Legislating a lie

[Mara]

My disgust knows no bounds. OTOH, this *is* Kansas.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/08/2789089/abortion-becomes-a-tax-issue-in.html

--
Goodbye, Army, dear old Army of the Potomac. Tattered and torn,
you are crowned with the victor's laurels at last.
-- Elisha Hunt Rhodes, Col. 2nd R. I., July 15, 1865

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 8, 7:17 pm, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

> My disgust knows no bounds. OTOH, this *is* Kansas.
>

> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/08/2789089/abortion-becomes-a-tax-...


Excuse me?

The gist of the article is-

(shit, can't copy and paste from the website)

...the state eliminating tax deductions related to abortions.

Your problem seems to be with ONE sentence- the state requiring
physicians to say that abortion poses a risk of breast cancer.

As medical information goes, I have seen wilder assertions made based
on less.

[Greg Goss]

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 8, 7:17 pm, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>
>> My disgust knows no bounds. OTOH, this *is* Kansas.
>>
>> http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/08/2789089/abortion-becomes-a-tax-...
>
>
>Excuse me?
>
>The gist of the article is-
>
>(shit, can't copy and paste from the website)
>
>...the state eliminating tax deductions related to abortions.

And eliminating deductions related to the primary source of
female-oriented health care (such as mammograms and birth control) for
women.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <e2046cb6-460a-41bd...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,

Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Your problem seems to be with ONE sentence- the state requiring
>physicians to say that abortion poses a risk of breast cancer.

Would the physician get in any legal trouble for saying the following?

"The state requires me to make the following statement, even though it
isn't true: 'Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.' What I just
told you was a mandatory lie. Now that we've got that out of the way..."

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Mara]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:30:29 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <e2046cb6-460a-41bd...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>Your problem seems to be with ONE sentence- the state requiring
>>physicians to say that abortion poses a risk of breast cancer.
>
>Would the physician get in any legal trouble for saying the following?
>
>"The state requires me to make the following statement, even though it
>isn't true: 'Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.' What I just
>told you was a mandatory lie. Now that we've got that out of the way..."

That I could deal with. It's 2012, yet practical experience seems to indicate
that some (here, I could claim most) would be more than happy to live in the
Stone Age and keep women as little more than property - an attitude I experience
almost every day. It gets old. There are other places where this is discussed,
and people are starting to ask me what the hell is wrong with these people, and
I never know what to say. Where do you start, with stuff like this?

[mike muth]

Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
next year. The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary ownerships
(thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting corporate
taxes (he wants to eliminate those). This will produce a $161 million
shortfall next year. (sound familiar so far?).

Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.

As individual GOPTP dominated states pass or undertake measures aimed at
unions, women, the poor, healthcare, voters, or helping the rich, other such
states follow suit. If these bozos succeed in getting control of both
houses of the Congress and the white house, then we will all live in
Kansas/Arizona/Wisconsin/Florida/Oklahoma/Mississippi.

--
Mike

[Mara]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 12:10:14 GMT, "mike muth" <mi...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:

>Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
>next year. The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
>taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary ownerships
>(thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
>lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting corporate
>taxes (he wants to eliminate those). This will produce a $161 million
>shortfall next year. (sound familiar so far?).

Oh, yes. Tax the poor, who haven't got it, and let the rich get richer. Must be
our unofficial state motto.

>Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.

Anyone but himself. But then again, I'm not sure he isn't just a GOP puppet.

>As individual GOPTP dominated states pass or undertake measures aimed at
>unions, women, the poor, healthcare, voters, or helping the rich, other such
>states follow suit. If these bozos succeed in getting control of both
>houses of the Congress and the white house, then we will all live in
>Kansas/Arizona/Wisconsin/Florida/Oklahoma/Mississippi.

GAH.

--
The little birds sang sweet amid the scene of death and destruction.
-- Elisha Hunt Rhodes, 2nd R.I., May 4, 1864

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 05:13:35 -0600, Mara wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 04:30:29 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article
>><e2046cb6-460a-41bd...@i8g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
>>Shawn Wilson <ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Your problem seems to be with ONE sentence- the state requiring
>>>physicians to say that abortion poses a risk of breast cancer.
>>
>>Would the physician get in any legal trouble for saying the following?
>>
>>"The state requires me to make the following statement, even though it
>>isn't true: 'Abortion increases the risk of breast cancer.' What I just
>>told you was a mandatory lie. Now that we've got that out of the
>>way..."
>
> That I could deal with. It's 2012, yet practical experience seems to
> indicate that some (here, I could claim most) would be more than happy
> to live in the Stone Age and keep women as little more than property -
> an attitude I experience almost every day. It gets old. There are other
> places where this is discussed, and people are starting to ask me what
> the hell is wrong with these people, and I never know what to say. Where
> do you start, with stuff like this?

Tell them it is about standing on other people's necks in order to make
themselves feel powerful.

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:10:14 +0000, mike muth wrote:

> Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
> next year. The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
> taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary
> ownerships (thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from
> taxes), while lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and
> cutting corporate taxes (he wants to eliminate those). This will
> produce a $161 million shortfall next year. (sound familiar so far?).
>
> Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.

I fear for my country. I really do.

> As individual GOPTP dominated states pass or undertake measures aimed at
> unions, women, the poor, healthcare, voters, or helping the rich, other
> such states follow suit. If these bozos succeed in getting control of
> both houses of the Congress and the white house, then we will all live
> in Kansas/Arizona/Wisconsin/Florida/Oklahoma/Mississippi.

Core states of Jesusland all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesusland_map

Some times I think it would have been better to let the Confederacy
secede. Other times I'm certain of it.

The gentle reader's attention is directed to the 1848 "Slave State" map
for comparison to present-day Jesusland.

[mike muth]

A key portion of tea party strength is comprised of former dixiecrats.
Racism couched in social darwinist lanuage and religion is at the core of
their politics. They hold to their core identity and ostracize the
"unfaithful" with all the verve and with longer-held grudges than any gang.
And, I live in a tea party state. As I said elsewhere, the GOPTP could run
a dead slug for president and it would get the electoral votes from Kansas.
I'll vote, but my vote matter all that much. The only way to make a
difference would be to register republican and then vote for the moderate
candidates - in the unlikely event that they actually exist.

--
Mike

[Veronique]

On May 9, 5:10 am, "mike muth" <m...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:
> Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
> next year.  The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
> taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary ownerships
> (thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
> lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting corporate
> taxes (he wants to eliminate those).  This will produce a $161 million
> shortfall next year.  (sound familiar so far?).
>
> Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.

This really needs a billboard about every 10 miles along I-80.

I am with Lee. I no longer recognize the country I grew up in, and it
scares me.


V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

[Mark Steese]

"mike muth" <mi...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote in
news:jodtt...@news7.newsguy.com:

Well, look on the bright side. Even though Kansas went for Santorum in the
primaries, he has to date received only 263 of the 1,144 delegates needed
for nomination, and has 'suspended' (i.e., given up on) his campaign.
Gingrich and Paul, both of whom have more in common with the former
dixiecrats than Romney does, have done even worse than Santorum.
Empirically speaking, it appears that Tea Party strength don't amount to
much on the national scale.
--
"Create"? A slip of the word processor? No. The word signals Watsonville's
belated entry into modern madness where technicians make promises
traditionally reserved for the gods. -Frank Bardacke

[Mara]

You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years back?
And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
just a dandy idea?

>The gentle reader's attention is directed to the 1848 "Slave State" map
>for comparison to present-day Jesusland.

[Mara]

The funny thing is, AFA dixiecrats, is that I'm actually *related* to Robert E.
Lee, or rather, a direct descendant of his brother. But I don't cotton to this
crap. And I've told my representative outright that I *would* vote - and it
wouldn't be for him, nor would I encourage anyone to do it. Of course it won't
mean anything, but I wanted him to know that there *are* people here that are
capable of rubbing two brain cells together.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <2rjkq7plhdf5eppht...@4ax.com>,

Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>
>almost every day. It gets old. There are other places where this is discussed,
>and people are starting to ask me what the hell is wrong with these people, and
>I never know what to say. Where do you start, with stuff like this?

Start by making sure that every Republican politician you are in a
position to vote against knows that women outnumber men, and they
are losing the votes of women.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,

Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>
>
>You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years back?
>And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
>just a dandy idea?

Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
after they are no longer part of the United States?

[D.F. Manno]

In article <joehd2$nc5$3...@reader1.panix.com>,

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> In article <a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>
> >You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years
> >back?
> >And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
> >just a dandy idea?
>
> Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
> after they are no longer part of the United States?

These are the same kind of people who think "Keep government out of my
Medicare" is a reasonable political statement, so I'd say yes, they do
expect the checks to keep coming.

--
D.F. Manno | dfm...@mail.com
"You won't like me when I'm angry. Because I always back up my rage with
facts and documented sources." - The Credible Hulk

[Mara]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <2rjkq7plhdf5eppht...@4ax.com>,
>Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>almost every day. It gets old. There are other places where this is discussed,
>>and people are starting to ask me what the hell is wrong with these people, and
>>I never know what to say. Where do you start, with stuff like this?
>
>Start by making sure that every Republican politician you are in a
>position to vote against knows that women outnumber men, and they
>are losing the votes of women.

