201. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:44 AM PT
-- The party to which Smith is defecting is the U.S. Taxpayers Party, run by former GOP operative Howard Phillips. As early as 1994, the USTP was advocating the formation of citizen militias (a position it now generally mutes) and the assassination of abortion doctors (before snipers started killing them). The USTP is probably the favorite party of Patriots and like-minded Christian Reconstructionists. Phillips recently appeared as a guest on Michael Medved's radio show, discoursing freely about the need for “a return to constitutional rule.” Medved responded sympathetically and agreed with his frustration with Republicans and the need for such changes, though he steadfastly refused to abandon the GOP.

202. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:44 AM PT

-- Another GOP stalwart, Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation, recently announced that he would no longer work within the framework of mainstream politics because the entire system, the entire American culture, was now completely corrupt (Clinton's non-impeachment being the signatory event): “Our culture has decayed into something approaching barbarism” (sound familiar?). He urged conservatives to completely separate themselves from the mainstream and set up their own society: “I would point out to you that the word ‘holy' means ‘set apart,' and that it is not against our tradition to be, in fact, ‘set apart.' … What I mean by separation is, for example, what the homeschoolers have done. Faced with public school systems that no longer educate but instead ‘condition' students with the attitudes demanded by Political Correctness, they have seceded. They have separated themselves from public schools and have created new institutions, new schools, in their homes. … The same thing is happening in other areas. Some people are getting rid of their televisions. Others are setting up private courts, where they can hope to find justice instead of ideology and greed. [Note that the private courts to which he refers are none other than the Patriots' “common law” courts.] I think that we have to look at a whole series of possibilities for bypassing the institutions that are controlled by the enemy.” Weyrich's strategy is precisely that espoused by the Patriot movement.

203. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:45 AM PT
-- The Limbaugh instances are almost too many to count, but my favorite (and perhaps most telling) involved a 1996 broadcast in which he contended that bureaucrats in Washington, D.C., were actually conspiring to end democracy. “They hate democracy,” he intoned. “If they have their way, they'll just eliminate it altogether.” Of course, that's a baldfaced falsehood -- he'd have trouble finding a single bureaucrat that actually hates democratic principles, even if they do find them convenient -- but that same sentiment is one that is heard commonly from Patriot circles, notably John Trochmann of the Militia of Montana.

-- Then there's Floyd Brown, leader of the conservative Citizens United. You may recall Brown; he's the inventor of the “Willie Horton” ad, and had a big hand in promoting the Whitewater scandal as well as the Paula Jones matter. But if you click through his site a little, you'll find that it's chock-full of Patriot-style conspiracy theories about the U.N. plot to enslave America. As well as any number of other theories similarly favored by Patriots.

204. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:46 AM PT
-- Some other instances that should ring bells: Pat Robertson's book, “The New World Order,” about a satanic plot to enslave mankind under the aegis of a cabal of international bankers; Jerry Falwell's claim that the anti-Christ is a Jewish male alive now (which I'm sure made every male Jew living in fundamentalist communities very comfortable); and, of course, Lott and Barr's now-notorious footsie game with the neo-Confederate movement.

I have a number of other examples (did I mention Joseph Farah of the WorldNetDaily, now touring the country and appearing with Patriots like Bo Gritz at Preparedness Expos? Or Larry Klayman, Farah's lawyer?), but it's late, I'm tired and these should suffice to make my point. Now, only a handful of these people would actually qualify as out-and-out Patriots (I think Phillips probably fits the bill, and Brown is working his way there). But all of them are known to espouse ideas that all have their origins either in the Patriot movement or in its antecedents. As I've said repeatedly, these ideas are not screwy by reason of their origins (they meet that standard all by themselves on close examination), but they *are* floated out there in the service of a specific agenda. If you don't agree with that agenda -- and I expect most mainstream conservatives do not -- then you would be wise to treat these ideas accordingly.

205. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 2:51 AM PT
Finally, I should add that your insinuation that I somehow surmise that anyone who differs with me on any issue to be a victim of the Patriots is totally groundless and patently unfair. I have never indicated this. I do know when a theory or idea I'm hearing has its origins in the extremist right, but only because I'm deeply familiar with their ideology. But suggesting that, to stave off the "threat," I want everyone to vote the way I do, borders on a cheap shot. Any of the conservatives here can tell you that I give all their ideas a fair hearing. Further, I think my entire approach has been to steer sharply away from such hysterics as you seem to be accusing me of engaging in.

206. Ronski - July 15, 1999 - 6:48 AM PT

Farah runs the columns of several homophobic lunatics on his website, but also the estimable Walter Williams. I visit sites such as his, but refuse to click on sponsors.

(Does that make me a bad person?)

207. ScottLoar - July 15, 1999 - 8:00 AM PT
Coward, Liar & General Scumbucket;
Now that I have your attention I hope you will find this address as facetious as my question of if should we vote like you. The questions in Message #195 were to prompt you to recognize that in the theatre of ideas there are strange players, but do not deny my ability or of the public in general (you do have faith in the common sense of the common man?) to discriminate. Even if we may occasionally be "picking up ideas or pseudo-facts from questionable sources" we do so because it makes sense to us, or the ideas find some resonance within us, or the ideas suit the times. Are you above this? I think not, judging from your rifled fire directed to the right.

When Sen. Bob Smith (R-N.H.)announces he's quiting the Republican Party because he thinks it has abandoned its principles his statement "We need to get out the fumigating equipment. We need to clean out the pollsters and spin doctors" resonates with many. Jane Fonda announced in an earlier guise, "I don't criticize socialist governments in public" which brought little condemnation from fashionable sympathizers (except, bless her pacifist heart, Joan Baez, who saw the boat people not as "traitors" but as the victims they were, and said so publicly). Tom Hayden could travel to Hanoi, publicly excoriate a tortured American pilot, and continue on to finally represent a constituency in the California senate. Yes, strange players, and there are many more in this forum more capable than I of reciting the dramatis personae of American politics. But, the American process leavens even the worse, or so I think.

208. ScottLoar - July 15, 1999 - 8:07 AM PT
By the way, I hate Clinton, an opinion I arrived at quite independently. Nope, didn't need no Limbaugh or Hyde, nor Posse Comitatus or right-wing website to tell me what to think. Just did it all by myself.

209. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 10:52 AM PT
Scott: An excellent response, and I apologize that my tiredness made me so humorless last night. I have little to add, since I agree with much of your sentiments. Having been raised a good Republican, I personally always found the Fonda/Hayden coterie repugnant as well. In fact, I would say that much of my disgust with '60s liberalism has to do with its willing embrace and commingling of Marxist ideology -- the way it would parrot those ideas with scarcely a second thought. I'm as disgusted with conservatives who do the same thing with extremist thought from the right.

However, perhaps being from redneck Idaho, where this sort of thing gets out of hand with regularity, predisposes me to a certain skepticism that most Americans are capable of separating the wheat from the chaff.

210. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 10:56 AM PT
About Message #208: Did your hatred of Clinton extend to the belief that he is the leader of "the New World Order"? That he is responsible for the deaths of some 70-people who got offed to ensure their silence? That he had a child by a black prostitute? No, I expect you didn't. But I think it's very telling to note just how many people did. Some of them in this forum. And these ideas all have their origins in the extremist right.

211. ChristinO - July 15, 1999 - 11:42 AM PT
Spudboy,

You forgot the murder of Vince Foster.

212. ScottLoar - July 15, 1999 - 11:59 AM PT
Of course those allegations (re Message #210) against Clinton are outlandish, defying measured response. Their persistent popularity does testify to the numbers of otherwise seemingly sane people who will swill from these troughs.

I have faith (for it is faith and not misplaced I would hope) that a majority retains a sense of discrimination and that those interviews by Jay Leno are not indicative of the general populace.

213. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 1:07 PM PT
Christin: Of course, Foster's death is near the top of the "Clinton Body Count," so it was kind of subsumed in that list. But you're right -- there's a dozen or more of these Clinton stories that got their start on the fringes. My favorite is Hillary's lesbian witch's coven.

My favorite recent Patriot conspiracy tales:

-- The theory that Clinton actually ordered the shootings at Columbine. They were committed, this notion goes, by a special ops team that actually shot many of the students from outside the school. And they used Klebold and Harris as patsies. The idea was to stir up the public in favor of gun control. (This is actually being promoted actively by John Trochmann of the Militia of Montana.)

