-
More on rice:
“The rising demand for rice can in a way be attributed to African countries, which are moving away from coarse cereals such as corn, according to Mr Suresh Babu, Senior Research Fellow of the US-based International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).”
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/03/13/stories/2008031350391500.htm
Posted at March 13, 2008 12:33 AM in response to The Squeeze is On
-
More on food:
Excerpt from “When filling up the car empties bellies of the poor:”
Global supply is being hit by much of America's grain being diverted to biofuels, following President Bush's decreed shift to ethanol production. This was at least as much to reduce his country's dependence on oil imports from hostile parts of the world as to tackle global warming. American grain stocks are down to their lowest level since it was feeding war-torn Europe in the 1940s.
Europe is also aiming to push for one in 20 litres of transport fuel being crop-based, while Richard Branson is boasting how his aircraft can now fly on friendly fuels. But forests are being cut down to feed biofuel demand, a process described by the UK government's chief scientific adviser as “profoundly stupid.”
Food price pressures are being felt around the world. They have caused riots in Mexico, Morocco, Uzbekistan, Yemen, Guinea, Mauritania and Senegal. A protest in Beirut, where food prices nearly doubled in four months, led to nine deaths. Russia has imposed price controls on staple foods. Pakistan has stationed troops around flour mills. The market price of rice in India has risen by half in a year, and its government recently blocked rice exports except for the premium basmati that finds its way on to British plates.
We may need a 21st century Homestead Act--back to the family farm.
Posted at March 12, 2008 1:57 AM in response to The Squeeze is On
-
Just a few quotes and notes:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state."
Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802
"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."
James Madison's original version of the Establishment Clause in the First Amendment.
Everson v. Board of Education was decided in 1947, therein, the Supreme Court declared: "The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach."
This ruling essentially adopted Jefferson’s description found in his letter of 1802.
Mr. Waldman suggests that “These men represented viewpoints that had to be heeded by the likes of Jefferson and Madison who were not just philosophers but politicians who assembled coalitions.” I would suggest that if he reads Justice Joseph Story’s commentaries, he might find some basis for such an assertion, plus the fact that Madison’s original version of the Establishment Clause was somewhat “watered” by both the House and Senate versions, and the final product was produced in their joint conference.
However, even an attempt to prove the Christian ascendency at our founding is countered by the very history we have lived since. The Nativist Era is most interesting as a proving ground for our experienced religious intolerance.
Such instances matter mighty in the continuity of our history that has produced an immigrant nation with a highly diverse religious background, where not only dwells the religious, but the secularly spiritual, and the secular as well. Within the context of waves of emigration, as well as our own learning experiences in seeking tolerance, our rule of law has essentially found gravity returned. Jefferson and Madison, be they be philosophers or politicians, were right all along.
Posted at March 11, 2008 12:11 AM in response to Fallacy #1: The Founders Weren't Deists
-
I’m confused, the link offered was in opposition to the allegations stated on the blog. So you telling me I’m “intellectually dishonest” in pointing out that regardless of the beliefs Hillary had upon leaving for college, the turbulence of her time shaped her beliefs, and those same beliefs remained with her for life. We are permitted to change, most especially if our intellectual reasoning points in another direction. I did read the article, in fact, it provides strong reasons for the honesty of her own transformation.
Posted at March 9, 2008 1:12 PM in response to Hillary, the Goldwater Girl
-
Actually, he aimed it at the George Bush-John McCain continuum, that was clear. The administrations of the elder Bush and Bill Clinton were historically dispatched to an Obamian direct negotiation limbo.
When a candidate for President makes a sweeping generalization of 28 years of history, I do not think it totally crazy to attempt to understand what historical lesson he is deriving from the period, and if the implied lesson actually makes historical sense.
Posted at March 9, 2008 11:13 AM in response to History in the Making
-
No Sir, I simply hear his version of history, a vastly complex epoch wherein he apparently believes the golden era of diplomacy was practiced from Kennedy to Reagan. The truth is that it was not–we made mistakes. I thought the sentence was by far a hasty generalization of the real history that transpired during the included administrations.
A candidate who can confer a good sense of history has an edge, it just wasn’t evident here. I would agree that by the criteria suggested by Obama, the current Bush is found most wanting, yet in his allusion to the prior administrations, the suggestion is clear that the use of "direct diplomacy" was routinely practiced with success, but historically, that simply was not the case.
Posted at March 8, 2008 11:12 PM in response to History in the Making
-
Read this, it will clear things up:
"In Turmoil of ’68, Clinton Found a New Voice" New York Times 9/5/2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/us/politics/05clinton.html?pagewanted=print
Posted at March 8, 2008 10:16 PM in response to Hillary, the Goldwater Girl
-
One list of all time presidential blunders had these relational to the question:
John Kennedy (1961-1963): Allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion that led to the Cuban missile crisis.
Lyndon Johnson (1963-1969): Allowing the Vietnam War to intensify
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989): Supporting Iran-Contra deal to sell arms to Iran to fund anti-Communists in Nicaragua.
More: Nixon failing to extract us from Vietnam in a timely manner, Ford overseeing the collapse of South Vietnam, Carter’s handing of the Iran revolution, Reagan in Lebanon. The interesting part of the line was "petty dictators," meaning all those times the various administrations got into some form of trouble.
Posted at March 8, 2008 7:56 PM in response to History in the Making
-
Obama, in his own words, March 4, 2008, speech transcript:
"It’s the same course that continues to divide and isolate America from the world by substituting bluster and bullying for direct diplomacy – by ignoring our allies and refusing to talk to our enemies even though Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done just that; because strong countries and strong leaders aren’t afraid to tell hard truths to petty dictators."
Mr. Bérubé, when the test of actual history is applied, is this sentence true?
Posted at March 8, 2008 6:50 PM in response to History in the Making
-
The Democratic Party would suffer if the issues of Michigan and Florida are not resolved prior to the convention. The party does not need pictures of empty seats, nor the selection of a 48 state nominee.
Lovely line: "I admire both of them for their sheer ability to soldier on with courage, wisdom, and even wit and good cheer."
Now, if we can only get past the vitriol.
Posted at March 7, 2008 8:02 PM in response to As I See It