I'm not sure they are, here. I mean, they've lost *my* vote, but this is a
very...strange place. I'm looked upon like I have a third eye because I used to
do IT, and "that's a man's job." And no, I'm not joking in the slightest.

[Mara]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:43:30 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,
>Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years back?
>>And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
>>just a dandy idea?
>
>Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
>after they are no longer part of the United States?

Oh, they don't want to secede from The U.S.. Just Kansas. Although IMO one makes
as much sense as the other.

[Bill Turlock]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:09:18 -0500, Mara
<g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

>
>You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years back?
>And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
>just a dandy idea?

As do I. Let 'em (as long as you're not personally involvrf,
I mean).

Bill

[Bill Turlock]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:23:27 -0600, Mara
<g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

>
>I'm not sure they are, here. I mean, they've lost *my* vote, but this is a
>very...strange place. I'm looked upon like I have a third eye because I used to
>do IT, and "that's a man's job." And no, I'm not joking in the slightest.

"Information Technology" is assumed.

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 17:26:25 -0600, Mara wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:43:30 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
> wrote:
>
>
>>In article <a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>, Mara
>><g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some
>>>years back? And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere
>>>who think that's just a dandy idea?
>>
>>Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
>>after they are no longer part of the United States?
>
> Oh, they don't want to secede from The U.S.. Just Kansas. Although IMO
> one makes as much sense as the other.

Part of Arizona wants to secede from the rest of Arizona.

<http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_fca311cb-8b3d-58a4-
bec0-55a3077a8dc4.html>

http://tinyurl.com/72tuzpn


Lee "Only half joking" Ayrton

[Mara]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:32:36 -0700, Bill Turlock <Bill.T...@sonnnic.invalid>
wrote:

I am. I live there, and I'm going to drag these people into the 21st century or
die trying. Probably the latter, the way things look.

>Bill

[Mara]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 15:38:18 -0700, Bill Turlock <Bill.T...@sonnnic.invalid>
wrote:

You assumed correctly. But don't tell anyone.

[Mara]

Interesting.

>Lee "Only half joking" Ayrton

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

On 5/9/2012 3:43 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article<a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mara<g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years back?
>> And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
>> just a dandy idea?
>
> Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
> after they are no longer part of the United States?
>

If they secede, then the Federal Government would no longer be telling
them how much to plant, which is one price they pay for receiving
subsidies. Anyway, farmers in Western Kansas are making more money from
hosting windmills than they are from subsidies nowadays.

Charles

[Nasti J]

On May 9, 3:38 pm, Lee Ayrton <layr...@panix.com> wrote:

> Part of Arizona wants to secede from the rest of Arizona.
>

> <http://azdailysun.com/news/state-and-regional/article_fca311cb-8b3d-5...
> bec0-55a3077a8dc4.html>

"51st state: 'South California' secession proposal unanimously
approved for discussion at summit"

http://tinyurl.com/SouthCal

South California, the proposed 51st state to the union, a long-shot
concept that would see 13 California counties secede from the Golden
State, was unanimously approved by the Riverside County Board of
Directors Tuesday for more discussion and debate.

[Nasti J]

On May 9, 10:14 am, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

> The funny thing is, AFA dixiecrats, is that I'm actually *related* toRobertE.Lee, or rather, a direct descendant of his brother. But I don't cotton to this

> crap. And I've told my representative outright that I *would* vote - and it
> wouldn't be for him, nor would I encourage anyone to do it.

D you actually believe that political beliefs are passed along as part
of your DNA? Sir John Lisle was my 8th-great-grandfather, but I'm no
proponent of regicide.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <jof0he$lbu$1...@dont-email.me>,

Do the restrictions on planting apply to farmers who are not receiving
subsidies?

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

On 5/10/2012 5:07 AM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
> In article<jof0he$lbu$1...@dont-email.me>,

> Charles Wm. Dimmick<cdim...@snet.net> wrote:
>> On 5/9/2012 3:43 PM, Paul Ciszek wrote:
>>> In article<a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,
>>> Mara<g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some
>> years back?
>>>> And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think that's
>>>> just a dandy idea?
>>>
>>> Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
>>> after they are no longer part of the United States?
>>>
>> If they secede, then the Federal Government would no longer be telling
>> them how much to plant, which is one price they pay for receiving
>> subsidies. Anyway, farmers in Western Kansas are making more money from
>> hosting windmills than they are from subsidies nowadays.
>
> Do the restrictions on planting apply to farmers who are not receiving
> subsidies?
>

Farm law is so complex and changes so often that I have lost track. I
seem to remember that before 1996 the Feds _did_ restrict the amount of
wheat, corn, and soybeans that could be planted, even on farmers who did
not participate in the farm subsidy program, but at that time the
restrictions were considerably relaxed. There is some sort of federal
law which requires the Secretary of Agriculture to set a quota for any
particular crop whenever the production is more than 15% above the
projected needs. All the farmers in the country who raise that
particular crop then take a vote to determine whether or not they are in
favor of the quota. If the majority are in favor, then the local county
agents determine what share of the quota belongs to each farmer in the
county. At that point I don't know what happens next, especially if an
individual farmer bucks the quota.

charles

[Lee Ayrton]

On Wed, 09 May 2012 12:09:18 -0500, Mara wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 13:57:29 +0000 (UTC), Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com>
> wrote:


>>Some times I think it would have been better to let the Confederacy
>>secede. Other times I'm certain of it.
>
> You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some
> years back? And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere
> who think that's just a dandy idea?

I did know that once upon a long farking time ago, but had had
forgotten. Thank you.

[Mara]

I wasn't living here at the time and found out years after the fact. It's
probably just as well - I'd have hurt myself laughing.

[Snidely]

Paul Ciszek formulated the question :

> In article <a0vmm4...@mid.individual.net>,
> Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> You did know, didn't you, that Western Kansas did try to secede some years
>> back? And that to this day there are people in town and elsewhere who think
>> that's just a dandy idea?
>
> Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
> after they are no longer part of the United States?

Don't you need to be an international agri-giant to get those?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Alan J]

"Mara" <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote in message
news:a0v5l...@mid.individual.net...

>
> On Wed, 9 May 2012 12:10:14 GMT, "mike muth"
> <mi...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:
>
>>Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker
>>thing
>>next year. The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which
>>ends
>>taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary
>>ownerships
>>(thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
>>lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting
>>corporate
>>taxes (he wants to eliminate those). This will produce a $161 million
>>shortfall next year. (sound familiar so far?).
>

> Oh, yes. Tax the poor, who haven't got it, and let the rich get
> richer. Must be
> our unofficial state motto.

>
>>Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.
>

> Anyone but himself. But then again, I'm not sure he isn't just a GOP
> puppet.

>
>>As individual GOPTP dominated states pass or undertake measures aimed
>>at
>>unions, women, the poor, healthcare, voters, or helping the rich,
>>other such
>>states follow suit. If these bozos succeed in getting control of both
>>houses of the Congress and the white house, then we will all live in
>>Kansas/Arizona/Wisconsin/Florida/Oklahoma/Mississippi.
>

> GAH.


Over here (the UK) we have had a 5% income tax reduction for the
richest, and a "minor adjustment of an anomaly about hot food."

Take-away hot food from supermarkets now attracts VAT, at 20%. So what's
the problem with that? Well, what does George Osborne suppose the
homeless eat? When they can afford the luxury of something hot, of
course.

It will never even have occurred to him, of course.

A 20% tax rise for the homeless. Class act, George. Your Bullingdon Club
chums will lap it up.

--
Alan

[Mara]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 01:11:17 +0100, "Alan J" <not...@dontuse.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

>Over here (the UK) we have had a 5% income tax reduction for the
>richest, and a "minor adjustment of an anomaly about hot food."
>
>Take-away hot food from supermarkets now attracts VAT, at 20%. So what's
>the problem with that? Well, what does George Osborne suppose the
>homeless eat? When they can afford the luxury of something hot, of
>course.
>
>It will never even have occurred to him, of course.
>
>A 20% tax rise for the homeless. Class act, George. Your Bullingdon Club
>chums will lap it up.

Is that what the US is doing, following the UK's lead?

[()]

The high excise tax and VAT on wine and cider have never bothered the
homeless.

[John Mc.]

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn>



"Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942), was a United States Supreme
Court decision that recognized the power of the federal government to
regulate economic activity.

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The
U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on
acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the
Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits
permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even
though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no
intention of selling it......"


John Mc.

[Bill Turlock]

That just ain't right.

[Binyamin Dissen]

On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

:>Start by making sure that every Republican politician you are in a

:>position to vote against knows that women outnumber men, and they
:>are losing the votes of women.

Because all, or a majority, of women support abortion as a method of birth
control?

Is there a significant statistical difference between pro-abortion women and
pro-aborthion men?

--
Binyamin Dissen <bdi...@dissensoftware.com>
http://www.dissensoftware.com

Should you use the mailblocks package and expect a response from me,
you should preauthorize the dissensoftware.com domain.

I very rarely bother responding to challenge/response systems,
especially those from irresponsible companies.

