It really wasn’t all that long ago that newspaper conglomerates such as Gannett were basking in the glory of 50% profit margins while companies such as Exxon Mobile were mired in much more conservative figures that in the last 10 years never exceeded 12%. Now newspapers are bleeding red ink by the barrel.
Why then is money baron Warren Buffet spending money in an industry that just three years ago he claimed had the proven potential for repeated and unending losses?
According to Bloomberg News, Buffett recently struck a deal to purchase 63 newspapers, and may buy more, as he gives voice to the idea that there’s money to be made if only the newspaper industry would stop giving away its content. The problem with that premise, as I’ve witnessed over the years while working in print media, is that there’s long been a drive to charge for content that freely makes it to the web. The problem with Buffett’s notion is that people have come to expect information via the World Wide Web to be free. Changing that mindset isn’t going to be easy. Maybe Steve Jobs could have done it, but he’s no longer with us.
I don’t know about you, but given the quality of newspaper content these days, what passes for local news — and even national and international information — is already overpriced. But that doesn’t seem to be where Buffett is going, at least as I read it.
Buried within the Bloomberg report is this little nugget: “Berkshire will … favor towns and cities with a strong sense of community.”
What does he mean by “sense of community?” Could he mean those newspapers that operate under the premise that serving the customer (namely the reader) is job one? And, practically speaking, what does this look like for newspapers as they move ahead through the electronic age?
Still, Buffett seems to believe that newspapers should be “indispensable” to their communities. Could that mean the printed word on newsprint will still be the model as we move through the electronic age where smart phones and tablets continue to gain prominence?
The indispensability factor is going to be a mighty tall mountain to climb since many of the communities I’ve lived in over the past decade seem to have a more “leave it” than “need it” attitude when it comes to their local newspapers. It’s common to hear jokes about the local newspaper and the ever-shrinking amount of time it takes to peruse it for valued information. It’s certainly the case in my local community.
I still recall the small, community newspaper I once worked for in rural northeastern California and the “must-have” attitude of the public when it hit the streets every Thursday morning, rain, snow or shine. It’s my understanding that people still wait outside the offices of the Modoc Record in Alturas, Calif. for the print edition of the newspaper that has published only local news for well over a century. Yet in keeping with the times, subscriptions can now be purchased online and the newspaper read by computer, tablet or smart phone.
Bloomberg quotes Buffett from a Berkshire company memo: “Our future depends on remaining the primary source of information in certain subjects of great importance to our readers. Technological change has caused us to lose primacy in various key areas, including national news, national sports, stock quotations and employment opportunities. So be it. Our job is to reign supreme in matters of local importance.”
Buffett nails it! Maybe the newspaper model of the future isn’t the “be-all” attitude of the smaller dailies that once thought they could compete with the larger, regional dailies. Maybe size does matter, but rather than larger, the new model is for smaller geographies of reporting. Maybe what the newspaper industry needs is an entirely different focus — one that dials in the premise that local news is king and begins to hire reporters and editors who are willing to role up their sleeves and wade into their communities in search of the issues, rather than the failed practice of parking themselves in front of a computer monitor and telephone as junior editors dole out press releases and complain about the quality of information reporters are regurgitating from their assigned news releases.
Before it can appear here, much of our food and fiber found on grocery store shelves first starts on American farms and ranches. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
An incredible editorial in the Modesto Bee makes me believe that some in the mainstream media actually do get it, and in more ways than one.
The Bee believes that a lawsuit filed against the California Milk Advisory Board and the California Department of Agriculture by the group People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is indeed “silly” and “misdirected.”
I couldn’t agree more.
In short, PETA contends that the Happy Cow ads that became popular more than 10 years ago are grossly false and misleading because they depict talking cows standing on lush, green pastures, and that because most dairy cows do not live in such conditions, they must not be very happy. Then again, they’re not too concerned over the false notion that cows can talk, just that dairy cows must not be very happy because of PETA’s false premises, which the Bee articulates well in its editorial.
I wonder if the brain-trust at PETA is likewise concerned that beer companies are equally as reprehensible as dairy farmers because they portray their products as elixirs that cause people to be smarter and more attractive. You’d think that someone would have noticed that the product dairy farmers produce doesn’t cause people to drive drunk and kill other human beings… just a thought.
