-jerk Israel supporter.
There are also many other beliefs and practices of Muslim nations that are not tolerated in America -- we guarantee some freedoms, but not freedom to gang rape a woman who you accuse of immoral behavior; we don't allow women to be caned for not wearing a hijab; we don't allow honor killings; there's a raft of behavior that is not strictly in and of itself a part of Muslim teachings, but it is behavior that many practitioners engage in back home that is not tolerated here, religious or cultural tradition or now. I for one have no sympathy for the chuckleheads who didn't think twice about their actions. If I went to the airport, dressed like a mullah, and started saying "I hate George Bush, I hate America," very loudly, I would be very unhappy if they didn't lock me up.
19 April 2007
State's Rights
The recent Supreme Court decision directly impacts my home state, Washington, where Federal Law regarding "partial birth" abortions now trumps local state law. See today's Seattle PI. I love how state's only have rights for Republicans when it involves capital punishment, gun ownership, flying the dixie flag, or anything else offensive, dubious, mean spirited, or violent. But state's right are out the window for anything that rallys the base. These people are totally irrational hypocrites. How can you be for the death penalty and against abortion? I guess if you look at the fact that both are ways to make minorities suffer it makes some sense.
18 April 2007
Refuting the "an armed society is a polite society" nonsense from the gun nuts
As I predicted, the gun nuts are all saying that if VaTech had not been one of Virginia's few "gun free zones", the tragedy wouldn't have happened.
This argument is based on 2 tremendous fallacies. I intend to ignore my gut and go with some facts on this one.
1. Gun ownership is "Necessary but not sufficient"
Why does the gun lobby think that everyone can be trusted to get proper training on the use of a hand gun for personal defense? Further, why should we believe that everyone will know how to properly care for and maintain their guns safely? It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license in Virgina. Everyday we all see people on the road who very clearly should not have a driver's license. Now, imagine these same geniuses all had conceal-carry permits... Yeah, I thought so. If people handle their concealed weapons anything like their cars -- and currently it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun -- then we would all be shot up dead in the street
2. Criminals will acquire guns illegally anyway, so we all need guns
See 1 above. A gun in the home is 5 times more likely to be used on the residents of the home than a criminal, mostly because people do not correctly store their weapons or maintain them. They do not lock them, clean them, store ammo safely, etc. In addition, the VaTech killer bought his gun legally. No one had any reason to believe he was a criminal.
The gun nuts will try to tell you that ATF gun trace stats are cooked. The anti-gun crowd will tell you that 41% of guns turned up on NYC crime scenes (this number comes from 1993) came from Virgina. Well, that's for the 8% of guns that had traces run on them. So, question, why don't we run more traces? That's the real story -- the gun nuts won't tell you that ATF forbids local law enforcement from running traces themselves and prevents trace data from being shared. It's very hard to come up with any real numbers since the gun nuts have lobbied Congress very effectively to prevent anyone from knowing the real truth.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has started two sites, www.protectpolice.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org to educate the public. The latter organization has set up sting operations in Virgina where under cover officers were able to make "straw" purchases. Read more about it in the local VA paper here. You can also read the official report here.
3. Criminals are rational
This is one of my favorites. The gun nuts argue that mass murderers like Cho are rational sane people. They wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, where is a local gun free zone where I can go massacre 33 people and then blow my brains out? Gosh, maybe my local university is the perfect place for my crime spree!" Perhaps it never occured to the gun nuts that people like Cho are CRAZY and they do not think things through in a rational manner. If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, they are probably crazy and disturbed enough not to think twice about laws and regulations.
And that kind of gets to the heart of it. These are the same people who support the war in Iraq and think that everyone is just like them. Many of them are very strong law-and-order types and are law abiding citizens themselves. They simply are so narrow minded and naive that they can't imagine that there are people out there in the world who don't respect law and order and who don't think things through like they do. Of course, they think they are rational and sensible in their argument, but they are obviously insane. Why do they really want to own guns so bad?
There's a lot of great information at the Brady Campaign website as well.
4. Right to carry laws deter crime
Again, this would be true in gun nut country, where everyone spent all their time polishing and cleaning their guns on their front porch, waiting, just waiting, for anyone to step on their front porch so they can shoot them. John Lott & David Mustard did a famous study that claimed to show that concealed-carry reduced crimes. Yes, they did -- in rural Florida! Read this rebuttal if you're motivated.
5. Bigotry and gun owners
Most gun owners are white, Republican men who live in the South and West. Do you know why they really want a gun? Because they are scared a black man will do them harm. These people still have pre-Civil war attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks, and view gun ownership as their only protection. These are the people who would wear white hoods in public if they could. They believe in lynching, the death penalty, and the right to life. They are incoherent, they are evil, and they need to be stopped. The same logic that has 1000's of innocent black men on death row getting killed is the same logic that has us in Iraq, and it's the logic of the right wing gun nut. As pointed out in previous posts, most gun nuts also live in counties that receive heavy federal subsidies for farming. They all live off of the fat that really comes from the gun industry. Gun companies give to congress and congress gives back to their constituencies. Follow the money and see for yourself.