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

As I said, before 1996, that was the law. But I think that in 1996 these
extremely strict standards were relaxed somewhat, and it was possible
under some special circumstances to opt out of the quota system,
providing, of course, that one renounced all forms of government
subsidy, including insurance. On the other hand, I could be wrong. It
wouldn't be the first time.

charles

[Mara]

On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:26:19 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net>
wrote:

>On 5/13/2012 2:36 AM, John Mc. wrote:

<snip>

>> A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The
>> U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on
>> acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the
>> Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits
>> permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even
>> though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no
>> intention of selling it......"
>
>As I said, before 1996, that was the law. But I think that in 1996 these
>extremely strict standards were relaxed somewhat, and it was possible
>under some special circumstances to opt out of the quota system,
>providing, of course, that one renounced all forms of government
>subsidy, including insurance. On the other hand, I could be wrong. It
>wouldn't be the first time.
>
>charles

I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday, explaining
to the person on the other end that they were part of the conservation program
in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is that the
government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a set period of time."

In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems quite
stupid to me.

[Nick Spalding]

Mara wrote, in <a19nak...@mid.individual.net>
on Sun, 13 May 2012 07:21:36 -0500:

"Set-aside" is part of the EU farm support program too.
--
Nick Spalding

[John Mc.]

Charles-

Wasn't saying you were wrong so much as pointing out what happened in
the past when quotas were violated.

John Mc.

[Snidely]

Mara speculated:

considering that some of the places that people are starving once had
fertile soil that was depleted by overfarming, I don't have a problem
with letting fields lie fallow for a while. Although sometimes vetch
and clover can be commercial crops.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/13/2012 05:21 AM, Mara wrote:
>
> I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday, explaining
> to the person on the other end that they were part of the conservation program
> in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is that the
> government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a set period of time."
>
> In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems quite
> stupid to me.

People are starving in other countries mostly because their neighbors or
governments want them to be. Some guy in Kansas planting a few more
acres isn't going to change that.

The stupidity of this policy stands or falls on its own two feet.

Xho

[bill van]

In article <a19nak...@mid.individual.net>,

Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:26:19 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick" <cdim...@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On 5/13/2012 2:36 AM, John Mc. wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> >> A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The
> >> U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on
> >> acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the
> >> Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits
> >> permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even
> >> though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no
> >> intention of selling it......"
> >
> >As I said, before 1996, that was the law. But I think that in 1996 these
> >extremely strict standards were relaxed somewhat, and it was possible
> >under some special circumstances to opt out of the quota system,
> >providing, of course, that one renounced all forms of government
> >subsidy, including insurance. On the other hand, I could be wrong. It
> >wouldn't be the first time.
>

> I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday,
> explaining
> to the person on the other end that they were part of the conservation
> program
> in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is that the
> government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a set period of
> time."
>
> In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems
> quite
> stupid to me.

It's not always that simple.

Take the example of a kid told to clean his plate because there are
starving millions in Asia and Africa. The kid always rolls his eyes,
because he knows that's just parental rhetoric and that whether he eats
his vegetables has nothing to do with feeding the starving millions.

Similarly, with farmland, there might not be a market or a mechanism to
get a farmer's surplus grain to a Third World country where it is needed,
and what's the use of creating local surpluses that are going to rot in
the fields or the silos?

And while there are famine areas where emergency food aid is desperately
needed, most of the time it probably makes more sense to enhance a
country's ability to grow its own food than for it to go into debt to
import food from First World countries. I think that's increasingly
happening in a number of countries that used to be notorious for food
shortages.

That's not to defend all farm subsidy policies. There is lots of
stupidity out there. But I'm all in favour of regulating food production
so as to even out farm income, meet demand and facilitate sales and
transport to markets, whether it's by government, marketing boards,
farmers' cooperatives, etc. It's not the sort of thing an individual
farmer can do.

On the face of it, paying a farmer to grow nothing for a period of time
seems like a horrible waste. But I can conceive of circumstances in
which it's the most practical thing to do.

bill

[Charles Wm. Dimmick]

There used to be a lot more crop rotation than there is now. But the
School of Agriculture at the University of Florida has been involved in
several pilot programs showing that proper crop rotation, in the long
run, increases total crop yield, greatly reduces the need for fertilizer
and pest control, and results in overall increase in farm profits over a
course of several years.

Sometimes old ways best ways.

Charles

[Jared]

If you let the U.S. farmer grow wheat, and shipped it to the country
with starving people, it's going to drive down the prices of wheat from
local farmers, who are going to be further impoverished and probably
become terrorists who hate the U.S.

--
Jared

[Kevin]

It was necessary to starve the village in order to save it.

[Mark Steese]

Bill Turlock <Bill.T...@sonnnic.invalid> wrote in
news:73nuq7lj8qee59ivo...@4ax.com:

> That just ain't right.

It ain't true, either. The Feds notified Filburn in July 1940 (before
the fall planting season - Filburn grew winter wheat) that his wheat
allotment for 1941 was 11.1 acres of wheat: he sowed 11.9 additional
acres with wheat, harvested the extra wheat (after receiving a second
notice about his allotment), and got it ready for market. It's difficult
to escape the conclusion that he was deliberately defying the imposition
of allotments.

Filburn was assessed a $117.11 fine ($0.49 per bushel) for growing the
additional wheat. He refused to pay the fine, and he refused to
either store the excess (for which he would have been compensated) or
deliver it to the Secretary of Agriculture. The Montgomery County
Agricultural Committee refused to grant him his marketing card unless he
accepted the penalty or took the prescribed steps to mitigate it (see
below). Note that Filburn would only have needed a marketing card to
sell the wheat, which he said he didn't intend to do. Filburn sued the
Agricultural Committee, which suggests that his real goal in growing and
harvesting the additional wheat was the creation of a test case.

The Wiki article's claim that the Feds established limits on wheat
production "in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great
Depression" is grossly misleading. In fact, the Agricultural Adjustment
Act was intended to *stabilize* wheat prices - which is actually pointed
out later in the same article!

The District Court that upheld Filburn's lawsuit did so on a
technicality: at the time Filburn planted the wheat, the fine was
fifteen cents per bushel: while the crop was growing, a majority of the
nation's wheat farmers approved a referendum on the 1938 act that
increased the fine to forty-nine cents. The District Court ruled that it
was unfair to apply the increased fine, or any amount above fifteen
cents per bushel, to Filburn. The Department of Agriculture appealed,
and the case went to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's decision noted that

the penalty was contingent upon an act which appellee committed not
before, but after, the enactment of the statute, and, had he chosen
to cut his excess and cure it or feed it as hay, or to reap and feed
it with the head and straw together, no penalty would have been
demanded. Such manner of consumption is not uncommon. Only when he
threshed, and thereby made it a part of the bulk of wheat
overhanging the market, did he become subject to penalty. He has
made no effort to show that the value of his excess wheat consumed
without threshing was less than it would have been had it been
threshed while subject to the statutory provisions in force at the
time of planting. Concurrently with the increase in the amount of
the penalty, Congress authorized a substantial increase in the
amount of the loan which might be made to cooperators upon stored
farm marketing excess wheat. That appellee is the worse off for the
aggregate of this legislation does not appear; it only appears that,
if he could get all that the Government gives and do nothing that
the Government asks, he would be better off than this law allows. To
deny him this is not to deny him due process of law.

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/317/111/case.html

Filburn's claim that he never intended to sell the excess wheat is
falsified by the fact that he prepared it for sale: if, as he claimed,
the wheat was only intended for his livestock, there was no need to
thresh it.

(Amusingly, some accounts of the Filburn case claim that he grew the
additional wheat so his family would have bread to eat. Jim Chen, a
legal scholar who has written a couple of essays on *Filburn*, noted
that 239 bushels of wheat yields enough flour to produce over 45 loaves
of bread every day for a year. Seems like that would require an
unusually large family, doesn't it? Maybe Filburn was a Mormon.)

The phrase "it only appears that, if he could get all that the
Government gives and do nothing that the Government asks, he would be
better off than this law allows" gives a hint as to why *Wickard v.
Filburn* has become such a popular case among the Teabaggers.
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris,
without any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his
Lily Queen into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[Jared]

Well, I'm saying the farmers are villagers, and they can't feed their
children if foreigners are dumping commodities into the local market.

--
Jared

[Mark Steese]

Jared <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jop27d$g8j$2...@speranza.aioe.org:

> On 5/13/2012 1:32 PM, Xho Jingleheimerschmidt wrote:
>> On 05/13/2012 05:21 AM, Mara wrote:
>>>
>>> I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday,
>>> explaining
>>> to the person on the other end that they were part of the
>>> conservation program
>>> in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is
>>> that the government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a
>>> set period of time."
>>>
>>> In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this
>>> seems quite stupid to me.
>>
>> People are starving in other countries mostly because their neighbors
>> or governments want them to be. Some guy in Kansas planting a few
>> more acres isn't going to change that.
>>
>> The stupidity of this policy stands or falls on its own two feet.
>

> If you let the U.S. farmer grow wheat, and shipped it to the country
> with starving people, it's going to drive down the prices of wheat
> from local farmers, who are going to be further impoverished and
> probably become terrorists who hate the U.S.