-- You know how you look up into the sky and see those contrails up there? Well, they are actually part of a New World Order plot to "thin" the population. Those contrails are being laden with secret government chemicals that then float down up the population below and sicken them. Eventually enough of us will die that the NWO will get a leg up on its evil "population control" plot.

214. ChristinO - July 15, 1999 - 1:12 PM PT
Spuds,

This is a random thought and possibly dialed in from planet nuts, but what about secession? In light of the French Canadian squabble over the national language and because the question of States Rights has never been silenced it ocurrs to me that the Patriot movement's desire for separatism could lead in that direction.

215. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 3:41 PM PT
Christin: Modern secession is one of the major agenda items for the neo-Confederate movement, particularly among the folks at the League of the South, and to a lesser extent with their cohorts at the Council of Conservative Citizens. And of course, with certain Patriot elements in the Northwest (particularly the Aryan Nations types), there's always been a certain amount of talk of establishing a “white homeland.”

However, I think the general thrust of most of the Patriot movement is to toss out all vestiges of the current regime (Democrat and Republican alike) and start over with a “constitutional” government, which typically is embodied by the so-called “organic Constitution,” i.e., the text of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. You can figure out what that means (as long as we're talking about disguising a racist agenda).

216. robertjayb - July 15, 1999 - 3:48 PM PT

A Salon report from Coeur d'Alene:

Nazi Family Values

217. ChristinO - July 15, 1999 - 5:26 PM PT
Spuds,

I think maybe my PC is trying to tell me something. It's crashed twice trying to access the HoS link. Wow, who knew microchips had sensibilities?

218. spudboy - July 15, 1999 - 6:42 PM PT
Christin: It's probably that stinking audio file that's supposed to open when you go to the site. It features a loud banjo playing “Dixie.” It seems intended to drive normal people insane. Your chips have good taste and threw up at the prospect, evidently.

219. joezan - July 15, 1999 - 9:55 PM PT

Spudboy:

Having never been acquainted with the writings and thoughts of most of the people you mention, I have nevertheless been somewhat concerned with the increasing influence the leaders of this country have allowed the UN.

IOW, I have reached the conclusion that the UN is a corrupt, meddling, pretentious body, all on my own.

I do not need to read patriot literature to know that the NWO (or whatever you want to call it) is, in fact, a real force. Or that the mission of the modern UN may very well not be to make itself into a "one-world government" - but, if allowed to proceed as it has, will, of necessity, end up as such.

Of course, the UN has done some very good things, too. And as far as the mistakes they make, I don't think anyone could attribute any of them to anything but good intentions.

But, please - don't make the mistake of thinking that anyone who harbors misgivings, or even outright hatred of the UN, feels the way they do because they are the victims of some right-wing propaganda campaign.

I congratulate you on your book. Obviously, you know your subject very well. But for all the people you say are being influenced by this type of propaganda (especially on the Internet), I'd bet there are ten who are repulsed by it, and choose to do something, however trivial, to combat it.

The people who join these groups are disaffected, miserable souls, who, imo, were it not for these particular hate groups, would find some other way to vent their spleen on society.

220. marjoribanks - July 16, 1999 - 7:30 AM PT
" I have reached the conclusion that the UN is a corrupt, meddling, pretentious body, all on my own."

Zan,

You may have reached this "conclusion", but what have you based it on? I find it stunning that an educated American could actually come out with such contrafactual bilge, even in an era when the US actually dominates the crucial decision-making parts of the UN and is permanently at the head of the UNDP which is the key non-security disbursement of the UN and also permanently the key player in UNICEF. This even while the US remains hundreds of millions of dollars behind in the payments it committed to the UN. The case could credibly be made that it is the US which is meddling and pretentious in its machinations at the UN, not the other way around at all.

IOW, I'd like to see a shred, a jot of evidence for the position you have taken above, especially the stunning avowal that " I have nevertheless been somewhat concerned with the increasing influence the leaders of this country have allowed the UN."

What the hell are you talking about?

221. marjoribanks - July 16, 1999 - 7:51 AM PT
Here's a dirty little secret: The US does whatever it wants and gets whatever it wants at the UN.

Particularly in the last decade, the US has had the ability to push through or kill dead virtually any measure it wishes, especially in the crucial Security Council, without even having to exercise its veto power. In the past ten years, the US has managed to kill, dilute or alter major global documents on environment and development, population and housing, it has garnered UN imprimateurs for otherwise partisan conflicts, and it has stopped one Sec-General from being re-elected while hand-picking his successor. In the meanwhile, it has manged to not ratify even one of the major documents which has come out of global conferences even while shaping them to fit its whims. The Habitat Conference in Istanbul is a prime example, first the US stone-walled and managed to delete a section on housing as a basic human right, then it had the temerity to not ratify the document anyway.

Hence, I find it almost beyond belief, completely absurd, that there are people in this country wh feel comfortable spouting the kind of rhetoric zan does above. Once again, can you point to even the slightest iota of evidence for these wild claims?

222. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 9:29 AM PT
It seems to be an article of faith amoung many American conservatives, not just the extreme right, that the U.N. is a sinister organization that is secretly conspiring to rob sovereign nations of their power and impose an evil World Government.

JoeZan:

Perhaps you could elucidate on what you see as legitimate reasons for "hating" the U.N., since you say such hatred is not necessarily the product of extremist propaganda.

223. FreetoChoose - July 16, 1999 - 11:41 AM PT
A nit (but not an inconsequential one):

In your description of the Ruby Ridge incident, you stated that an arrest warrant was issued when Randy did not show up for his court date (Feb 19 or 20). However, Randy received a letter informing him that the court date had been changed to March 20. While I have my doubts that he was planning to march into court on that date, it appears that the court decided they would not treat him as missing his court date until after March 20.

(The following Source purports to be excerpted from the DOJ report; I haven't attempted to confirm that it is legitimate.)

This seems to be an important fact. Did you omit it because you thought it was inconsequential, or because you disagree that the DOJ has their facts correct, or some other reason?

224. joezan - July 16, 1999 - 3:19 PM PT

Banks - Message #220:

"You may have reached this "conclusion", but what have you based it on? I find it stunning that an educated American could actually come out with such contrafactual bilge..."

If I said that *I* find it stunning that an educated person gets education mixed up with political correctness, that would be a lie. Because, to a large extent, it's the same thing. So I won't hold that against you.

You have to understand that, as a believer in small government, I (and many people more rational than I) get my knickers in a knot when my _own_ government gets too pushy - on the very valid (imho) premise that the folks in DC making decisions which affect me and mine are in many cases simply too removed, geographically and philosophically, to really have my best interests at heart (take land use, or environmental issues as examples).

Now, you take my healthy skepticism of Uncle Sam and extrapolate that out to a bunch of people who are _continents_removed_ from my best interests, and I think you'll have little trouble realizing where I'm coming from.

You may disagree with my premise (big gov't is bad), but can you really argue with my logic?

225. joezan - July 16, 1999 - 3:33 PM PT

But to be truthful, yes. You're right. The US does have much more influence at the UN than it did before the soviet collapse. But, as the "world's only superpower", charged with maintaining the peace all over BFE and back, that is only as it should be, since the UN largely ignored communist expansionism for so long.

226. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 3:43 PM PT
Joezan:

Of course we can argue with your logic, because it's silly. You mention environmental issues. They provide a clear example of the need for not only national--rather than state or local--government solutions, but transnational ones. Global warming is a *global* problem. The ozone layer is a global problem. Dirty rivers may run through many states, and pollute international waters. Dirty air is blown across state and national borders. The Amazon rain forest is a critical resource for the whole world, not just Brazilians. An endangered species is a loss to the world, not just to the country in which it makes its habitat. There are countless examples of environmental problems that simply cannot be effectively addressed other than by "Big Government" solutions.

And it is through transnational organizations and agreements, such as the U.N. and U.N. treaties, that such solutions are possible.