The Bee is well placed within California’s agriculturally-rich Central Valley to indeed “get it.” It’s as the paper’s editorial board should, given their placement in one of California’s five top agriculturally prolific counties in the United States. But this isn’t so much about the Bee or its editorial position on the latest PETA lawsuit.
Call for better education of agricultural practices
While the Bee’s point was to apparently illustrate just how ridiculous PETA’s lawsuit is, the editorial touches on a much more important issue (I believe) facing agriculture today: the abject ignorance of consumers about the products farmers and ranchers produce — namely “what goes into caring responsibly for livestock,” the Bee writes.
Of all the various trade organizations that farmers and ranchers willingly, and in some cases, not-so-willingly, send their money to, you’d think that at least one of them would take it upon themselves to focus intently on educating the public about the food and fiber that their farmer and rancher members produce, rather than treating it as an afterthought.
In California’s case, the California Farm Bureau Federation’s media department is heads and shoulders above its other state counterparts in terms of the vast amount of information produced for public consumption, particularly across the entire agricultural spectrum. The California Milk Advisory Board, since that’s one of the defendants in this report, merely represents dairy farmers, although it’s funding comes not from voluntary contributions, but through involuntary confiscatory measures employed by the dairy industry itself.
As is the case with Farm Bureau, one would argue that much of the information produced is aimed at its farmer and rancher members, and not the general public, who simply assume that the grocery stores they patronize are amply stocked with a wide variety of safe and tasty items produced on America’s farms and ranches.
Look at the light switch as a metaphor of public indifference and ignorance. We all take for granted that the electricity powering the lights in our homes will be there at our command when we flip the switch. We truly don’t know and in most cases don’t care how the power gets to our home, just that it’s there when we want it. It’s much the same for the grocery store: we all take for granted that the dairy case will be adequately stocked with cold, fresh milk until we discover that the delivery truck hasn’t arrived and the dairy case is empty. I’ve actually experienced that in my local grocery store.
I fully understand organizations such as the California Farm Bureau Federation, and others, have board-approved mission statements, goals and objectives. I fully understand that it’s the dollars that come in from voluntary membership in these organizations that funds the multimedia campaigns of these organizations, along with the various other programs that membership in these organizations provides.
What I am suggesting is that these media campaigns are misdirected to a certain degree, and need to be aimed not so much at convincing members to remain as active, dues-paying members (that’s obviously vital to the existence of any voluntary organization), but that these campaigns need to be amped up to better educate their consumers, who are constantly bombarded with absolute lies and false premises about the production of the products they buy at the grocery store (just look at the latest “pink slime” issue involving American beef as yet another example). It’s these false premises and lies that cause farmers and ranchers to lose money and, in some cases, rightfully wonder if their membership dollars are truly having the impact they desire.
As a consumer with a good bit of knowledge on agriculture and how it operates (I did not grow up on a farm, nor am I the offspring of a farmer), I’d like to see a more direct effort (offense versus defense) employed by American agriculture to educate my peers about just how well farmers treat the Earth and how much effort they put into keeping their livestock healthy and comfortable before the commodities they produce become food on our tables.
The Compact Fluorescent Light Bulb contains so much Mercury that it must be disposed of as a hazardous material. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
I currently have a vested interest in issues such as this. You see, the company that employes me pays me to drive their trucks loaded with the very stuff President Obama wants to ban. Of course the reason they pay me isn’t simply because they like me, but because I provide for them a service from which they profit. It’s the American way… or so it seems it was.
The grand irony of wanting to ban coal under the false premise that it harms the environment is, sadly, almost a footnote in the third paragraph of a Washington Times story. Why, if coal is so prevalent in the United States, and it’s responsible for powering much of our country, would we want to get rid of it?
Oh, that’s right: President Obama HATES America!
Which in and of itself seems ironic. How many other nations of immigrants would afford such an opportunity to a man borne, according to published reports, out of wedlock?
Even further into the story is the latest argument the Obama EPA wants to use in arguing against the safety of coal-fired power plants — you know, the facilities that make the electricity that power the electric buggies Obama wants us all to drive?
It seems that mercury emissions from these coal-fired power plants is also dangerous to life here on Earth. Why then the big push for everyone to buy those over-priced, curly-shaped light bulbs that contain large amounts of — you guessed it, mercury?