In the event that the country with starving people also has significant
domestic wheat production, the government of said country can impose
tariffs on wheat imports to protect local farmers. Of course, if the
country has both starving people and significant domestic wheat
production, then the country's politics are almost certainly a prime
reason why people are starving. The 1983-1985 famine in Ethiopia was
greatly exacerbated by the government's refusal to send relief supplies
into areas occupied by insurgent factions and the forced relocation of
hundreds of thousands of citizens from areas under rebel control to
areas where the Mengistu regime's power was secure. See, for example,
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/24/g8.debtrelief
--
The "Kinkade Glow" could be seen as derived in spirit from the
"lustrous, pearly mist" that Mark Twain had derided in the Bierstadt
paintings, and, the level of execution to one side, there are certain
unsettling similarities between the two painters. -Joan Didion

[Mara]

That's kind of my point. We can fly in aid during disasters like tsunamis and
such; why not starvation? If it's going to rot here why not send it to those who
will die without it?

Or perhaps I'm too sympathetic. I kind of doubt it, though.

>And while there are famine areas where emergency food aid is desperately
>needed, most of the time it probably makes more sense to enhance a
>country's ability to grow its own food than for it to go into debt to
>import food from First World countries. I think that's increasingly
>happening in a number of countries that used to be notorious for food
>shortages.

That's what we're doing right now. A processing plant just like the first one I
run was built here and shipped out and set up in Zimbabwe. So, yes, it can be
done. But it's still my opinion that we could do more. Not we as a company, but
we as in the nation.

>That's not to defend all farm subsidy policies. There is lots of
>stupidity out there. But I'm all in favour of regulating food production
>so as to even out farm income, meet demand and facilitate sales and
>transport to markets, whether it's by government, marketing boards,
>farmers' cooperatives, etc. It's not the sort of thing an individual
>farmer can do.
>
>On the face of it, paying a farmer to grow nothing for a period of time
>seems like a horrible waste. But I can conceive of circumstances in
>which it's the most practical thing to do.

Good points all, but I can dream, can't I?

>bill

[Mark Steese]

Jared <jare...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:jopfft$l5b$1...@speranza.aioe.org:

So these villagers are trying to sell wheat that they could be using to
feed their children? And when they can't sell it, they become terrorists
instead of, I don't know, using the unsold wheat to feed their children?
These guys have *problems*.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <gd5vq7tsk8385lb59...@4ax.com>,

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>:>Start by making sure that every Republican politician you are in a
>:>position to vote against knows that women outnumber men, and they
>:>are losing the votes of women.
>
>Because all, or a majority, of women support abortion as a method of birth
>control?

No, but most of them use various forms of birth control, and the GOP's
recent legislative efforts are not just aimed at trying to remove
insurance coverage for it, but to make birth control itself illegal:

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/blogs/the_podium/2012/03/is_birth_control_the_new_abort.html

And then FOX news gives guys like this TV screentime:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/rev-jesse-lee-peterson-women-vote-greatest-mistakes-america-made-article-1.1075372

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <a19nak...@mid.individual.net>,
Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>

>I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday, explaining
>to the person on the other end that they were part of the conservation program
>in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is that the
>government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a set period of time."

If it is a conservation program, it may have something to do with topsoil
retention. Remember the dustbowl?

Another case I heard of had to do with fertilizer runoff from farms
causing havoc with rivers, and a farmer being paid to turn one of his
fields into a "recovered wetland"--an artificial marsh--into which the
runoff from several neighboring farms was directed. I guess the
idea was that the fertlizer would go into the growth of marshy plants
on that one plot, and the exiting water would be less contaminated.
Natural wetlands have been called "America's kidneys", so I guess this
artificial wetland was supposed to do something similar.

>In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems quite
>stupid to me.

Getting as many crops as possible out the land may result in more
production this year, and maybe the year after, but a heck of lot
less for many years after once the soil blows away.

[Mara]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 04:37:19 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

>
>In article <a19nak...@mid.individual.net>,
>Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday, explaining
>>to the person on the other end that they were part of the conservation program
>>in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple explanation is that the
>>government pays you not to grow anything on that land for a set period of time."
>
>If it is a conservation program, it may have something to do with topsoil
>retention. Remember the dustbowl?
>
>Another case I heard of had to do with fertilizer runoff from farms
>causing havoc with rivers, and a farmer being paid to turn one of his
>fields into a "recovered wetland"--an artificial marsh--into which the
>runoff from several neighboring farms was directed. I guess the
>idea was that the fertlizer would go into the growth of marshy plants
>on that one plot, and the exiting water would be less contaminated.
>Natural wetlands have been called "America's kidneys", so I guess this
>artificial wetland was supposed to do something similar.

No wetlands here. I'd have to go about 3 1/2 hours SE to get to any of those.
There are reservoirs that supply water to various towns - and irrigation, so
most of them are way down. Some of the pics I've posted on G+ show the water
fluctuations. Cedar Bluff was up, then down, then up again. As summer comes, it
will nearly drain dry.

>>In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems quite
>>stupid to me.
>
>Getting as many crops as possible out the land may result in more
>production this year, and maybe the year after, but a heck of lot
>less for many years after once the soil blows away.

That's what cover crops are for, isn't it? I understand clover puts nitrogen
back into the soil to boot.

[Snidely]

Mara submitted this idea :

> On Mon, 14 May 2012 04:37:19 +0000 (UTC), nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek)
> wrote:
>> Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday,
>>> explaining to the person on the other end that they were part of the
>>> conservation program in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple
>>> explanation is that the government pays you not to grow anything on that
>>> land for a set period of time."

[...]

>> Getting as many crops as possible out the land may result in more
>> production this year, and maybe the year after, but a heck of lot
>> less for many years after once the soil blows away.
>
> That's what cover crops are for, isn't it? I understand clover puts nitrogen
> back into the soil to boot.

Yes, and I'm pretty sure that clover is what you do "when the
government pays you not to grow anything on the land for a set period
of time." I don't think you're required to leave the field bare; it's
not growing cash crops.

[Lee Ayrton]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 04:25:26 +0000, Paul Ciszek wrote:

>>Because all, or a majority, of women support abortion as a method of
>>birth control?
>
> No, but most of them use various forms of birth control, and the GOP's
> recent legislative efforts are not just aimed at trying to remove
> insurance coverage for it, but to make birth control itself illegal:

So abortion was really just the thin edge of the wedge?

[Heather]

On Fri, 11 May 2012 13:29:32 -0700 (PDT), "()" <karo...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Of course it hasn't. They drink methylated spirits.


--
Heather

[Greg Goss]

Nasti J <njgi...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On May 9, 10:14 am, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>
>> The funny thing is, AFA dixiecrats, is that I'm actually *related* toRobertE.Lee, or rather, a direct descendant of his brother. But I don't cotton to this
>> crap. And I've told my representative outright that I *would* vote - and it
>> wouldn't be for him, nor would I encourage anyone to do it.
>
>D you actually believe that political beliefs are passed along as part
>of your DNA? Sir John Lisle was my 8th-great-grandfather, but I'm no
>proponent of regicide.

NJM told me that a simple Grandfather wasn't close enough to be
significant for my risk of that particular form of cancer. I don't
think that 8th great grandfather has any noticeable bearing on your
DNA at all, except maybe for Y-chromosome-linked issues.
--
I used to own a mind like a steel trap.
Perhaps if I'd specified a brass one, it
wouldn't have rusted like this.

[Nasti J]

On May 14, 10:46 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> Nasti J <njgill...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On May 9, 10:14 am, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>

> >> The funny thing is, AFA dixiecrats, is that I'm actually *related* toRobertE.Lee, or rather, a direct descendant of his brother.

Mara seemed to be saying that being a "dixiecrat" was something
inherent, as a result of being descended from Robt E lee's brother.


I was pointing out that I did not think that was true, based on the
political beliefs of my ancestor that I do not share.

> >Do you actually believe that political beliefs are passed along as part

> >of your DNA? Sir John Lisle was my 8th-great-grandfather, but I'm no
> >proponent of regicide.

I';m sure Jill didn't mean to call your grandfather simple - she's a
much kinder person than that.

> NJM told me that a simple Grandfather wasn't close enough to be
> significant for my risk of that particular form of cancer.  I don't
> think that 8th great grandfather has any noticeable bearing on your
> DNA at all, except maybe for Y-chromosome-linked issues.

There was no mention of disease or any hereditary links or causes of
same. Being a party to dethroning and beheading the king did have a
detrimental effect on Sir John's health - after the Restoration, he
fled to Switzerland where he was assassinated by a Royalist.

I've wondered if the occasion should ever arise that I were to be
introduced to the Queen, whether I'd have to be vetted first and when
they found out about Sir John the invitation would be rescinded...

[Mara]

On Mon, 14 May 2012 23:46:16 -0600, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:


[Dammit, I'm not getting all posts. Sorry for piggybacking, Greg.]