227. ChristinO - July 16, 1999 - 4:14 PM PT
Joezan,

"I have nevertheless been somewhat concerned with the increasing influence the leaders of this country have allowed the UN"

This sentence led me to believe that your fear is actually that the UN will take over the United States which is indeed silly since we pretty much do whatever we want and the UN just has to deal with it. It appears that what you're really saying now is that you fear that the US will now try to take over the rest of the world and you are concerned for the rights of individuals a world away so that they might not be oppressed by the US.

While I certainly have some sympathy for the latter sentiment-----there are a great many peoples who would have been far better off without our arrogant intervention-----Elliot is quite right about the fact that there ARE global issues that must be addressed by a global council. They cannot be properly handled if handled at all by individuals or even individual nations.

228. joezan - July 16, 1999 - 4:59 PM PT

Elliot:

"Of course we can argue with your logic, because it's silly..."

It's hard to argue with logic such as that.



ChristinO:

"It appears that what you're really saying now is that you fear that the US will now try to take over the rest of the world..."

I don't know what leads you to this conclusion, unless it was my "But, as the "world's only superpower", charged with maintaining the peace all over BFE and back, that is only as it should be, since the UN largely ignored communist expansionism for so long..."

...by which I mean that we are now cleaning up the messes of the post-soviet world, which would be there with or without the UN.

And, btw, there are probably many people in many countries who actually DO fear the US' gaining prominence in the UN. And I sympathize with them, to a point.

229. elliot803 - July 16, 1999 - 5:03 PM PT
joezan:

"It's hard to argue with logic such as that."

It wasn't "logic," it was a preamble to the rest of my post, which consisted of an explanation of why your "logic" is wrong. Did you miss all that?

230. ChristinO - July 16, 1999 - 5:19 PM PT
Joezan,

I'm a bit confused here. My understanding of the Patriot paranoia of the UN is that they fear that the UN is a power unelected by them that will waltz into their living rooms and wreak havok with the raising of their children, their ability to make a living, their life liberty and ability to persue happiness/property. Believing that the UN has mishandled some situations while at the same time genuinely helping others all the while acting with the best of intentions is hardly on par with the black heliocopter NWO kind of fanaticism espoused by the lunatic fringe.

I'm trying to follow the twists and turns of this conversation but it appears that what you were assumed to have said is not actually what you meant and that at this point your objections to the UN are so exceedingly watered down from what it was first assumed that there seems little point in the comparison at all.

(now for the thing I have to say but should probably be kicked for)

This is exactly the thing I was discussing earlier: The tendency for people to believe that they are personally being compared to the lunatic fringe when in actuallity they are not. It seems to suggest guilty conscience when none is warranted and I think that THAT is another travesty to lay at the feet of the Patriot movement: That mainstream conservatives feel obligated to argue and defend principles that they do not espouse simply because they feel that to denounce lunatics who happen to be right-leaning is a sort of betrayal.

231. joezan - July 16, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT

ChristinO:

I don't know why you say you should probably be kicked for saying that. Alot of what you say is exactly what I'm trying to say. But when I say it, I'm a wing-nut who's been influenced by, or has aspirations to the Patriots, the Aryans...you name it. Banks as much as says that I HAD to have been influenced by their brand of propaganda.

It matters not that I said, in my very first post here, that I didn't like the UN _before_ I'd ever heard of these groups or their philosophies. Or that I described the people who join these groups as disaffected, miserable souls.

So, yes. One can despise the UN (and I never said I did), without being a right-wing nut. Like I said, there are many people who don't like big government. And to many of these folks - myself included - the UN is about as big a government as you can get.

232. Mazaska - July 16, 1999 - 6:48 PM PT
"You mention environmental issues. They provide a clear example of the need for not only national--rather than state or local--government solutions, but transnational ones. Global warming is a *global* problem. The ozone layer is a global problem. Dirty rivers may run through many states, and pollute international waters. Dirty air is blown across state and national borders. The Amazon rain forest is a critical resource for the whole world, not just Brazilians. An endangered species is a loss to the world, not just to the country in which it makes its habitat. There are countless examples of environmental problems that simply cannot be effectively addressed other than by "Big Government" solutions."

Well said! I am not sure if the UN, specifically, is our best or only option for dealing with global problems, but it's a start.

As a habitat for the life that has evolved here, the Earth is essentially a closed system.

(sorry, I'm still waiting for my copy of the book, so that's all I have to say here for now)

233. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 7:24 AM PT

ChristinO:

"That mainstream conservatives feel obligated to argue and defend principles that they do not espouse simply because they feel that to denounce lunatics who happen to be right-leaning is a sort of betrayal."

It is interesting that you attribute this phenomenon solely to "conservatives".

Where were you when I was asking why Jesse Jackson can't bring himself to denounce the hatred espoused by Louis Farrakhan?

And why don't "mainstream" gays "come out" against the illegal, terroristic shennanigans of ACT-UP?

And why don't "mainstream" animal rights proponents speak up against the dangerous, illegal acts of their radical brethren?

And why don't any of these "mainstream" groups, although categorically on the "left", ever notice the vicious, divisive activities of the radical wings of the others?

234. cllrdr - July 17, 1999 - 7:49 AM PT
"And why don't "mainstream" gays "come out" against the illegal, terroristic shennanigans of ACT-UP?"

What on earth are you talking about? Haven't you ever heard of Bruce Bawer? Andrew Sullivan? Michael Huffington? David Brock?

Aren't they "mainstream" (ie. right-wing) enough for you?

235. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 7:54 AM PT

Michael Huffington and David Brock???!!!

Oh, please!

236. cllrdr - July 17, 1999 - 8:02 AM PT
Come again?

I thought they would be joezan-approved. After all, they're both Conservative (which as we all know is the Most Important Thing.)

237. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 8:28 AM PT

cllrdr:

Have another cup of coffee. Then read what came before you.

238. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 8:49 AM PT

ChristinO:

"The tendency for people to believe that they are personally being compared to the lunatic fringe when in actuallity they are not..."

Oh, come on! As long as you've been hanging around here and reading the stereotypes the educated folks in this forum have about conservatives?

In a related discussion sometime back, I was whining a bit about the fact that people on the left who are paranoid, and read too much about groups like the patriots, are likely to view me, simply from appearances (white, rural, drive a pickup, go to Church, support the NRA), based on stereotypes accrued from *anti-conservative propaganda, as someone who is likely to blow up a gov't building - or at least join the militia. When the fact is, I'd be more likely to hitch hike out to Oregon and join an ashram.

239. FreeToChoose - July 17, 1999 - 9:46 AM PT
elliot803

"Global warming is a *global* problem."


You implicitly assume that it is man-made, and you explicitly assume that it is a bad thing. The first has not yet been proven. The second is probably not true.

240. Mazaska - July 17, 1999 - 10:10 AM PT
I think that most people can agree that filthy water and filthy air are both bad things, though. One thing I noticed the first time I went through El Paso, Texas was that the heavy air pollution being produced across the river in Juarez, did not respect the border. It just drifted on over El Paso, too.

241. EricCartman1 - July 17, 1999 - 2:28 PM PT
FTC Message #239:

Are you serious? Do you really think that global warming 1) has not been significantly contributed to by man-made pollution and 2) is probably not a bad thing?

I have a feeling that most people who live in low elevations would certainly dispute #2. Trust me, it's a very bad thing to get flooded. Some inhabited islands in the Indian and Pacific Oceans are in danger of being completely inundated, as the sea level inexorably rises.

Global warming may not be 100% man-made, but we've certainly exacerbated the problem, constantly belching filth into the sky, around the world.



Now, to the topic at hand (sort of), if global warming is a global problem (as it surely is), does it not make more sense to have a global body mediating it?

It's odd to read people trashing the UN as "the godless one-world government" (in here and elsewhere), as that sort of trashing only seems to take place in the US, which gets its way with the UN anytime it wants, even to the point of being allowed to sabotage UN goals.

One goal of the UN is to reduce overpopulation, by providing birth control (pills, condoms, etc.) and abortions to women in blighted, overpopulated areas around the world. Sensible idea, no? Apparently not. One of the reasons we haven't caught up on our dues is because some of our representatives have made this contingent on altering the UN birth control program, even to the point of not providing the pills and condoms.

Forget the notion that our gov't shouldn't fund abortions in other countries (even though it does so here in the US). They're willing to hold back even basic birth control methods. One wonders if this is in part to *keep* the countries overpopulated, thereby ensuring a cheap labor force.