In fact, these bulbs contain so much mercury that you’re not allowed by law to simply toss them in the trash when they burn out. You have to dispose of them as you would any other dangerous hazardous material.
I’m all for progress and innovation. If there’s something out there that makes my life better and costs less money to improve my life, then I’m all for it. But that’s not the direction Obama is taking this country.
View of the San Andreas Fault on the Carrizo Plain in Central California.
Okay… I’m somewhat of a science geek. I’m not a scientist, but I am a science geek. I like to read about and study various aspects of natural science.
Having spent much of my life in California I’ve had a moving platform from which to experience and read about earthquakes. And, I’ve probably heard every joke there is, particularly from folks who live in Tornado Alley, about my choice of venues in which to live and work (point of clarification: I’m not currently living and working in California; it has nothing to do with California’s fractured landscape, but rather it’s wrecked economy under the state’s liberal leadership).
One thing I’ve noticed and have been waiting for someone to pick up on can be seen in this small map. The squares indicate earthquakes. The largest line generally running north-south is the San Andreas fault zone. If you notice closely enough, there’s a gap along the fault zone in the middle-south of the state that has no squares along it. That means no earthquakes along that stretch of the fault zone. Most frightening about this is I’ve been watching that section now for several years (yes, I’m a science geek) in large part because I used to live in that area, and the thought that this section of the fault has not slipped in a long time while the northern and southern sections in the state have slipped makes one wonder just when the proverbial “big one” is going to hit.
According to a closer scale map on the same USGS website, the section of the fault zone north of the Highway 41/46 intersection where James Dean was killed has slipped in two different sections within a few miles of each other, one in 1966 and the other in 2004. The section to the south of that intersection that runs down towards and to the west of Bakersfield, last ruptured in 1857. According to the USGS, approximately 300 kilometers, or about 180 miles, of the fault zone ruptured in that temblor, which was estimated at 7.9 on the Richter Scale, making it California’s largest earthquake to date.
Aside from that, it would appear from watching the USGS site for a number of years now that this section of the fault zone has not had an earthquake along it in a very long time. Anecdotally speaking, I cannot ever recall seeing a graphic representation of an earthquake along this section of fault zone, which makes me wonder: just how much stress is there along that particular section of the fault?
Corn is a staple for human and animal diets… it does not belong in our gas tanks! Photo by D Sharon Pruitt, used under Creative Commons License.
Corn belongs on the dinner plate, not in the gas tank.
America’s food and energy policies are severely twisted. How else can you explain the fact that America refuses to mine its own energy sources, choosing instead to import most of our oil, while arguing that to meet our needs for something to power our cars and trucks, we ought instead to simply use a food staple used the world over?
Recently in the news, the Environmental Protection Agency approved adding a new 15% blend of ethanol, or E15, to the nation’s gas stations as part of government’s false premise that renewable energy is going to power America away from foreign oil dependence.
Let’s back the coal train up a moment and think about what we’re doing to ourselves.
Corn is a major staple for humans and animals alike. You can find corn ingredients on many of the food labels we buy at the grocery store. Likewise, animal agriculture consumes a lot of corn — and we consume those animals.
By adding ethanol to gasoline American dairy farmers, for instance, are paying more to feed their cows than they ever have. According to one story, dairy farmers in southern California have seen their corn feed prices increase nearly 50% to $260 per ton over the past several months. As a matter of scale, some dairies consume as much as 50 tons of corn per day. Meanwhile, milk prices to the farmers remain very low.
On the human side, the cost of everything in the grocery store, particularly those products with corn in them, have skyrocketed over the past several years. This didn’t go unnoticed in Mexico where the increased price of tortillas hurt the poor even more.
Not only are we spending more money on food and to feed our food, we’re banking on something that has proven not to work for investors and must be subsidized by US taxpayers in order to only slow the bleeding.
NASCAR, for instance, is concerned that the change to ethanol is going to harm the expensive race car engines by making them burn hotter. For you and I, the trade off is about a 33% reduction in fuel economy, according to studies.
Energyrefuge.com cited a Consumer Reports study on the 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe that could burn gasoline or the flex fuel E85 gasoline/ethanol blend. In that study, the Tahoe reportedly got 14 mpg on straight gasoline and 10 mpg on the E85 blend. Other studies have reported that the ethanol-blended fuel requires approximately 1.5 gallons of fuel to power a car for every mile that gasoline will power the same car. More trips to the fueling station can’t be good for one’s pocket book, not to mention the environment that the ethanol proponents claim their product is helping.