>Nasti J <njgi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On May 9, 10:14 am, Mara <g...@awaynow.becauseIsaidso.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The funny thing is, AFA dixiecrats, is that I'm actually *related* toRobertE.Lee, or rather, a direct descendant of his brother. But I don't cotton to this
>>> crap. And I've told my representative outright that I *would* vote - and it
>>> wouldn't be for him, nor would I encourage anyone to do it.
>>
>>D you actually believe that political beliefs are passed along as part
>>of your DNA? Sir John Lisle was my 8th-great-grandfather, but I'm no
>>proponent of regicide.

No, but it's what everyone else around here believes. Along with a number of
other antiquated [read: ignorant] beliefs.

>NJM told me that a simple Grandfather wasn't close enough to be
>significant for my risk of that particular form of cancer. I don't
>think that 8th great grandfather has any noticeable bearing on your
>DNA at all, except maybe for Y-chromosome-linked issues.

--

[mike muth]

On 9-May-2012, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:

> Do the farmers seriously expect to continue to recieve subsidy checks
> after they are no longer part of the United States?

They wanted to follow precedent set by Vermont, Maine, and West Virginia -
leave their current state and create a new one. Had they done so, Kansas
would likely be dominated by the democrats since their strength is in
Wichita and the KC area.

--
Mike

[mike muth]

Back when I was a lad, Kansas was actually a pretty moderate place. Alas,
that was when the GOP still [usually] acted rationally. When I came back
from a 2 1/2 year tour in Germany last year, I could see how things had
significantly degenerated in that short time.

--
Mike

[Lee Ayrton]

I wonder what would account for such a sudden mass conversion. Pod
People, perhaps?

[Mara]

I think it's because they refuse to move with the times. Most computers are big
solitaire machines here, and most people can't figure out a smart phone.My aunt
and cousin have Kindles though, (as do I) so there may be some slight hope.

Don't even get me started on the way women are treated.

[Greg Goss]

A lot of it has to do with what Sullivan calls "epistemic closure".
If you have your own private echo chamber and manage to convince your
base to refuse to listen to any other media, then manipulation by
interest groups becomes vastly easier.

[Mark Steese]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:a1ft6o...@mid.individual.net:

> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:50:16 +0000, mike muth wrote:
>>
>>> Back when I was a lad, Kansas was actually a pretty moderate place.
>>> Alas, that was when the GOP still [usually] acted rationally. When I
>>> came back from a 2 1/2 year tour in Germany last year, I could see how
>>> things had significantly degenerated in that short time.
>>
>>I wonder what would account for such a sudden mass conversion. Pod
>>People, perhaps?
>
> A lot of it has to do with what Sullivan calls "epistemic closure".
> If you have your own private echo chamber and manage to convince your
> base to refuse to listen to any other media, then manipulation by
> interest groups becomes vastly easier.

Those are some pretty big ifs, there.
--
The Alps are grand in their beauty, Mount Shasta is sublime in its
desolation. -William H. Brewer

[D.F. Manno]

Binyamin Dissen <post...@dissensoftware.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 9 May 2012 19:26:31 +0000 (UTC) nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
> :>Start by making sure that every Republican politician you are in a
> :>position to vote against knows that women outnumber men, and they
> :>are losing the votes of women.
>

> Because all, or a majority, of women support abortion as a method of birth
> control?

Nice straw man ya got there. Be a shame if anything were to happen to it,
like dying in a fire.


--
D.F. Manno

[Mike Muth]

On May 9, 9:35 am, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On May 9, 5:10 am, "mike muth" <m...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:
>
> > Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
> > next year.  The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
> > taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary ownerships
> > (thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
> > lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting corporate
> > taxes (he wants to eliminate those).  This will produce a $161 million
> > shortfall next year.  (sound familiar so far?).
>

> > Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.
>

> This really needs a billboard about every 10 miles along I-80.

I-70 traverses the state West to East (or is it East to West), and the
N-S corridor is I-35/135/335.

> I am with Lee. I no longer recognize the country I grew up in, and it
> scares me.

It scares me that I can look back on the Nixon years as relatively
benign.

--
Mike

[Shawn Wilson]

On May 15, 1:38 pm, Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:

> A lot of it has to do with what Sullivan calls "epistemic closure".
> If you have your own private echo chamber and manage to convince your
> base to refuse to listen to any other media, then manipulation by
> interest groups becomes vastly easier.

Speaking of the LEFT...

I mean, what is big media if not a Leftist echo chamber? That you
will cite Fox News and the Wall Street Journal as the Great Right Wing
Conspiracy only proves my point...

[Greg Goss]

Wall Street news is fairly straight. Their editorial pages are
biased, but with the mix of the two, it doesn't meet the "closure"
requirements. I didn't cite them at all.

[Xho Jingleheimerschmidt]

On 05/15/2012 08:03 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Shawn Wilson<ikono...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On May 15, 1:38 pm, Greg Goss<go...@gossg.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A lot of it has to do with what Sullivan calls "epistemic closure".
>>> If you have your own private echo chamber and manage to convince your
>>> base to refuse to listen to any other media, then manipulation by
>>> interest groups becomes vastly easier.
>>
>>
>> Speaking of the LEFT...
>>
>> I mean, what is big media if not a Leftist echo chamber? That you
>> will cite Fox News and the Wall Street Journal as the Great Right Wing
>> Conspiracy only proves my point...
>
> Wall Street news is fairly straight. Their editorial pages are
> biased,

Biased? I'd think squirrel-fucking insane is a better descriptor.

Xho

[S. Checker]

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:a1ft6o...@mid.individual.net:
>
>> Lee Ayrton <lay...@panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 15 May 2012 12:50:16 +0000, mike muth wrote:
>>>
>>>> Back when I was a lad, Kansas was actually a pretty moderate place.
>>>> Alas, that was when the GOP still [usually] acted rationally. When I
>>>> came back from a 2 1/2 year tour in Germany last year, I could see how
>>>> things had significantly degenerated in that short time.
>>>
>>>I wonder what would account for such a sudden mass conversion. Pod
>>>People, perhaps?
>>
>> A lot of it has to do with what Sullivan calls "epistemic closure".
>> If you have your own private echo chamber and manage to convince your
>> base to refuse to listen to any other media, then manipulation by
>> interest groups becomes vastly easier.
>
> Those are some pretty big ifs, there.

There's a trend on both sides now to spend at least some time attacking
what the other side is reporting, in what can only be seen as an
attempt to discredit them. I know some folks now who have stopped
taking the local paper and only get their news through Fox, Drudge, The
Rush Report, the Journal and the National Review. It's an amazing and
depressing view of the world around you, and needless to say political
conversations are impossible.

Of course Jon Stewart makes fun of Fox and other media and the one time
I watched some other cable news channel (MSNBC maybe) the talking head
was in the middle of what was obviously a long and drawn-out battle
with Bill O'Reilly. I give Jon a pass because if you're doing a show
based on absurdist humor, Fox News really is the wellhead.
--
The absence of tropical yaks must mean *something*.
-- Nathan Tenny, Natural Philosopher

[Snidely]

Snidely speculated:
> Mara speculated:

>> On Sun, 13 May 2012 07:26:19 -0400, "Charles Wm. Dimmick"
>> <cdim...@snet.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/2012 2:36 AM, John Mc. wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>> A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The
>>>> U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on
>>>> acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the
>>>> Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits
>>>> permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even
>>>> though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no
>>>> intention of selling it......"
>>>
>>> As I said, before 1996, that was the law. But I think that in 1996 these
>>> extremely strict standards were relaxed somewhat, and it was possible
>>> under some special circumstances to opt out of the quota system,
>>> providing, of course, that one renounced all forms of government subsidy,
>>> including insurance. On the other hand, I could be wrong. It wouldn't be
>>> the first time.
>>>

>>> charles

>>
>> I overheard a colleague who owns a farm talking on the phone Friday,
>> explaining to the person on the other end that they were part of the
>> conservation program in Kansas. Her exact words were "Well, the simple
>> explanation is that the government pays you not to grow anything on that
>> land for a set period of time."
>>

>> In a word where there are people starving in other countries, this seems
>> quite stupid to me.
>

> considering that some of the places that people are starving once had fertile
> soil that was depleted by overfarming, I don't have a problem with letting
> fields lie fallow for a while. Although sometimes vetch and clover can be
> commercial crops.

Also, consider ...

<quote>
We think so. And it’s something very simple, very obvious, something
that few want to hear: The epidemic was caused by the overproduction of
food in the United States.

Beginning in the 1970s, there was a change in national agricultural
policy. Instead of the government paying farmers not to engage in full
production, as was the practice, they were encouraged to grow as much
food as they could. At the same time, technological changes and the
“green revolution” made our farms much more productive. The price of
food plummeted, while the number of calories available to the average
American grew by about 1,000 a day.
</quote>
Carson C. Chow, National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney
Diseases, interviewed in the New York Times.
<http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/15/science/a-mathematical-challenge-to-obesity.html>

[Mark Steese]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mn.9cf37dc5d3841e75.127094@snitoo:
> Snidely speculated:
>> Mara speculated:
[snip]

That probably contributed to the "epidemic," but I think Chow was
mistaken to assert that it was the cause (assuming the interviewer
quoted him correctly). It's not as though the 1970s was the first time
in U.S. history when food was relatively cheap and plentiful.