242. EricCartman1 - July 17, 1999 - 2:29 PM PT
(cont.)

Anyway, that's just one example of how the US bends the UN over its knee whenever it feels like. The "black hee-licopters" and "US sovereignty" crowd have got the wrong end of the stick here. WE tell THEM what to do. That many non-European UN members have grown weary of this only attests to our reasons for recently asserting NATO power. As we flex our new muscle, we can be sure of hearing about NATO troops hiding in the Montana backwoods.

243. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 2:56 PM PT
FTC:
Sorry I've been slow getting back to respond to your question in Message #223. Went to the new Safeco Field last night for the second game there, which the Mariners of course lost. But the expedition cost me all of my free time. And besides, I had to go up to my attic and dig out the DOJ report on Ruby Ridge to double-check things in order to give you an adequate response.

Of course, I leave it to you to have touched upon one of the points (there are three altogether, though this is probably the only one where someone from the general public might catch the problem) where I am seeking a correction in the text for the next edition. I had originally written a long paragraph explaining the indictment mixup at Ruby Ridge, and it was edited out for one basic reason: It's a complicated matter that ultimately is only a side-note to the affair that had little ultimate effect on the outcome. Let me explain.

Randy Weaver was told on several occasions that his trial would be Feb. 19, 1991, including at his original arraignment Jan. 18. (He was also informed of the impending trial date by U.S. marshals through an intermediary and was sent letters about the date.) But a probations officer in charge of pretrial service sent him a letter asking Weaver to contact him that mentioned secondarily (and mistakenly) a trial date of March 20. Weaver later produced this as evidence that he had been misinformed of the trial date. But Weaver never did contact the pretrial services office either. Moreover, during the entire period he had been adamant in every communication with authorities that he would never show up for any of their trials.

244. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 2:58 PM PT
And though Weaver's court date of Feb. 19 came and went without Weaver showing up, the marshals service tried to continue negotiating his surrender rather than conducting an assault-style arrest. They communicated in early March with the Weavers through family friends that even though his court date had passed, if he came in, there would be no failure-to-appear indictment issued. Weaver responded by saying he had a letter indicating that he didn't have to appear until March 20 (the one from the probations officer) and that even in that event, he had no intention of coming to trial.

Here's the text of the letter Weaver sent to the marshals on March 5, addressed to the “Servants of the Queen of Babylon” and signed by all five Weavers:

“We, the Weaver family, have been shown by our Savior and King, Yahshua the Messiah of Saxon Israel, that we are to stay separated on this mountain and not leave. We will obey our lawgiver and King.

“You see, the Mighty One of Heaven knows his people. You are servants of lawlessness and you enforce lawlessness. You are on the side of the One World Beatly Government. Repent for the Kingdom (government) of Yahweh is near at hand. Choose this day whom you will serve. As for me and my house -- we will serve Yah- Yahshuah, the King.
“Whether we live or whether we die, we will not obey your lawless government.”

245. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 2:59 PM PT

Given the Weavers' intransigence, it doesn't really surprise me (or anyone else) that District Court Judge Harold Ryan, to proceed with the failure-to-appear warrant on March 14 -- issued by a grand jury -- before the date that Weaver claimed he actually had to appear. However, it was this decision that the DOJ dinged in its report, and the similar insistence on the part of what I consider to have been an overzealous U.S. Attorney's Office in pursuing the indictment before March 20. Considering that in such cases it behooves the government to behave spotlessly, I agree with the DOJ that it would have been far more prudent to have waited until after March 20 to proceed.

At the same time, considering the constant stream of communications indicating no intention to surrender, and the fact that Weaver hadn't even retained an attorney, it's clear that the decision ultimately made no difference. Weaver had no intention of showing up for any court date in any event. This is why, for instance, in its major findings and conclusions in the report, the DOJ makes no mention whatsoever of this foul-up. It didn't impact the outcome at all. The DOJ simply explored all aspects of the case in its report and found that the USAO, though it had acted perfectly legally, had not behaved prudently. (And second-guessing a district court judge's decision, I might add, was one of the rather unusual features of this report.) These findings are all buried in the main body of the report and do not come up again as a major factor in either the DOJ's or the congressional findings on the Ruby Ridge case.

246. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 3:00 PM PT
I tried explaining some of this convoluted matter in a paragraph that was necessarily rather complicated and did little to advance the narrative (in fact, it detracted seriously from it). Since I was looking for material to excise in the course of trying to make the book fit within the necessary length parameters, this graf stuck out as ultimately unnecessary. Remember, my object here was to describe the course of events; I had no intention of attempting to tackle the highly complicated matter of who was right and who was wrong, since entire books have been devoted to that subject (I recommend Jess Walter's “Every Knee Shall Bow”). I merely wished to describe how the Weavers' martyrdom occurred and how it became a seminal inspirational event for the militia movement.

In retrospect, though, I think the matter does merit some kind of mention, if only because it has become a point on which Weaver and his defenders have claimed some kind of vindication, and so is worth at least addressing briefly. (I noticed the problem after the fine discussion I had in the Fray with 109109 on the Ruby Ridge matter.) I have submitted a two-sentence summation of the matter to the publisher to be included in the next edition, reading:

Weaver tried to claim that the trial date had been moved to March 20, seizing on a probation officer's clerical mistake that the U.S. attorney and judge considered inconsequential. But he also made it perfectly clear that “we will not obey your lawless government” in any event. [To be inserted at the end of the paragraph on p. 64 beginning, “Six months later ...”]

247. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 3:01 PM PT
And now, more frivolously ...

Does anyone care to lay a wager on how long it will be before conspiracy theories appear claiming that Bill Clinton is responsible for JFK Jr.'s apparent demise?

248. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 3:09 PM PT
BTW, FTC, I think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that global warming is beneficial. The accelleration of species extinction that's almost certain to occur with that phenomenon is cause enough alone to make it a net loss rather than a benefit.

Not that I really want to get into that discussion here. And hey! Haven't we already gone over this elsewhere? Though I can't recommend we move it to the Playpen...

I'm thinking of making the discussion more focused next week. I think I'll run through some notes about the early chapters and see if they spark any further discussion. I'm also considering plopping in some material from an entire chapter that was excised, if anyone's interested.

249. cllrdr - July 17, 1999 - 4:27 PM PT
"Does anyone care to lay a wager on how long it will be before conspiracy theories appear claiming that Bill Clinton is responsible for JFK Jr.'s apparent demise?"

Great minds think alike, Spud. I was just over in Table Talk declaring same the better to beat all the Freepers who lurk there to the punch.

And Chistopher Snitchens too, of course. But he' still probably too snookered from last nignt to rise from the heap of newspapers and old socks he passed out on to hit the *de rigeur* button.

250. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 5:43 PM PT

Spuds - Message #247:

"Does anyone care to lay a wager on how long it will be before conspiracy theories appear claiming that Bill Clinton is responsible for JFK Jr.'s apparent demise?"

Hey! That's weird...

I just came in here to ask how long anyone thinks it might be before some liberal journalist starts looking for info on what US Navy ships were in the area, and interviewing the locals about strange flashes of light around the time of the crash.

251. adrianne - July 17, 1999 - 5:57 PM PT
Hitchens has already weighed in, Cellar. Firf!

252. EricCartman1 - July 17, 1999 - 6:23 PM PT
"Does anyone care to lay a wager on how long it will be before conspiracy theories appear claiming that Bill Clinton is responsible for JFK Jr.'s apparent demise?"

Ha! I was just frivolously thinking that BC would use this tragedy to his advantage, and tell us that he has "been pushing for tighter small plane regulations for many years", if only those bastards in Congress would let him.

253. Greystoke - July 17, 1999 - 7:05 PM PT
Clinton has been banging both Carolyn and Lauren Bessette regularly for the past six months. The sisters were prepared to tell all in an exclusive Star interview on Monday. So Clinton ordered Navy Seals in a Zodiac watercraft to shoot down JFK, Jr.'s plane with a Stinger missle as it descended for landing near Martha's Vineyard.


Don't ask me how I know.

254. cllrdr - July 17, 1999 - 7:25 PM PT
I'm sure Rosetta Stone akaNed Flanders aka Joe Tiernan aka etc. etc.has been whispering in your ear Greystoke.