So, what’s the point? Why are we even going down this road when we can see that food-based ethanol products harm car engines, don’t burn as efficiently as fossil fuels and cause food prices to rise unnecessarily?
For more than two centuries the United States has been a beacon of hope to the rest of the world, providing a place to come and make a better living for one self, helping some seek solace and security from rogue regimes.
Over this period of time we’ve liberated nations from the iron fist of despotism, stopped a holocaust, provided food, medical support and other aid to nations suffering from famine and natural disasters, and today continue to help sovereign nations by providing cash and military protection.
It would appear that our ability to provide this sort of humanitarian aid will run out, not because we don’t want to anymore, but because we can’t. The money is running out.
Current fiscal policies in America, including the forthcoming program called Quantitative Easing Two (QE1 already failed) are devaluing the US Dollar to the point that other nations are seriously concerned that our financial mess here will affect the rest of the world in ways we can’t even imagine.
Where will these nations turn when their next natural disaster happens and the United States doesn’t have the money or the ability to even feed its own people? We’re not that far from discovering the answer to this question folks. Current policies to simply print more money in order to pay down our debt has nations like Germany and China — China currently owns much of our debt — seriously concerned, and rightfully so.
America has always prided itself on being able to feed itself and much of the world with our agricultural output. Furthermore, our industrial might has not only helped fuel our economy, but has provided the ability for our military to fight world wars and liberate entire continents from tyranny.
Experts say the rise in commodity prices, such as in gold and oil, are such that the economy can’t sustain it. We’re more than halfway back to oil prices at such where gasoline will once-again be over $4 a gallon — the apparent tipping point that we discovered last year has the ability to completely shut down the US economy.
While there are some who bemoan the fact that the United States was once a mighty super power — including our own President — the fact remains that the United States is solely responsible for, and to be credited with, expanding the world economy through the export of all sorts of goods and services (not to mention help develop the ability to efficiently transport these goods and services), and with rescuing nations from the military might of dictators and despots.
While major industrial nations around the globe are beginning to seriously worry that America’s decline will lead to their own demise, it’s disappointing to say the least that many of our elected leaders don’t see what folks like the Germans and Chinese see, and once we fail, it won’t simply be those two nations left holding the bag.
The Chevrolet Volt will travel an estimated 40 miles on a single charge of electricity. Image via Wikipedia
A story on the television news the other day couldn’t come up with enough positive adjectives to praise the latest electric cars to come on the market.
Chevy’s $41,000 Volt was praised for being able to go 40 miles on a charge of electricity while some other car companies apparently have their own electric versions that will go between 30 and 100 miles on a charge, depending on how much you run things like the radio and air conditioning. That certainly won’t work for your average LA or Bay Area commuter who drives farther than that one way. And what happens if you get stuck in traffic? Bring out the extension cord!
This begs the question… what are we trading in order to feel good about some pretty stupid ideas?
So the Chevy Volt can go 40 miles on a charge of electricity. How long does it take to charge it back up? According to the news report, about 10 hours if plugged into your standard 110 volt socket. How much did that charge add to your local power bill? And what kind of fuel was burned in order to charge that vehicle and power the lights in your home?
In much of America, coal is burned to generate electricity. Other parts of the country use natural gas and other non-popular fuels to generate electricity. So imagine the quandary for the poor guy who bought his new green automobile because we was forced into embarrassment by the media over driving an SUV that can haul his family plus all their toys on vacation. He might be made to feel good because his new over-priced electric cart runs on batteries, but what then when the truth is let out that the electricity that charges his car comes from fossil fuels?
What happens in a few years when all those batteries quit working? What’s it going to cost the guy to replace them? In insurance terms the car will have to be “totaled” because the price to replace the batteries will exceed the cost of the car.
Question No. 1: In what country was this world’s worst nuclear disaster? For extra credit, this country was once part of what political union? Explain the connection between the two.
Doesn’t it seem a bit interesting that while America has been blocked from building nuclear power plants because some very vocal groups think nuclear power plants will destroy the planet, yet Iran, thanks to the help of the safety-conscience Russians, is allowed to build a nuclear power plant because… well… they need it to power their peaceful economy?