I think the rise in obesity rates stemmed from a number of causes, no
one of which was decisive: in addition to the availability of relatively
inexpensive and fattening foods, there was also an increase in sedentary
behaviors, e.g., children sitting in front of the television for hours
at a stretch. And then you need to factor in the advertisements for
candy, soft drinks, potato chips, prepackaged pastries, etc., that
children were exposed to over and over again while they sat around
watching television. Those are just a few of the factors: consider the
fact that when children weren't sitting in front of the television, they
were sitting in a school bus, or sitting behind their desks at
school...and many of them grew up and took office jobs that required
even more sitting behind a desk.

There are many, many other factors, including cultural attitudes towards
food - a society that considers steak and potatoes to be the best kind
of dining is not encouraging people to be skinny. The increasing
popularity of fast-food restaurants serving the quick version of steak
and potatoes - hamburgers and french fries - also played a role, as did
the increased popularity of prepackaged foods in general. And then
there was people's increasing preference for driving instead of walking,
and numerous other factors that all came together to create a nearly
ideal historical moment for widespread fatness in the United States.
--
Each gull had his preferred attack technique. The Nibbler favored a
sharp bite to the Achilles tendon, while the Shitmeister would swoop
low, unloading his special delivery. And then there was Spike.
-Susan Casey

[Kevin]

I wonder too if the advent of large high schools in the US had
somthing to do with it; one big high school instead of six or eight
smaller schools has one set of sports teams, instead of six or eight,
and a 'fan culture' rather than a 'participation culture'. My father
in law played football in high school and college at very small
schools. I don't think there's any way he'd have been a football
player today. Many fewer teams, many fewer players, much diminished
activity levels in and after high school.

[Snidely]

Mark Steese was thinking very hard :

He is asked about this.

> The increasing
> popularity of fast-food restaurants serving the quick version of steak
> and potatoes - hamburgers and french fries - also played a role, as did
> the increased popularity of prepackaged foods in general. And then

The rise in fast food corresponds to the rise in cheap food, he
asserted in the interview.

[Veronique]

On May 20, 11:33 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote innews:mn.9cf37dc5d3841e75.127094@snitoo:

Not to be argumentative, I really want to know. When was food as cheap
and plentiful? It has continued to be cheap and plentiful in the US
from the 1970s onward, but everything I've read points out this is the
first time in history it is so as an on-going phenomenon.

>
> I think the rise in obesity rates stemmed from a number of causes, no

> one of which was decisive: [...]

I just read in the latest Scientific American (subscription, prolly
not out on the racks yet) that (over)use of antibiotics in childhood
have decreased the incidence of H. pylori, which (in addition to
causing ulcers when they get out of whack) plays a role in regulating
appetite.

"...The study of 92 veterans showed that those treated with
antibiotics to eliminate H. pylori gained more weight in comparison to
their uninfected peers-- possibly because their ghrelin [a hormone
that tells the body when to eat] level stayed elevated when it should
have dropped, causing them to feel hungry longer and to eat too much.
Two or three generations ago more than 80 percent of Americans played
host to the hardy bug. Now less than 6 percent of American children
test positive for it."



V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep

[Mark Steese]

Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:mn.a3b07dc519ea41f1.127094@snitoo:

> Mark Steese was thinking very hard :
>> Snidely <snide...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:mn.9cf37dc5d3841e75.127094@snitoo:
>>> Snidely speculated:

[snip]

Was he? I didn't see it in the interview. Chow said "we should stop
marketing food to children," but if he said anything about dragging
them away from the TV, I missed it. (Do kids even watch TV any more?
Maybe they've all switched to computers, or smartphones, or some damn
thing. Grumble, grumble, kids on my lawn, grumble...)

>> The increasing
>> popularity of fast-food restaurants serving the quick version of
>> steak and potatoes - hamburgers and french fries - also played a
>> role, as did the increased popularity of prepackaged foods in
>> general. And then
>
> The rise in fast food corresponds to the rise in cheap food, he
> asserted in the interview.

Except that it didn't - not if the low cost of food resulted from
political decisions in the 1970s. The first McDonald's franchise opened
in 1955, and the thousandth opened in 1968. Burger King didn't grow as
quickly, but there were 250 of them when Pillsbury bought the franchise
in 1967. The first Kentucky Fried Chicken was opened in 1952, and there
were over 600 when Heublein bought the franchise in 1964. Taco Bell
started in 1962 and had 325 locations when it went public in 1970. There
were 145 Pizza Huts and 180 Jack in the Box locations by 1966. Other
hamburger joints that were already up and running before the 1970s
include In-N-Out (1948), Carl's Jr. (1956), Hardee's (1960), and the
granddaddy of 'em all, White Castle (1921!).

And that's not counting such sugar-and-fat emporia as Dunkin' Donuts
(the first franchise opened in 1955; there were 100 locations by 1963).
The U.S. was well on its way to becoming Fast Food Nation before the
1970s change in ag policy that Chow blames for the "epidemic."

(It occurred to me that the drive to get people to stop smoking may be
yet another factor that contributed to the increase in fatness. In 1965,
about 42.4% of adults in the U.S. were smokers; as of 2010, about 19.3%
were. A lot of people start gaining weight when they quit smoking...)
--
The main house contained a carefully tuned piano at which Harris,
without any previous musical training, could play and thereby invoke his
Lily Queen into "electro-vital form." -Robert Hine

[Mark Steese]

Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:57310d52-9309-40df...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com:

> On May 20, 11:33 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Snidely <snidely....@gmail.com> wrote
>> innews:mn.9cf37dc5d3841e75.127094@snitoo:
>> > Snidely speculated:

[snip]

It was cheap and plentiful back in the 1920s, if the prices listed in
newspapers of the period are any indication. In 1921, you could buy a
pound of bacon for ten cents; even adjusted for inflation, that comes
out to about $1.20 in today's money. A loaf of A & P bread went for six
cents; a box of Grape Nuts could be had for 17 cents; a dozen eggs were
47 cents; peanut butter was 15 cents a pound; sugar was *five* cents a
pound. In 1925 you could buy ten pounds of potatoes for 36 cents, coffee
for 50 cents a pound (about $6.22 in today's dollars) and a half-gallon
of milk for 28 cents. (The price of sugar had risen, though - a
five-pound bag set you back 35 cents.)

>> I think the rise in obesity rates stemmed from a number of causes, no
>> one of which was decisive: [...]
>
> I just read in the latest Scientific American (subscription, prolly
> not out on the racks yet) that (over)use of antibiotics in childhood
> have decreased the incidence of H. pylori, which (in addition to
> causing ulcers when they get out of whack) plays a role in regulating
> appetite.
>
> "...The study of 92 veterans showed that those treated with
> antibiotics to eliminate H. pylori gained more weight in comparison to
> their uninfected peers-- possibly because their ghrelin [a hormone
> that tells the body when to eat] level stayed elevated when it should
> have dropped, causing them to feel hungry longer and to eat too much.
> Two or three generations ago more than 80 percent of Americans played
> host to the hardy bug. Now less than 6 percent of American children
> test positive for it."

Ah, the good old law of unintended consequences.

I suspect that increases in the general health of the populace have
contributed significantly to people's ability to get fat. People in the
19th century didn't need diet books: they had cholera.

[bill van]

In article <XnsA05A11E...@88.198.244.100>,

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:57310d52-9309-40df...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com:
>

> > Not to be argumentative, I really want to know. When was food as cheap
> > and plentiful? It has continued to be cheap and plentiful in the US
> > from the 1970s onward, but everything I've read points out this is the
> > first time in history it is so as an on-going phenomenon.
>
> It was cheap and plentiful back in the 1920s, if the prices listed in
> newspapers of the period are any indication.

But by themselves they're not much of an indication, are they?

> In 1921, you could buy a
> pound of bacon for ten cents; even adjusted for inflation, that comes
> out to about $1.20 in today's money. A loaf of A & P bread went for six
> cents; a box of Grape Nuts could be had for 17 cents; a dozen eggs were
> 47 cents; peanut butter was 15 cents a pound; sugar was *five* cents a
> pound. In 1925 you could buy ten pounds of potatoes for 36 cents, coffee
> for 50 cents a pound (about $6.22 in today's dollars) and a half-gallon
> of milk for 28 cents. (The price of sugar had risen, though - a
> five-pound bag set you back 35 cents.)
>

Surely you need a way to compare the cost of food with people's incomes.
That's the only way to tell whether they could afford food at those
prices.

bill

[Nasti J]

On May 21, 12:25 am, bill van <bill...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote:

> Surely you need a way to compare the cost of food with people's incomes.
> That's the only way to tell whether they could afford food at those
> prices.

http://mjperry.blogspot.com/2009/07/spending-on-food-at-all-time-historical.html

"n the entire history of the U.S., it's only been in the last eight
years that the percent of income spent on food for Americans was in
single digits - since 2000 it's been below 10%. In all previous years,
spending on food was in double-digits, and in most years from 1929 to
1952 it was above 20%. Consider that in 1932, spending on food at home
took almost 22% of disposable income, compared to the record low of
only 5.6% in 2008. Food has never been more affordable than today, as
a share of income." THURSDAY, JULY 16, 2009

[Mark Steese]

Nasti J <njgi...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:1623b79a-e84a-46ce...@l5g2000pbo.googlegroups.com:

But people have more disposable income now than they used to, even
adjusting for inflation. According to a 2011 Congressional Research
Service report, "Consumers and Food Price Inflation," average DPI per
capita quadrupled between 1933 and 2009: in 1933, somebody spending
25.2% of his disposable income on food was spending about $914 in
1982-1984 dollars, while someone spending 9.7% of his disposable income
on food in 2004 was spending over $1,552. Thus, food is not more
affordable today than ever before, even as a share of disposable
personal income.