Love the link, adrianne. Nobody knows how to kiss ruling class butt like middle-class British tosspot.

255. joezan - July 17, 1999 - 7:51 PM PT

I imagine Pierre Salinger is pissy, weepy drunk about now.

Poor guy's gotta be kicking himself...

I mean, think about it. He's intimately acquainted with the Kennedy's.

If only he hadn't shot his wad on that stupid little Flight 800 story...

256. spudboy - July 17, 1999 - 10:51 PM PT
Well, there already are the following posts in the Free Republic. They're working on it. Really hard. Though the first one has to be a joke, doesn't it? At the Freep, it's hard to tell:

"T" = first letter of uncle's first name.

"W" = first letter of current President's first name.

"A" = first letter of stepfather's first name.

And "800" = area code prefix for free phone call to buy commercial airline tix.

Unbelievable coincidences! >>

************************************
I have some questions about this matter.

1. Why did it take 5 hours for the first search plane to lift off the ground?

2. Why is this a small search?

3. Why is it that Roark didn't know when the beacon went on? He had over 9 hours to learn that little bit of info.

4. How did CNN hear that the luggage had "Laura Bassel" on it when Larrabee had said that the debree was detected only "a couple minutes ago"?

(source of info, a C-Span press release roughly a half hour ago)

I am getting a little curious about this, especially considering that some of the alleged searchers had also investigated TWA 800, and that the Kennedy family is suffering yet again. JFK Junior and the other missing people need our prayers.

Posted by Arthur Wildfire!

257. cllrdr - July 18, 1999 - 6:50 AM PT
LOL! Any minute now we'll be getting missile sightings.

Meanwhile the tube is fugue state. Lacrymose blather about the Kennedys instead of The Most Important News Story of the Day, which we lucky Fraysters have right at our fingertips thanks to Spuds.

258. spudboy - July 18, 1999 - 10:52 PM PT
cllrdr: Considering that I warranted all of four minutes' airtime, I can only surmise that the people who make the decisions disagree with you regarding the relative merits of the stories.

At any rate, as predicted, some of the theories are already rolling in. Here are some of the messages we've received:

"My email is filling up with claims from the publishing world that JFK Jr's "George" magazine was preparing to run a big piece trashing Hillary Clinton's plans to run for the Demo nomination for NY Senator. Wouldn't that be a certain death sentence?"

"The apparent demise of JFK Jr. comes on the anniversary of the downing of TWA flight which many believe to have been a terrorist/organized crime event.
"Also: 1) Last week, tabloids reported JFK and wife were separating soon; 2) anti-terrorists' alert status spiked upon reports of Bin Laden movements; 3) the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons unto the third generation; 4) JFKjr was about to announce a run for the Dem nomination in NY against Hillary Clinton (a certain death sentence); 5) piss-poor maintenance coupled with piss-poor piloting coupled with arrogant rich kids who don't really believe anything bad will ever happen to them equals a ditch in the big drink; As in the W. Colby death, too many suspects usually results in the finding of the event as an 'accident'."

"MI-5 said: JFK Jr. truned up missing because he was to reveal the assassins of his father!"

"All the world is but a stage !!!
Now that the Bankster owned media have been intensely indoctrinating you for over 7hrs. on TV to make you believe that J.F.K.'s son crashed into the sea, and will never be seen again, and most Americans are naive, gullible and ignorant and will believe anything they are told ! It is time to Wake Up."

259. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 5:27 AM PT
Spudboy:

I heard Dan Glickman, Sec. of Agriculture give an address to the National Press Club last week. I think it relates. The decision has been made that genetic engineering of our crops must proceed at full speed. .......you know, I'm going to do a sort of flow of conciousness thing here because I just don't have the time to edit and worry. Anyhow, full speed is an important phrase. That is that it seems to be most important, to the exclusion of all other considertions that we go full speed with agribusiness. (Tell me if I'm wrong,m but this is a consolidation of control in the hands of capital) The farmers were mentioned, the fact that we have grain rotting in the silos and the farmer's cannot make any money because prices are so low and all that, and ofocrse, the government is going to "work with the farmers". This is ofcourse lip service. Anyway, it would seem to me that there is no sense of balance wrt government policy in this area. If there is a market, a free market, it is being tampered with again, special priviledge to agribusiness, to capital..

Anyhow, Spud, we know that Jeffersonian democracy is dead and the Federalists have won the battle; agriculture is now an industrial process. Now this matters not to those of us who are part of the machine , but it seems to cause great consternation among a certain type of individual, the true American, the Patriot. From the decription of what the leaders of this Patriot movement do when they get a bit of money, it would seem that they are crass dimwits. And perhaps they are. But it would seem to me that there is a genuine dislocation of the soul going on within these people.

. If they sense they are being discriminated against by the government perhaps they are correct. I think the activation of racism stems from this perceived, and actual? , mistreatment by government.( cont.)

260. uzmakk - July 19, 1999 - 5:30 AM PT
WRT the benefit to the larger urban society, I believe Mr.Loar mentioned something like this a while back. This is questionable. We have too much food on the market now, the current system seems to be giving us enough. Oh yes. Among the wonders that Glickman mentioned were tomatos and other produce suitable for the food service industry, chains like TGIF. Very important stuff.

And how about those ignorant Europeans not wanting our hormone treated beef. God damn it, they are just as bad as the God damn Patriots.

261. spudboy - July 19, 1999 - 9:34 AM PT
Uzmakk: Well, I'd certainly say that you're on the right track. You're quite right that when Glickman or someone else in D.C. talks about the need to proceed apace with approval for genetically engineered breed types, he's talking the language of ConAgra. Mind you, I haven't anything against genetic engineering in and of itself; it seems to me that it's largely just a more sophisticated method of doing what man has done for thousands of years, through selective breeding of both stock and seed (a crude form of genetic engineering, if you will). But the problem is that instead of being a matter of actually expanding the scope of genetic diversity, in the hands of agribusiness, it actually serves to limit them.

Here's a remark that reflects my own thinking on this, from Jean Rosenfeld of UCLA: “The implications of globalism in farming can be alarming, as well as satisfying. The positive is that at long last the world produces enough food for everyone (the ‘green revolution')--the problem of famine has become solely a problem of the political distribution of abundant resources. The negative is that the green revolution has not only upset the political applecart in some countries, such as India and the U.S., but that agribusiness is changing the very food we eat and eradicating biological diversity in the plant world, as well as the animal world. ‘Heritage' varieties of grains and vegetables are giving way to genetically treated, pest-resistant crops, a development that impacts our entire ecological system.”

While we're merrily charging to a genetically engineered future in which foods are all grown from the same strains, we're exposing ourselves to the vagaries of disease or long-term genetic weakness. In the past, the broad variety of seed types was always the buffer for those problems. That may be disappearing.

262. spudboy - July 19, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
All of this doesn't affect merely farmers, but urbanites whose only concept of food is what's found on a grocer's shelf. The most striking feature of this is what I referred to early in the thread as the vertical and horizontal integration of the food system. When you go through your store and your basket fills up with stuff from General Foods (like Post cereals), Kraft, Oscar Mayer, and Miller beer, you're buying from one big company: Philip Morris, the largest U.S. food company. Orville Redenbacher, Hunt's Kethcup, Swiss Miss, Wesson, La Choy and Peter Pan are all brand names of ConAgra, which comes in a close second. These companies not only stock the shelves; they own the seed companies, they farm millions of acres of land, they own the wholesale distribution companies that take in the farmers' crops. This means that they essentially are capable of controlling wholesale prices and eventually driving family farmers out of business (as they have accomplished recently in the case of hogs).

As I've said before, Microsoft's got nothing on agribusiness when it comes to anti-competitive behavior.

However, I make rather a point early on in the book of making clear that I don't consider the Patriots to be truly patriotic, and I'd certainly never describe them as the “true Americans.” Their frequently overt anti-democratic bent precludes them from that status, in my considered opinion. They are more in the way of what I'd call an angry response to a deeper problem -- you'll hear me use the phrase “canary in a coal mine” a lot. Not only are they racist and anti-Semitic, but they are profoundly irrational and prone to violence.

I'm going to mull through the Foreword and Chapter 1 today and see if I can come up with some further notes.