So, while the Russians carefully load the highly radioactive materials into the reactor they built on sand, American companies continue to wait for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and other regulators to approve applications for power plants here in America that would greatly help reduce the cost of electricity to millions of households across the nation. Meanwhile, America’s only attempt at building a nuclear waste repository to store the byproducts of our own nuclear power was shuttered after billions of dollars was poured into a hole in the side of Yucca Mountain on the Nevada Test Site in Nye County, Nevada.
Military matters
But hey, let’s not muddy the nuclear waters by talking about how Russia and Iran might conspire to later give Iran the ability to manufacture its own nuclear weapons by enriching the radioactive materials they now have under the guise of “peaceful, civilian energy.” We’ll stick to the question of why America has been blocked by environmentalists from building more nuclear power plants here.
US Nuclear Energy
The United States currently has 104 nuclear power plants, according to the World Nuclear Association. Nuclear power accounts for approximately 11% of America’s total electrical production. Aside from the Three Mile Island accident in 1979 when a partial melt-down destroyed one of the reactors at the Pennsylvania facility, that incident was really more of a public relations nightmare than it ever was a public health issue.
According to the World Nuclear Association (WNA), “the Three Mile Island accident caused concerns about the possibility of radiation-induced health effects, principally cancer, in the area surrounding the plant. Because of those concerns, the Pennsylvania Department of Health for 18 years maintained a registry of more than 30,000 people who lived within five miles of Three Mile Island at the time of the accident. The state’s registry was discontinued in mid 1997, without any evidence of unusual health trends in the area.”
The WNA continues: ”Indeed, more than a dozen major, independent health studies of the accident showed no evidence of any abnormal number of cancers around TMI years after the accident. The only detectable effect was psychological stress during and shortly after the accident.”
While there are reports that at one nuclear power plant is scheduled to come online in the United States in 2012, with more to follow, environmentalists and anti-nuclear activists successfully used the mishap to effectively put the brakes on construction of nuclear power plants in the United States for decades, and to force the shut-down of reactors that were running efficiently and quite successfully.
Nuclear Politics
So why has the anti-nuclear and environmental communities been so conspicuously silent on Iran? Or for that matter, on North Korea’s nuclear power program, which their dictator likewise suggests is a peaceful use of a legitimate technology for his mild-mannered nation? Could it be that the regimes of Iran and North Korea take a different approach to political dissent than we do?
In California for instance, in 1989 voters shut down and decommissioned the Rancho Seco Nuclear Power Plant near Sacramento. In the years to follow power costs to consumers all across California, and particularly in the area once served by Rancho Seco and the Sacramento Municipality Utility District have skyrocketed. While folks who buy their power from nuclear source pay pennies per kilowatt hour for their energy, in California, the energy costs of those forced to buy their power from companies like Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), Southern California Edison (SCE), and the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power (LADWP) runs in excess of 40+ cents per kWh. Is there any wonder why businesses are fleeing California in droves? The cost of energy here alone is enough to drive people to leave!
So I repeat my question: where are the environmentalists on this issue? Why, if America’s nuclear energy program has such a remarkable safety record, do these eco-terrorists and their elected accomplices continue to fight against our ability to build an efficient source of energy for our sovereign nation while dictators with military ambitions and 7th Century ideals are allowed to proceed, unquestioned, with their nuclear energy programs? Why haven’t we been successful in telling these environmental freaks of nature and their political cronies to go pound sand while we move ahead with improvements to our energy program in America so that we can meet the energy needs of our great nation?
American sovereignty is probably in no greater danger than now as Congress moves to cede decisions on agricultural production and policy to the World Trade Organization and labyrinth of unelected government officials within the United States, including the Department of Homeland Security.
Section 404 of the Food Safety Modernization Act: Declares that nothing in this Act shall be construed in a manner inconsistent with the agreement establishing the World Trade Organization or any other treaty or international agreement to which the United States is a party.
Why add language like this unless it’s the goal of Congress to cede control of our food supply to a nefarious body of despots? But I’m not the only one asking these questions. Check out this video and its assorted links. Even more information can be found at the Food Freedom blog.
America's sovereignty has always been anchored in our ability to be agriculturally self-sufficient. A bill in Congress would strip that ability from us.