Perry's a professor of economics and finance, eh? Hm.

See http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40545.pdf for the full report. The
link to the USDA/ERS figures on Perry's blog doesn't work any more, but
I was able to find the figures he used:

http://www.ers.usda.gov/briefing/cpifoodandexpenditures/Data/Expenditures_tables/table7.htm

http://1.usa.gov/K44wF4
--
The least objectionable of the inland scavengers is the raven,
frequenter of the desert ranges, the same called locally "carrion crow."
He is handsomer and has such an air. -Mary Austin

[Mark Steese]

bill van <bil...@delete.shaw.ca> wrote in
news:billvan-B04127...@news.shawcable.net:

> In article <XnsA05A11E...@88.198.244.100>,
> Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote in

>> news:57310d52-9309-40df-a857-df609511b2d6
@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com

>> :
>>
>> > Not to be argumentative, I really want to know. When was food as
>> > cheap and plentiful? It has continued to be cheap and plentiful in
>> > the US from the 1970s onward, but everything I've read points out
>> > this is the first time in history it is so as an on-going
>> > phenomenon.
>>
>> It was cheap and plentiful back in the 1920s, if the prices listed in
>> newspapers of the period are any indication.
>
> But by themselves they're not much of an indication, are they?
>
>> In 1921, you could buy a
>> pound of bacon for ten cents; even adjusted for inflation, that comes
>> out to about $1.20 in today's money. A loaf of A & P bread went for
>> six cents; a box of Grape Nuts could be had for 17 cents; a dozen
>> eggs were 47 cents; peanut butter was 15 cents a pound; sugar was
>> *five* cents a pound. In 1925 you could buy ten pounds of potatoes
>> for 36 cents, coffee for 50 cents a pound (about $6.22 in today's
>> dollars) and a half-gallon of milk for 28 cents. (The price of sugar
>> had risen, though - a five-pound bag set you back 35 cents.)
>>
> Surely you need a way to compare the cost of food with people's
> incomes.

I do need a way to compare the cost of food with people's incomes, and
don't call me Shirley.

Figure 3 in the report linked below compares real U.S. Disposable
Personal Income per capita and share of Disposable Personal Income spent
on food between 1930 and 2010.

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R40545.pdf

> That's the only way to tell whether they could afford food at
> those prices.

They could, and they did.
--
The boughs rustled, and the air was stirred by the muffled beat of their
wings: I could see them, like unearthly, boding shapes, as they swooped
between me and the stars. -Bayard Taylor

[Veronique]

On May 21, 12:06 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

But what was the average wage in 1920?

I found this (which must be enlarged 65x to be readable PLUS having
the nifty feature of a light gray font on a white background but
anyway), look a few graphs down, and it looks like the average
farmworker wage (a low wage, to be sure, but a significant portion of
the labor force was still back on the farm) of $2.82/day. Dropping to
$1.96/day in 1921 (and not rising back to the 1920 level by the end of
the decade), so that dozen eggs seems pretty pricy to me. For
farmworkers.
http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final


Here's a take from The Economist, with a comparison across a number of
categories. The pork chop indeed seems to have been cheaper then than
now, despite the rise of CAFOs, environmental degradation, and the
suicide of pig farmers in the effort to bring cheap pork to the
American table. But coffee, wine, whiskey, Coca-Cola, and eggs are all
significantly cheaper comparatively than in my grandparents' day.
http://www.economist.com/node/457272

(But bread and potatoes are more expensive, despite electricity being
cheaper. Hmmm.)

[Mark Steese]

Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:31013f26-72ca-4f44...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com:

> On May 21, 12:06 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote

>> innews:57310d52-9309-40df-a85
> 7-df609...@k10g2000pbk.googlegroups.com:

>> > On May 20, 11:33 am, Mark Steese <mark_ste...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> [snip]

>> >> That probably contributed to the "epidemic," but I think Chow was
>> >> mistaken to assert that it was the cause (assuming the interviewer
>> >> quoted him correctly). It's not as though the 1970s was the first
>> >> time in U.S. history when food was relatively cheap and plentiful.
>>
>> > Not to be argumentative, I really want to know. When was food as
>> > cheap and plentiful? It has continued to be cheap and plentiful in
>> > the US from the 1970s onward, but everything I've read points out
>> > this is the first time in history it is so as an on-going
>> > phenomenon.
>>
>> It was cheap and plentiful back in the 1920s, if the prices listed in
>> newspapers of the period are any indication. In 1921, you could buy a
>> pound of bacon for ten cents; even adjusted for inflation, that comes
>> out to about $1.20 in today's money. A loaf of A & P bread went for
>> six cents; a box of Grape Nuts could be had for 17 cents; a dozen
>> eggs were 47 cents; peanut butter was 15 cents a pound; sugar was
>> *five* cents a pound. In 1925 you could buy ten pounds of potatoes
>> for 36 cents, coffee for 50 cents a pound (about $6.22 in today's
>> dollars) and a half-gallon of milk for 28 cents. (The price of sugar
>> had risen, though - a five-pound bag set you back 35 cents.)
>
> But what was the average wage in 1920?

That depends on who you ask.

> I found this (which must be enlarged 65x to be readable PLUS having
> the nifty feature of a light gray font on a white background but
> anyway), look a few graphs down, and it looks like the average
> farmworker wage (a low wage, to be sure, but a significant portion of
> the labor force was still back on the farm) of $2.82/day. Dropping to
> $1.96/day in 1921 (and not rising back to the 1920 level by the end of
> the decade), so that dozen eggs seems pretty pricy to me. For
> farmworkers.
> http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final

Well, yeah - in the 1920s, as now, day laborers on a farm were usually
migrant workers, and migrant workers have never been excessively well-
compensated for their labor. As the chart shows, unskilled laborers in
the factories made substantially more than day laborers on farms
throughout the 1920s, and skilled/semi-skilled factory workers made
still more. According to Smiley's source, Historical Statistics of the
United States: Colonial Times to 1970, skilled/semi-skilled factory
workers put in an average of 49.4 hours a week in 1920; if you figure a
six-day work week, they averaged $4.86 a day. (Note that Smiley deflated
his dollar amounts: if you deflate the prices listed above by the same
factor Smiley used, the eggs were only 40 cents a dozen.)

> Here's a take from The Economist, with a comparison across a number of
> categories. The pork chop indeed seems to have been cheaper then than
> now, despite the rise of CAFOs, environmental degradation, and the
> suicide of pig farmers in the effort to bring cheap pork to the
> American table. But coffee, wine, whiskey, Coca-Cola, and eggs are all
> significantly cheaper comparatively than in my grandparents' day.
> http://www.economist.com/node/457272
>
> (But bread and potatoes are more expensive, despite electricity being
> cheaper. Hmmm.)

The article ascribes the decline in the price of eggs to battery hens.
It's striking that bread, pork chops, and potatoes are all more
expensive now in real terms. Pity they didn't include more foodstuffs.
--
At the World's Columbian Exposition of 1893, a very curious figure stood
in the California State Building: a medieval knight in armor, mounted on
a horse, composed entirely of prunes. -Douglas Sackman

[Dover Beach]

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:XnsA05A8D31...@88.198.244.100:

>
> Well, yeah - in the 1920s, as now, day laborers on a farm were usually
> migrant workers, and migrant workers have never been excessively well-
> compensated for their labor. As the chart shows, unskilled laborers in
> the factories made substantially more than day laborers on farms
> throughout the 1920s, and skilled/semi-skilled factory workers made
> still more. According to Smiley's source, Historical Statistics of the
> United States: Colonial Times to 1970, skilled/semi-skilled factory
> workers put in an average of 49.4 hours a week in 1920; if you figure
> a six-day work week, they averaged $4.86 a day. (Note that Smiley
> deflated his dollar amounts: if you deflate the prices listed above by
> the same factor Smiley used, the eggs were only 40 cents a dozen.)
>

A lot of agricultural workers were black, too. Page Smith has a long,
depressing section about black agricultural workers (and other black
itinerant workers) in _Redeeming the Time: A People's History of the
1920s and the New Deal_. Life seriously sucked for them. I read the
whole section out of some kind of misguided moral duty, and was
depressed for days afterward.

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <XnsA0597588...@88.198.244.100>,

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>There are many, many other factors, including cultural attitudes towards
>food - a society that considers steak and potatoes to be the best kind
>of dining is not encouraging people to be skinny. The increasing

That is hardly new. Actually, trimming the fat off a cut of meat before
you eat is fairly modern.