263. ChristinO - July 19, 1999 - 2:12 PM PT
Joezan Re Message #233

I don't believe that only conservatives do this but the discussion arose specifically from the knee-jerk accusation that Adrianne had defamed all Conservatives and Libertarians as potential terrorists and lunatics.

I have no idea where I was for the Jesse Jackson discussion but I'll weigh in here and say that the reason he does not denounce Farrakhan is because he wants the support that Farrakhan can offer and he doesn't want to alienate voters who revere the man. I don't think that it's right. In fact I think it's dangerous and dishonest. It's the same politcs as the Republican Party not wanting to offend the Christian Right. They want and need the votes. The benefits of courting them must, however, be weighed against the possibility of alienating their more mainstream constituents.

I don't believe in lying down with dangerous lunatics with whom one would rather not be associated for the expedient purpose of getting a leg over one's opposition. It lacks integrity and the potential for giving power to the lunatic fringe is too great.

264. ScottLoar - July 19, 1999 - 2:36 PM PT
No,no, not La Choy too?! For the first 17 years of my life it was the only Chinese food I knew. Twice as long and as many Peking ducks later the very name La Choy brings memories of crispy noodles and that inimitable chow mein. How is one to cope? How can I go on? Yet another icon fallen.

265. davidtudor - July 19, 1999 - 2:41 PM PT
La Choy. Chinese with a French twist? I think not.

266. joezan - July 19, 1999 - 5:44 PM PT

ChristinO:

Actually, I wasn't responding to Ad's post, in particular.

But it does seem that we are not so far apart on this. I don't appreciate the hypocrisy either - from the right or from the left. The thing is, though, that it takes alot more than just examining the issue, if one is to see the hypocrisy being spouted from one's own side of the aisle.

Again, the point I attempted to make (and maybe it was Adrianne's post I responded to, come to think of it - but the same nonsense is posted here all the time) was that it is silly to assume that whatever negative views someone has of the UN - or of land use regulations, or any of the other "hot-button" issues these radical right-wing groups have seized upon, for that matter - is a product of the propaganda these groups produce. I simply don't believe that enough people pay attention to these loonies to make that big a difference. But the kicker is, ALL of these issues were around long, long before the patriots, aryans, etc, etc, etc.

So, blame these groups for the stupid, ignorant, abominable things they do. They deserve whatever they get. But don't go laying the blame for these acts on "republicans", or "conservatives", or the "right-wing". That's blatant demonization, and it's wrong.

267. ChristinO - July 19, 1999 - 5:54 PM PT
Yes it would be had that been the case, but it wasn't. That's all I meant from the beginning: that Adrianne said "some conservatives" and was immediately jumped on for demonizing ALL conservatives and equating the entire conservative agenda with the terrorist acts of the Patriot movement.

Regarding the origin of views that people hold: yes, some people come by them on their own for the most part as you appear to have done, but a lot of people don't, or don't care what other crap they drag around with them to promote a single idea that they agree with.

268. alistairconnor - July 19, 1999 - 7:15 PM PT
Spud : "The positive is that at long last the world produces enough food for everyone" - the downside to this is not "purely" political, but economic. In most "underdeveloped" countries, in Africa in particular, the existence of cheap bulk food on the world market has the perverse effect of undermining the existing economic infrastructure, and rendering sustainable development just about impossible.

Let me illustrate this. Take a country where the majority of the population are subsistence farmers, whose only cash income comes from sale of their small surplus, when they have some. In a time of relatively high food prices, such a farmer has some chance, through careful management, of accumulating small amounts of capital to improve his farming methods, buy machinery, more land, etc, and, multiplied by millions, to make the economy of his country advance. In the context of a global market awash with cheap food, what does this farmer do? Buy cheap European or American grain? With what money? Two choices : carry on subsistence farming, to feed the family, but with no hope of ever escaping poverty by this means; or walk off the land and join the urban underemployed.

Before the sceptics start howling, let me point out that there is no conspiracy theory in this, just basic mechanical economics. This is one of the many downsides of the industrialization of agriculture.

269. alistairconnor - July 19, 1999 - 7:20 PM PT
I am also less sanguine than you, Spud, about genetic engineering. As far as I can see, no-one has made any serious attempt at risk evaluation on this technology. It's a bit like the beginning of the nuclear age, when battalions of soldiers were marched through smoking test sites to see what would happen. Except that in the present case, the soldiers is us.

270. ScottLoar - July 20, 1999 - 9:56 AM PT
re Message #268, Message #269: A case to the point is Somalia which was self-sufficient in food (albeit poorly distributed) until well-intentioned agencies and relief organizations flooded the country with food aid, driving farmers off the land unprepared for any skill but that their labour could provide and to the city awash in cheap labour. With the agricultural base thoroughly destroyed food then became the prime currency; the control of that currency sparking warlords then drove gangs to carve up the city and countryside into zones of control like Chicago in the early '30s - local warlords (the euphemism given by the press for gangsters) waylaying food convoys. So did the pink-faced, well-intentioned youth of compassion devastate the very people they set to save, an irony I think few apprehended.

Can capital - free money - cause the same effect? Yes, if directed and limited to an administrative body (I do not include debt relief). Look at the Philippines as an example of a country which government administration is bloated by outside funds, stifling entrepreneurship. Yet another delicious irony.

Sorry Spudboy, I do not intend to subvert your thread. Just consider this a momentary diversion.

271. spudboy - July 20, 1999 - 11:18 AM PT
Scott: Not a subversion in the least; I think this is very much on-topic. I appreciate Alistair's contributions a great deal too. I think the next question I'd have for both of you (who probably have greater expertise in economics than I) is this: Aren't these situations somewhat analogous to that in the States, where the proponents of globalization -- an endeavor I support as well, I should add -- have wreaked havoc on the so-called heartland? And what does that say about the real state of the nation?

272. Mazaska - July 20, 1999 - 11:40 AM PT
spudboy,

Just a short note that I continue to lurk waiting for your book to come in the mail.

273. IrvingSnodgrass - July 20, 1999 - 11:49 AM PT
Spuds:
I managed to read much of your book while on my vacation. Couldn't put it down, in fact. I don't have any specific questions or comments, but I'll admit that I find much of the ideology very scary, especially the Christian Identity/Phineas Priesthood stuff. I look forward to hearing more of your take on things in this thread.

274. ScottLoar - July 20, 1999 - 2:06 PM PT
The havoc wreaked on the Heartland began its toll in the US immediately afer the Civil War - it's called Industrialization. Even as new lands opened up and settlers claimed their homesteads the dislocation of the economy from farming to manufacturing was in progress. Small farmers continued but the economies of scale and machinery (first by scores of mule and horse then by engines) seemed to dictate the end of the small family farm. By the 1980's loan foreclosures disclosed the small, self-sufficient farmer for what he was - an inefficient anachronism, far from self-sufficient, wasting resources and most likely to wither up and blow away without government aid, even beyond the aid of Willie Nelson and Kris Kristofferson. But agribusiness is profitable, those big hog farms produce more pork at lower cost than the scores of pig farmers they've replaced, and the purchasers of that pork mostly don't give a damn but for the price at the supermarket. Farming has commonly been replaced by agribusiness as the principles of industrialization are applied to farming (as the plantation system was doing in the antebellum South). Turner in 1890 could declare the closing of the West by a line of settlement stretching coast to coast but in many counties the rural population was less in 1980 than then. Calgary grew by 100,000 persons last year, sucking in the young from Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Who's to replace those kids? Quite nostalgic for us writing here, but who would suggest those kids get back to the farm? Not me. And nowhere have I mentioned Globalization which seems a catch-all for what-all.

By the way, if not for the kindness of one teacher's assistant I would've flunked Economics at university.

275. Mazaska - July 20, 1999 - 2:09 PM PT
Good points, all. In addition, IMHO, there is a real danger in loss of biodiversity in our crops and farm animals.

276. ChristinO - July 20, 1999 - 3:40 PM PT
'zaska,

Yes, I agree. I'm not particularly knowledgeable on the subject but a lack of biodiversity makes a species more susceptible to disease, doesn't it?

277. alistairconnor - July 20, 1999 - 4:59 PM PT
Well folks, I haven't read the book (sorry Spud, if I ordered it the discussion would be long gone before I got it) BUT I do have the solution... Just bear with me for a couple of posts.