The Food Safety Modernization Act will arguably establish suffocating layers of regulation upon American agriculture, to the point that American agriculture will cease to exist. As I’ve written in the past, American agriculture is truly our last bastion of sovereignty. When we lose the ability to sovereignly control our own food supply we will no longer be able to control our political destiny. Those who set our agricultural policy and ultimately provide us with our food will have complete control over us. Given that ours is a world of despotic power it’s not entirely unreasonable that our food supply could ultimately be controlled by the same kind of cartels that already control our oil and energy supplies.
Speaking of the word “reasonable,” S510 uses this word three times as it cedes czar powers to the various department secretaries within the US government. For example:
Section 101 -
Amends the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA) to expand the authority of the Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to inspect records related to food, including to: (1) allow the inspection of records of food that the Secretary reasonably believes is likely to be affected in a similar manner as an adulterated food; and (2) require that each person (excluding farms and restaurants) who manufactures, processes, packs, distributes, receives, holds, or imports an article of food permit inspection of his or her records if the Secretary believes that there is a reasonable probability that the use of or exposure to such food will cause serious adverse health consequences or death.
Section 102 -
Authorizes the Secretary to suspend the registration of a food facility if the food manufactured, processed, packed, or held by a facility has a reasonable probability of causing serious adverse health consequences or death to humans or animals.
Section 305 -
Requires the Secretary to determine whether a country can provide reasonable assurances that the food supply of the country meets or exceeds the safety of food manufactured, processed, packed, or held in the United States.
What is “reasonable” to our government officials? It seems that nothing in government is “reasonable” anymore given their track record to overstep constitutional authority.
Lest we forget that government is in the business to grow its size and control over our lives, this measure outlines the implementation of numerous yet-to-be-determined taxes upon our lives. Let’s take a look:
Section 107 -
Directs the Secretary to assess and collect fees related to: (1) food facility reinspection; (2) food recalls; (3) the voluntary qualified importer program; and (4) importer reinspection. Applies export certification provisions to food.
Section 401 –
Authorizes appropriations for FY2010-FY2014 for the activities of the Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition, the Center for Veterinary Medicine, and related field activities in the Office of Regulatory Affairs of the FDA. Directs the HHS Secretary to increase the field staff of such Centers and Office.
When has government not ever mandated something that it first didn’t make “voluntary?” This is another dangerous idea on a slippery slope towards despotism.
Section 112 -
Requires the Secretary to develop and make available to local educational agencies, schools, early childhood education programs, and interested entities and individuals guidelines for developing plans for individuals to manage the risk of food allergy and anaphylaxis in schools and early childhood education programs, to be implemented on a voluntary basis. Sets forth issues for such guidelines to address, including: (1) parental obligation to provide documentation of their child’s food allergy; (2) the creation of an individual plan for food allergy management; (3) communication strategies between schools or childhood education programs and providers of emergency medical services; and (4) strategies to reduce the risk of exposure to anaphylactic causative agents in classrooms and common school or early childhood education program areas, such as cafeterias. Allows the Secretary to award matching grants to assist local educational agencies in implementing such food allergy and anaphylaxis management guidelines.
The authority that Congress grants the various department secretaries is tantamount to the unconstitutional authority granted the treasury secretary to set and enforce financial policy of America. Congress is ceding control to unelected officials who, by default, become czars of their respective agencies, able to rule by edict absent constitutional controls. What’s wrong with our current system that this HAS to take place?
Just in case there wasn’t enough government control written into the act, read this:
Section 210 -
Requires the Secretary to set standards and administer training and education programs for the employees of state, local, territorial, and tribal food safety officials relating to the regulatory responsibilities and policies established by this Act. Authorizes and encourages the Secretary to conduct examinations, testing, and investigations for the purposes of determining compliance with the food safety provisions of this Act through the officers and employees of such state, local, territorial, or tribal agency.
What does this mean? Don’t we have grocery stores even in rural areas? This can’t be good! Take a look at this:
Section 406 -
Requires the Secretary, acting through the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, to study the transportation of food for consumption in the United States, including an examination of the unique needs of rural and frontier areas with regard to the delivery of safe food.
Why do we need any government agency studying how food is transported to rural areas unless the goal is to cut off those rural regions from the rest of the country? It can’t be to improve efficiencies because we know government is incapable of that. We already have a network of highways and railroad routes capable of transporting goods around America. Aren’t these sufficient to get groceries to the rural regions of the United States?