Conclusion: The gun industry is dying, as most gun owners are old and dying. The gun companies know that the illegal arms trade is a huge source of their billions of dollars of revenue, and they, like all the other corporate American interests, will pay and pay and pay into the pockets of your elected officials to tap into Americans darkest side for their own profit.
This argument is based on 2 tremendous fallacies. I intend to ignore my gut and go with some facts on this one.
1. Gun ownership is "Necessary but not sufficient"
Why does the gun lobby think that everyone can be trusted to get proper training on the use of a hand gun for personal defense? Further, why should we believe that everyone will know how to properly care for and maintain their guns safely? It is easier to get a gun than a driver's license in Virgina. Everyday we all see people on the road who very clearly should not have a driver's license. Now, imagine these same geniuses all had conceal-carry permits... Yeah, I thought so. If people handle their concealed weapons anything like their cars -- and currently it's harder to get a driver's license than a gun -- then we would all be shot up dead in the street
2. Criminals will acquire guns illegally anyway, so we all need guns
See 1 above. A gun in the home is 5 times more likely to be used on the residents of the home than a criminal, mostly because people do not correctly store their weapons or maintain them. They do not lock them, clean them, store ammo safely, etc. In addition, the VaTech killer bought his gun legally. No one had any reason to believe he was a criminal.
The gun nuts will try to tell you that ATF gun trace stats are cooked. The anti-gun crowd will tell you that 41% of guns turned up on NYC crime scenes (this number comes from 1993) came from Virgina. Well, that's for the 8% of guns that had traces run on them. So, question, why don't we run more traces? That's the real story -- the gun nuts won't tell you that ATF forbids local law enforcement from running traces themselves and prevents trace data from being shared. It's very hard to come up with any real numbers since the gun nuts have lobbied Congress very effectively to prevent anyone from knowing the real truth.
Mayor Bloomberg of NYC has started two sites, www.protectpolice.org and www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org to educate the public. The latter organization has set up sting operations in Virgina where under cover officers were able to make "straw" purchases. Read more about it in the local VA paper here. You can also read the official report here.
3. Criminals are rational
This is one of my favorites. The gun nuts argue that mass murderers like Cho are rational sane people. They wake up in the morning and say, "Gee, where is a local gun free zone where I can go massacre 33 people and then blow my brains out? Gosh, maybe my local university is the perfect place for my crime spree!" Perhaps it never occured to the gun nuts that people like Cho are CRAZY and they do not think things through in a rational manner. If someone has a gun and wants to shoot you, they are probably crazy and disturbed enough not to think twice about laws and regulations.
And that kind of gets to the heart of it. These are the same people who support the war in Iraq and think that everyone is just like them. Many of them are very strong law-and-order types and are law abiding citizens themselves. They simply are so narrow minded and naive that they can't imagine that there are people out there in the world who don't respect law and order and who don't think things through like they do. Of course, they think they are rational and sensible in their argument, but they are obviously insane. Why do they really want to own guns so bad?
There's a lot of great information at the Brady Campaign website as well.
4. Right to carry laws deter crime
Again, this would be true in gun nut country, where everyone spent all their time polishing and cleaning their guns on their front porch, waiting, just waiting, for anyone to step on their front porch so they can shoot them. John Lott & David Mustard did a famous study that claimed to show that concealed-carry reduced crimes. Yes, they did -- in rural Florida! Read this rebuttal if you're motivated.
5. Bigotry and gun owners
Most gun owners are white, Republican men who live in the South and West. Do you know why they really want a gun? Because they are scared a black man will do them harm. These people still have pre-Civil war attitudes towards minorities, especially blacks, and view gun ownership as their only protection. These are the people who would wear white hoods in public if they could. They believe in lynching, the death penalty, and the right to life. They are incoherent, they are evil, and they need to be stopped. The same logic that has 1000's of innocent black men on death row getting killed is the same logic that has us in Iraq, and it's the logic of the right wing gun nut. As pointed out in previous posts, most gun nuts also live in counties that receive heavy federal subsidies for farming. They all live off of the fat that really comes from the gun industry. Gun companies give to congress and congress gives back to their constituencies. Follow the money and see for yourself.
Conclusion: The gun industry is dying, as most gun owners are old and dying. The gun companies know that the illegal arms trade is a huge source of their billions of dollars of revenue, and they, like all the other corporate American interests, will pay and pay and pay into the pockets of your elected officials to tap into Americans darkest side for their own profit.
17 April 2007
Cellulosic Ethanol in LA
An interesting article discussing the hopes and pitfalls of cellulosic ethanol right here in the US. Presents the upside of the product, which is largely that once we figure out how to break it down cheaply (the hard part), it can be made out of waste products (the easy part -- they're free).
16 April 2007
really earning your turns
This weekend I rented a split board (thanks Tree@Prior!!!) and really, really earned my turns making my way into (and up) the mountains by my own power.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)