The complete industrialization of the food chain is trashing entire communities, all over the world. The reduction of food to a supposedly standardized commodity also aids the "globalization" phenomenon, i.e. if a tomato is just a tomato, then why not grow it in Holland and truck it to Italy, (substitute Oregon and Illinois, or whatever), or vice versa, as long as there is a profit in it? So the local grower goes out of business, and the consumer gets a standard, shelf-ripened, tasteless tomato.

Serves the consumer right. If the consumer were prepared to pay a bit more, they could have had a ripe-picked, tasteful tomato, the production of which has benefitted the local economy, and the transport of which has not significantly contributed to global warming...

278. uzmakk - July 20, 1999 - 7:35 PM PT
I think I detect an agribusiness genetic engineering thread in the last several issues of Harper's Magazine. This month, August, we have Wheaties -- Chasing the Ripening Harvest Across America's Great Plains, and Fowl Trouble --In the nation's poultry plants, brutality to worker as well as to bird. This relates very much to those efficient pig farms that we are talking about. It is quite one thing to look at those numbers which indicate our marvelous economic efficiency and quite another to consider how that efficiency is achieved. Some quotes--

"The situation is even bleaker for Missouri residents. In 1995 the meat-processing industry persuaded officials in that state to create a program that sends welfare recipients to work in the chicken and hog factories."

"More and more Americans are saying no to jobs in the chicken plants , and today 50% of the nations 245,000 poultry workers are immigrants. In response to chronic worker turnover and labor shortages, Congress has proposed setting up a government-run "guest worker" program that would employ immigrant poultry laborers for up to two years (about as long as even the most determined worker is likely to last) before sending them home, perhaps without fingernails-- a common reaction to the bacteria in chicken carcasses. That these workers could also lose the use of their hands is of little concern to those who profit from our bottomless appetite for cheap chicken. Injured foreigners aren't eligible for welfare of disability benefits, after all, and impoverished replacements will not hesitate to head north, seeking a better life on the killing line."

For God sakes. Why didn't those anacronistic american family farmers have the vision to come up with a system like the one described above.(There is considerably more describing the system in the article) Perhaps its because they would be ashamed.

279. alistairconnor - July 20, 1999 - 8:40 PM PT
It's odd, the American consumer, while demanding the highest quality in most domains, is content to buy and eat shit food.

Or perhaps supply is concentrated in so few hands that the consumer has little choice?

What America needs is some good big food scandals. Europe has been lucky enough to have the mad cow business, and more recently the dioxinful chickens, to wake consumers up to the issues of quality and traceability. And the recent poisonous Coca-Cola case was a gift from the gods.

280. alistairconnor - July 20, 1999 - 8:42 PM PT
Fifty million cans recalled in France alone! That's not quite one each. (It's alright, I didn't really want mine anyway)

281. RyckNelson - July 20, 1999 - 8:52 PM PT
Globalization of produce is also hurting in the area I focus attention to. Namely, Borneo etal. The rain forest is so far gone now, and the plantations are on the way. It's coolies, and millionaires all over the place. Of course the balance wont favor our friend the native coolie. Anyway, they'll just get pushed out by cheap imported laborers from Indonesia.







Sorry, I'll shut up now.

282. alistairconnor - July 20, 1999 - 9:45 PM PT
No, Ryck, you're right on subject. I wouldn't be surprised if the disposessed former forest dwellers got violent and dangerous too.

283. alistairconnor - July 21, 1999 - 1:33 AM PT
so, What Is To Be Done? Simple, really....

All those farmers that are just about ready to walk off the land, be foreclosed out by banks etc, because they just can't compete with Big Agribiz in turning out shit food cheaply... They need to go upmarket.

They can't do it alone, they don't have the money nor the know-how. They need something like a five-year aid program to keep them going while they convert over to organic production. Better food, pride in the work, better profit margin.

284. uzmakk - July 21, 1999 - 5:34 AM PT
Alistairconner:

I recall a media gumdrop that compared the reaction of Americans to the contamination of the food supply 100 years ago to their reaction today. 100 years ago the reaction shook the country. Today, no big deal. Funny, one would think that people would still be concerned about being poisoned.

I can hear it now, we produce more food and safer food than we have ever produced before. True? We produce more of something anyway.

I recall a quote from Mark Twain in an essay by Robert Graves where Twain describes the spread at a summer banquet. Ah, the incredible variety and the wholesome goodness. Made the buffet table at the Four Seasons seem like an elaborate sham.

Back to the food supply. My father was a chemist and he told me that it took him a long time to learn a simple lesson that he had a hard time learning, and the lesson was this--

Given a problem one can come up with many solutions which can be rated on an absolute scale considering only how well they solve the problem.. The market, and therefore the company, is never interested in the best solution to any problem, but the solution that can make the most money. What the market comes up with in many cases is a product that is just good enough to market, just good enough to foist on consumers. How about the American automobile industry's past policy of producing automobiles with defects galore and having consumers come back to have them fixed. So you'll be without your car for a day. So you'll be inconvenienced. So you think you are buying a shiney new car, but you are really buying a shiney new bucket of bolts. Things have improved but the natureal tendency is to walk that thin line.

285. uzmakk - July 21, 1999 - 5:40 AM PT
Anyhow, back to the food. The same thin line is walked between safety, quality, efficiency, and profit in the food industry. It is easy to see how quality and safety can be pushed to rear, and countered by a good advertising campaign and a talented PR department. Archer Daniels Midland, supermarket to the world, brought this post to you.

One more example. I bought a short-shafted shovel with a plastic handle at the top of the shaft many years ago. The plastic handle flexed. A tremendous amount of energy went into flexing that handle and not into the ground where the business end of the shovel was.
I had been fooled into purchasing an item, which looked like a shovel, felt like a shovel, but was not a shovel. Money had exchanged hands, however, and a profit was made.

286. uzmakk - July 21, 1999 - 5:43 AM PT
Spud:

I need to be able to purchase your book on tape to be able to "read" it. I cannot see getting around to it while this thread is in operation and this makes me sad.

287. ScottLoar - July 21, 1999 - 8:17 AM PT
Anne of Green Gables is alive, in this thread at least.

No, I don't see evidence that the US or any farmers have a higher ethic or stricter code of hygiene or graver civic responsibility than the general populace. A visit to the countryside to attend a small livestock auction should abuse all but the most pixillated of this romance about small farming, just to see how farmers treat their stock.

No, I see no evidence of a general American demand for high quality, neither in their foods or clothing or articles of daily use or tastes in entertainment, housing... you name it. I do see Americans looking for what they call "value", such as low prices and hence the proliferation of factory outlets and gargantuan discount stores, and restaurant chains serving the same tasteless meals or offering huge portions in oversized platters.

If the consumer wants better foods and higher quality he'll pay for it, but don't expect morels and truffles to soon grace American tables. Frankly, a people who think nachos with dip to be high pleasure and rave about salad bars aren't interested in dining, neither will they pay a premium for hand-picked, specially cultivated produce.

288. spudboy - July 21, 1999 - 9:19 AM PT
Scott: I agree that the whole myth of the noble farmer is riddled with hyperbole. However, I think it's pretty hard to disagree with the aspect of this dislocation that's most relevant here: the utter destruction of the community in rural America. Go to any small town these days and you find the downtown boarded up: no local drugstore, no barber shop, no moviehouse. The local grocer is likely to be a 7-11. You may sniff that these small-town virtues are the stuff of sepia-tinted fantasies, but they did exist in fact. They were much of what made living in the country actually worthwhile.

I think it's inescapable that the rendering of this kind of social fabirc, deeply ingrained as it is in the American identity, is going to produce some serious social upheaval. This same ethos was previously responsible for keeping rural America's unstable elements largely in check. Those restraints are vanishing.

And yes, now that you mention it: When community was all-important in rural America, there was in fact a higher level of ethics. Farmers may not have treated their stock especially well, but it's better than what you see on today's corporate farms: entire cities of 6,000 hogs rounded up in large pens where there's scarecely any room to move. The wastes from these farms (a pig produces the same amount of waste as a human does) are handled sketchily at best, and the runoff from the pens has been linked to outbreaks of contamination in places like Maryland, which has seen a bizarre disease called pfisteria hit local fish stocks in waters directly downstream from such pens. (Nothing scientific has been established yet, though.)