While this plan is arguably aimed at food safety, America already has the highest standards for food safety in the world. We merely need to enforce those standards and ensure that the food we import meets those same high standards. This is not an issue of food safety for the sake of food safety; it’s really an issue of granting control to an international organization whose board of directors is reminiscent of the Star Wars bar scene, and whose members do not have the best interest of the United States as its core beliefs and desire.
There is an undeniable connection between the political battles of the 21st Century and the move away from teaching civics at all levels in the public education system during the later part of the 20th Century. The benefits of reinstituting a solid curriculum of civics into our school system, and ultimately our way of life, will be monumental.
We need to look no farther than our television set to find the cause and effect such a slide away from teaching civics has had on America, and in a larger sense, the global society.
Academy Award winning actor Richard Dreyfuss is promoting an initiative to make civics education a vital part of our public education process. According to the Dreyfuss Initiative:
“Research over the past fifty years has demonstrated that the average American has, to say the least, a rather poor understanding of civic knowledge. But, by example, America has made democracy the governance system of choice.
“Democracy, in any incarnation is the only governing system that requires some engagement by the civic body. In one fashion or another, sooner or later, the sovereignty of the people is the difference between democracy and monarchy, theocracy and totalitarianism or any other system that has been devised thus far; so that the people, as sovereign, the responsible party who ultimately makes the decisions, is the irresistible ‘sell’ to the world, that makes Democracy America’s most successful product.
“Democracy argues that people are responsible for and can control their own lives, that they have a role in affecting their future, of improving their present, of achieving participation in the pursuit of their own happiness. The youth of America needs certain skills to become great sovereigns. These skills have been taught, will be taught and must be taught to each generation of Americans, because no gene will ever be found that passes along civic expertise and knowing how to run a republican democracy. It must be taught in realistic terms such as how you explore the substance of an issue, the necessity of debate, the ability to stand against popular opinion or the majority view, and the raising up of the values of dissent and civility. In a nation founded by dissenters, we shoot dissenters on site. Civility is not just manners; it is the oxygen that democracy requires.”
As to the point of civility, one needs to look no farther than many of the opinion-based talk radio shows and television programs that masquerade for the news. No longer do people discuss issues in a give and take manner, using civil rules of debate. Instead, it’s common practice to simply yell over the other person, as if shouting your opinion in angry, ear-tickling sound bytes makes your point of view that much more valid than the other person, who’s also angrily shouting out his or her sound bytes and talking points while the moderator shouts his or her own dissent or approval.
The sound byte is king. Those who teach others how to properly address the media also evidence this by promoting the ability to use two or three words, or maybe a short, simple sentence, to try to get their point across when being interviewed. Woefully lacking in this education of sorts is the idea that our republican form of government was not born by sound bytes, but by volumes of speech and writings that take multiple library shelves and numerous bound editions to chronicle.
Dreyfuss spoke recently to the Commonwealth Club about his initiative. Audio of his speech can be found here. According to Dreyfuss, the benefits of such an initiative, when fully realized, will be equivalent to that of the Marshall Plan during the post-World War II era. According to Dreyfuss, the US-funded effort to rebuilt much of Europe ultimately created economic markets abroad that greatly benefitted the United States by providing the kind of wealth that could afford to buy US goods and services. Another classic example is our annihilation of large parts of Japan during World War II. After the war we helped Japan rebuild and ultimately became an ally and important trading partner.
Under the economy of today, which was borne out of the greed for more political power by the ruling class, the American dream of owning a house and other items is fast disappearing as the ability to generate the wealth necessary to buy such items has been taken from the people by their government; this theft of our ability to generate private wealth has been allowed to take place in large part because Americans are simply ignorant of the kinds of civics lessons that would otherwise illuminate the dangers of such political decisions. It’s entirely plausible that this forced ignorance is a political calculation by the ruling class, bent on creating their own exclusive class where they are the only ones with power and wealth, while subjugating the rest to a class of serfs.
For example, the financial decisions being made today by the Obama Administration are not only in direct conflict with the limited powers afforded government under the US Constitution; those decisions are having a direct impact on the ability of the private sector to thrive and prosper. The fact that many Americans have largely been uninformed of civics for several generations has fostered the kind of ignorance necessary for political despots on both sides of the political aisle to slowly gain more control over our lives and erode our precious liberties and freedoms.