--
Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
| remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <XnsA05A11E...@88.198.244.100>,

Mark Steese <mark_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>It was cheap and plentiful back in the 1920s, if the prices listed in
>newspapers of the period are any indication. In 1921, you could buy a
>pound of bacon for ten cents; even adjusted for inflation, that comes
>out to about $1.20 in today's money. A loaf of A & P bread went for six
>cents; a box of Grape Nuts could be had for 17 cents; a dozen eggs were
>47 cents; peanut butter was 15 cents a pound; sugar was *five* cents a
>pound. In 1925 you could buy ten pounds of potatoes for 36 cents, coffee
>for 50 cents a pound (about $6.22 in today's dollars) and a half-gallon
>of milk for 28 cents. (The price of sugar had risen, though - a
>five-pound bag set you back 35 cents.)

About the "in today's money" numbers--how do they compare to an unskilled
laborer's wages then vs. now?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <31013f26-72ca-4f44...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>But what was the average wage in 1920?
>
>I found this (which must be enlarged 65x to be readable PLUS having
>the nifty feature of a light gray font on a white background but
>anyway), look a few graphs down, and it looks like the average
>farmworker wage (a low wage, to be sure, but a significant portion of
>the labor force was still back on the farm) of $2.82/day. Dropping to
>$1.96/day in 1921 (and not rising back to the 1920 level by the end of
>the decade), so that dozen eggs seems pretty pricy to me. For
>farmworkers.
>http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final
>
>
>Here's a take from The Economist, with a comparison across a number of
>categories. The pork chop indeed seems to have been cheaper then than
>now, despite the rise of CAFOs, environmental degradation, and the
>suicide of pig farmers in the effort to bring cheap pork to the
>American table. But coffee, wine, whiskey, Coca-Cola, and eggs are all
>significantly cheaper comparatively than in my grandparents' day.

You know, there was a *reason* that whiskey was more expensive between
1919 and 1933 than it was before or after. I'm surprised that anyone
bothered with wine, though--the alcohol-to-weight ratio is too low.

[rroger]

On May 22, 9:41 am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <31013f26-72ca-4f44-8ba0-4e0ea6718...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Veronique  <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >But what was the average wage in 1920?
>
> >I found this (which must be enlarged 65x to be readable PLUS having
> >the nifty feature of a light gray font on a white background but
> >anyway), look a few graphs down, and it looks like the average
> >farmworker wage (a low wage, to be sure, but a significant portion of
> >the labor force was still back on the farm) of $2.82/day. Dropping to
> >$1.96/day in 1921 (and not rising back to the 1920 level by the end of
> >the decade), so that dozen eggs seems pretty pricy to me. For
> >farmworkers.
> >http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final
>
> >Here's a take from The Economist, with a comparison across a number of
> >categories. The pork chop indeed seems to have been cheaper then than
> >now, despite the rise of CAFOs, environmental degradation, and the
> >suicide of pig farmers in the effort to bring cheap pork to the
> >American table. But coffee, wine, whiskey, Coca-Cola, and eggs are all
> >significantly cheaper comparatively than in my grandparents' day.
>
> You know, there was a *reason* that whiskey was more expensive between
> 1919 and 1933 than it was before or after.  I'm surprised that anyone
> bothered with wine, though--the alcohol-to-weight ratio is too low.
>

Too low for what?

[Paul Ciszek]

In article <d56f4370-16c1-49fe...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,

To make it worth the risk of being arrested by the authorities or being
killed by competitors:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum-running

[Veronique]

On May 15, 7:20 pm, Mike Muth <m...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:
> On May 9, 9:35 am, Veronique <veroniqueuni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On May 9, 5:10 am, "mike muth" <m...@unverbesserlich.net> wrote:
>
> > > Look for Brownback (the governor of Kansas) to do the Scott Walker thing
> > > next year.  The Kansas legislature already passed a tax bill which ends
> > > taxes on individual profits form LLCs, S-corps, and proprietary ownerships
> > > (thus exempting the Koch brothers and their friends from taxes), while
> > > lowering taxes on the wealthy to a bit more than 4% and cutting corporate
> > > taxes (he wants to eliminate those).  This will produce a $161 million
> > > shortfall next year.  (sound familiar so far?).
>
> > > Next year, he'll blame unions and state workers for the shortfall.
>
> > This really needs a billboard about every 10 miles along I-80.
>
> I-70 traverses the state West to East (or is it East to West), and the
> N-S corridor is I-35/135/335.

Urp, that's right. Been 'crost them both a few times back in the day.

>
> > I am with Lee. I no longer recognize the country I grew up in, and it
> > scares me.
>
> It scares me that I can look back on the Nixon years as relatively
> benign.

Benign? Compared to today's crop o' Republicans, Nixon was worse than
benign, he was a goldarned librul.

[Greg Goss]

Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Benign? Compared to today's crop o' Republicans, Nixon was worse than
>benign, he was a goldarned librul.

I started out as a conservative before the conservatives departed
reality.

Wage and price controls? To my opinion, non-benign on the flaming
librul side.

Created the EPA? Worth doing, but still pretty liberal.

Ending war? Well, THAT was a royal fuckup, but the Dems hadn't been
doing much better.

[Mark Steese]

nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote in
news:jpg52p$kfr$4...@reader1.panix.com:

> In article
> <31013f26-72ca-4f44...@wp3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>But what was the average wage in 1920?
>>
>>I found this (which must be enlarged 65x to be readable PLUS having
>>the nifty feature of a light gray font on a white background but
>>anyway), look a few graphs down, and it looks like the average
>>farmworker wage (a low wage, to be sure, but a significant portion of
>>the labor force was still back on the farm) of $2.82/day. Dropping to
>>$1.96/day in 1921 (and not rising back to the 1920 level by the end of
>>the decade), so that dozen eggs seems pretty pricy to me. For
>>farmworkers.
>>http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/smiley.1920s.final
>>
>>Here's a take from The Economist, with a comparison across a number of
>>categories. The pork chop indeed seems to have been cheaper then than
>>now, despite the rise of CAFOs, environmental degradation, and the
>>suicide of pig farmers in the effort to bring cheap pork to the
>>American table. But coffee, wine, whiskey, Coca-Cola, and eggs are all
>>significantly cheaper comparatively than in my grandparents' day.
>
> You know, there was a *reason* that whiskey was more expensive between
> 1919 and 1933 than it was before or after.

The Economist's chart represents the change in prices between 1900 and
2000: price changes during the Prohibition era aren't reflected on it.
Note that the chart shows the price of beer increasing by about 250% in
real dollars.

> I'm surprised that anyone bothered with wine, though--the
> alcohol-to-weight ratio is too low.

I'm more surprised that U.S. wine prices declined in real dollars, given
that domestic wine is more prestigious now than it was in 1900. Perhaps
the box wines have more than balanced out the high-end stuff.
--
Usually annihilating a culture and romanticizing it are done separately,
but Bunnell neatly compresses two stages of historical change into one
conversation. -Rebecca Solnit

[Mark Steese]

Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote in news:a21vh3...@mid.individual.net:

> Veronique <veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Benign? Compared to today's crop o' Republicans, Nixon was worse than
>>benign, he was a goldarned librul.
>
> I started out as a conservative before the conservatives departed
> reality.
>
> Wage and price controls? To my opinion, non-benign on the flaming
> librul side.
>
> Created the EPA? Worth doing, but still pretty liberal.
>
> Ending war? Well, THAT was a royal fuckup, but the Dems hadn't been
> doing much better.

Ordering his henchmen to "do anything short of a Dominican-type action" to
prevent Salvador Allende from taking office? Not that different from
ordering a SEAL team to kill bin Laden, I suppose. I guess ol' Nix was
pretty liberal.

[David J. Martin]

On 5/22/2012 12:08 PM, Greg Goss wrote:
> Veronique<veroniq...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Benign? Compared to today's crop o' Republicans, Nixon was worse than
>> benign, he was a goldarned librul.
>
> I started out as a conservative before the conservatives departed
> reality.
>
> Wage and price controls? To my opinion, non-benign on the flaming
> librul side.
>
> Created the EPA? Worth doing, but still pretty liberal.
>
> Ending war? Well, THAT was a royal fuckup, but the Dems hadn't been
> doing much better.

We have a Republican primary race in Texas to replace Kay Bailey in the
US Senate and the candidates have taken to smearing their opponents by
calling them "Moderates".

None of them are moderates.

David

[S. Checker]

Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> In article <d56f4370-16c1-49fe...@st3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> rroger <raus...@aol.com> wrote:

>>On May 22, 9:41?am, nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>>>
>>> You know, there was a *reason* that whiskey was more expensive between

>>> 1919 and 1933 than it was before or after. ?I'm surprised that anyone

>>> bothered with wine, though--the alcohol-to-weight ratio is too low.
>>>
>>Too low for what?
>
> To make it worth the risk of being arrested by the authorities or being
> killed by competitors:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rum-running

Some wineries kept in business by making "Communion" wine. People got
very religious during Prohibition. If you already owned a winery it was
either that or shut down.

Besides, beer and wine you can make without a still, which makes it
easier to do without drawing attention of the wrong kind.
--
When you are about to die, a wombat is better than no company at all.
-- Roger Zelazny