In the old rural America, behavior like this (or, say, producing contaminated food) would have made a farmer a community outcast. And you didn't survive or thrive long in farming without the involvement of the rest of the community. So there was an enforced ethos that I frankly consider superior to the corporate bottom line.

289. spudboy - July 21, 1999 - 9:23 AM PT
Uzmakk and Mazaska: Hey, don't feel like you have to have read the book in order participate here. That's not holding anyone else back, and it would be foolish to expect. Please, join in freely.

290. spudboy - July 21, 1999 - 9:37 AM PT
Some quick notes about the Foreword: I struggled with how to handle a name for the movement, because it has a lot of different permutations, and the public seems to know it best as the "militia movement." But the militias, as I explain, are only one of the many strategies you find the movement deploying. What they call themselves is "Patriots" or the "Patriot movement," an apparent devolution from the former self-description of "Christian patriots." (Note that such terms are especially resonant in relation to the very ethos I describe as vanishing in rural America.) Calling them "patriots," though, not only concedes their claim to the term, it does a disservice to people who are genuinely patriotic (particularly those veterans of World War II who gave life and limb to stop fascism). In the end, I settled for capitalizing the word Patriot throughout to distinguish the movement from the broader, real-world sense of the word.

291. spudboy - July 21, 1999 - 9:50 AM PT
A little more about the circled date in my portable calendar: I interviewed John Trochmann twice in 1994, once by phone and the other time in person. On both occasions he mentioned April 19 to me. The second time, in November in Noxon, he railed at length about the deeper meaning of the date.

That January I got together at a local tavern with some people doing research on the far right: Dan Junas, an op researcher who's one of the leading experts on Moonies and the far right generally; Devin Burghart, who at the time was with the Coalition for Human Dignity and is now the executive director of the Center for New Community, a church-financed anti-hate organization based in Oak Park; and Paul deArmond, who runs a Web site called Public Good and monitors the fringe right in the Bellingham area. We compared notes and all came to the conclusion that if something big were going to happen, it would be on April 19. I put a big red circle on the date in my calendar book with a question mark in it.

Which is why I wound up calling Trochmann on April 20.

292. ScottLoar - July 21, 1999 - 11:53 AM PT
re Message #288, Spudboy, I agree with you (I once wrote to a correspondent here that I declined to go skinny dippin' in the hog waste lagoon with him).

293. joezan - July 21, 1999 - 9:09 PM PT

Spudboy - Message #288:

"Go to any small town these days and you find the downtown boarded up: no local drugstore, no barber shop, no moviehouse."

True. That's why I, and 24 members of my family have migrated to this area

The downtown area thrives. And, even though it's a popular tourist destination (because of its beaches - the best in the Great Lakes, amongst many other natural and man-made attractions), serious crime is almost non-existent. Why? Because almost every one of the store owners live above their stores.

(If the link works, be sure to check out the beaches, too. But don't tell anyone - there are already enough Chicagoans moving out here)

This county also has the highest agricultural revenues in the entire state, and almost all of our farms are family-owned...in fact, besides a large beef cattle operation a few miles from here, their are no giant agri-business concerns.

Curious...maybe it's the politics? We are, after all, the most Republican county in the country.

294. alistairconnor - July 21, 1999 - 10:14 PM PT
Joe, isn't that curious? I can tell a similar story. My home is in rural France, which in general suffers from chronic economic devitalisation and depopulation. But our area escapes that, even though agriculture employs fewer and fewer people as small farms are amalgamated (generally when the older farmers retire).

Lots of reasons for this. In your case, it looks like tourism is an economic factor, also it seems non-farming types find it an attractive place to live? I suspect it's within commuting distance of larger cities (I believe you're not a farmer yourself?)

What is the secret of the area's agricultural prosperity? One suspects niche operations with high added value?

295. alistairconnor - July 21, 1999 - 10:28 PM PT
Even in our days of ultra-low-cost transport, proximity to urban areas -- or at least to a reasonably big population catchment -- is a big plus for farmers. Ideas circulate better. Buyers and sellers have a better chance of finding each other.

296. alistairconnor - July 21, 1999 - 10:44 PM PT
Message #287. Hi ScottLoar, this is Ann.

Although I admit to being a dewy-eyed romantic and an idealist to boot (so boot me!), this is not in itself enough to invalidate my arguments.

We have one neighbour who will literally let his cattle die rather than pay good money to a vet to cure them or even put them our of their misery. On the other hand, I have seen another neighbour having to be physically restrained, tears streaming down his face, to prevent him from returning into his blazing barn to rescue stock.

In any case, you can produce cheap meat by mistreating animals, you can't produce good quality meat that way.

297. ScottLoar - July 22, 1999 - 1:09 AM PT
Ann, tit-for-tat:

At a rural livestock auction one cow was presented with its stomach stitched up with barb wire; the animal had ripped its gut open on a nail. A truckload of beefs collapsed the floor of the truck; the driver just kept on truckin' as legs left a bloody swath on the roadway.

Some years ago in Taiwan there was a cholera outbreak caused by some few farmers using hypodermics to inject ditch water into their watermelons and so increase the weight. Seafood there is still occasionally treated with nostrums benign or malignant to prolong its "freshness". The principle "caveat emptor" has prompted locals to demand more stringent government control and inspection of foodstuffs and more consistent quality that is often effected by the principles of industrialization (read "agribusiness").

Again, I don't argue that you get better quality meat by good care of stock; my consistent point has been the average American consumer just doesn't care about quality, only price (the US is not the home of Kobe beef). Sure, your educated consumer will bewail the treatment of factory animals; sure, your educated consumer will desclaim that quality motivates his every purchase; but the sad fact is contrary. I will allow, though, that many people seem more moved by the ethical treatment of animals, most especially dogs and cats as testified by the arrival of shelters in southern California which will not euthanize animals, than by the plight of their fellow human beings.

Yours,
Oscar Meyer

298. joezan - July 22, 1999 - 3:38 AM PT

Scott:

I KNEW your baloney had a first name! (g)

299. joezan - July 22, 1999 - 4:10 AM PT

Alistair:

Yes - tourism is a factor. But when considered against other sources of revenue, it's not a huge factor. As I said, agriculture is first, with manufacturing a close second (principally office furniture and auto-related).

As to the produce - well, you wouldn't call it "niche operations". The chief crops here have remained the same for generations - blueberries, corn, legumes, and.....Christmas trees. There are many "centennial farms" in every part of the county - that's a distinction bestowed (complete with very nice wooden yard sign) upon farms which have been in the same family for a century or longer.

As to proximity to a major city, well, we are only about 80 miles from Milwaukee and Chicago....as the fish swims. But if you like to arrive dry, you need to drive around Lake Michigan about 3 or 4 hours.

And, actually, I wasn't kidding about politics playing a big role in this area's success. Participatory democracy is in these people's bones - voter turnout in local elections is usually over 70%, and we vote on just about anything. There are bond and millage issues coming to the vote all the time. I believe that's the key.

300. marjoribanks - July 22, 1999 - 6:52 AM PT
"If the consumer wants better foods and higher quality he'll pay for it, but don't expect morels and truffles to soon grace American tables. Frankly, a people who think nachos with dip to be high pleasure and rave about salad bars aren't interested in dining, neither will they pay a premium for hand-picked, specially cultivated produce."

It may not be representative of life in the rest of the country, but it is quite apparent here in New York City that there is actually tremendous consumer interest in "hand-picked, specially cultivated" premium produce. Many of the top chefs in the city practice something grandiosely referred to as "sustainable cuisine", which in simple terms is simply ingredients grown in the region, in the traditional seasons, by farmers who take pains with their products.

In addition, the farmers markets (where local farmers sell their own, largely organic, products) have gotten bigger and bigger and better and better. The Union Square greenmarket, for instance, is extremely popular with Manhattanites, and I do the very large majority of my grocery shopping there on Saturday, the main market day. The prices are competitive with supermarkets but the produce is infinitely superior and more varied and fresher. It's also great for dairy products, meat and fish.

Again, it may be a limited phenomenon, but anyone who has strolled through the hubbub in Union Square on market day would be a little less quick to dismiss American eating/buying habits and preferences.

back

next

home