Much of Dreyfuss’s discussion centered on the need to teach children about the true history and founding of America as a means of combating the kind tyranny our American government has successfully enacted over the decades. Moreover, the Dreyfuss Initiative seeks to “create a demand for a more expert learning experience and to give our kids the splendid pleasure of learning what power they have.” Doing so will not only help students develop a lifestyle of learning, but can benefit society by helping them to articulate in their own conscience why people fought against things such as despotism, slavery and racial superiority.
Historical examples
If anything, history is screaming at us right now, yet there’s a whole generation of Americans willingly ready to allow government to shred the US Constitution and cede liberty and freedom for the fallacy that is the kind of safety and security only government can provide.
Benjamin Franklin said it best when he stated: “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” hence the need to for a much more thorough and proper civic education in the public school system, and to a greater extent, in society at large.
This dangerous slide towards despotism here in America has been played out throughout the history of the world. While we can look at the regimes of those dictated by the likes of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and Kim Jong Il as more recent examples of life under dictatorial rule, the more popular historical figures that ruled by fiat include names like Adolph Hitler, Benito Mussolini and Joseph Stalin.
Without a careful understanding and respect for civics however, these names might at best be tired political talking points rather than shocking reminders of where we in this nation are heading because many of those who fail to understand have long since become of age to vote in elections here in America. Worse yet, those in the media who are likewise unskilled and ignorant about civics and history have preyed upon gullible voters; those members of the media artfully seek an ear-tickling sound byte as they put together the kind of propaganda that benefits power-hungry politicians.
Racial Divide
The connection between our ignorance of civics and racism is also evident in the incessant bickering and downright offensive language fostered by some of the very same people who claim to be working against it. But if ever there were an articulate defense for conservatism and its colorless boundaries, as opposed to the race bating and pimping that are fostered by the politically liberal it was at the National Press Club on August 4th.
Whatever happened to the utopia that was supposed to be ushered in after the tears dried in the faces of all those black reporters, who on election night 2008, openly cried as it was reported that Barack Hussein Obama had been elected President? You’d think by now that racism in America would be a thing of the past as Obama himself promised a post-racial America absent of the kind of racism that divided this nation for so long. Yet it would seem that the very press that seemed willing to publish racism’s obituary the day Obama was inaugurated is playing up racism in America.
But that doesn’t appear to be the case as we continue to watch and listen to members of the Obama Administration openly espouse racial hatred. We also saw it on Election Day 2008 as racist groups armed with various deadly weapons were caught on camera allowing only black people into polling places. Had white men dressed in white sheets stood with shotguns in front of polling places to allow only whites in to vote, there would have been a righteous call for the National Guard and likely even the FBI to come in and remove them. But because it was armed black men, somehow that was okay.
Why is it that Liberals feel the need to identify and categorize groups of people from one side of their mouths, while out of the other side of their mouths they extol the praises of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. when he called for a colorblind society in which all of us were judged by the content of our character rather than the color of our skin?
Eliminating racism in America might be one of those laudable goals that is unachievable, however, it’s doubtful that those who claim to seek it really want it themselves for the very reason that it would strip their power. Race bating and pimping is one of the few power tools that Liberals have in their arsenal and they’re not about to give it up.
Conclusion
Building and promoting a solid civics curriculum may very well be America’s next Marshall Plan. Prior to implementation of the Marshall Plan, however, was the destruction of much of Europe during World War II. In order to develop this plan America is likely going to have to destroy the current ruling class that is artfully subjugating Americans through ignorance and the very technology that has in part helped improve life for many people in America.
Ridding society of the Internet and iPad isn’t the goal; according to Dreyfuss, those who helped build and invent these technologies, however, have a huge stake in helping America succeed and regain its status as a shining example of democracy and limited government rule where people are free to invent, succeed and live their lives in prosperity and relative peace. Doing this will require a concerted effort to educate children and the public at large on civics and the civil rules of debate and discussion.
"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."
Charles Finney
"[T]he time has come that Christians must vote for honest men and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them. . . . Christians have been exceedingly guilty in this matter. But the time has come when they must act differently. . . . Christians seem to act as if they thought God did not see what they do in politics. But I tell you He does see it - and He will bless or curse this nation according to the course they [Christians] take [in politics]."
[Charles G. Finney, Lectures on Revivals of Religion (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1868), Lecture XV, pp. 281-282.]
