On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 09:17:50 -0500, "Morris Dovey"
wrote:

Duane Bozarth (in ) said:

| Morris Dovey wrote:
| ....
|| We can expect that as the cost of fuel rises, more and more land
|| will be given over to ethanol production - and other crops will be
|| sacrificed until a (shifting) economic balance is achieved. Soybean
|| derivatives (everything from livestock feed to plastics) will
|| become sharply more expensive.
|
|| If the pressures to maximize ethanol production are sufficiently
|| high, we face the danger of taking a giant step backward to
|| repetitively planting the same crop on the same land until the
|| soil is exhausted. Should we get to that point, there will be
|| serious breakage - and the worst of it won't be in the corn belt.
|
| I think you overestimate this scenario extensively...for one thing,
| at present there are millions of acres of formerly-producing crop
| ground in the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) that could, IF
| (that's the "big if" ) it were necessary and economical, be
| brought back into production for many of these ancillary crops as
| well as corn and soybeans. As for land "exhaustion", if there is
| any segment that is concerned w/ maintaining productivity of the
| land, it is we producers--after all, that is our direct
| livelihood, not indirect.

You're right, the scenario I presented assumed no major scientific
breakthrough - and a prolonged "emergency" (as defined by folks in
DC.)

The really sad scenario would be removing control of the land from
those who have a sense of stewardship in favor of management by larger
("more efficient") organizations who aren't able to do much of
anything well except make campaign contributions.

The Supreme Court's recent decision in the Connecticut condemnation
case provides precedent for other cases that *will* affect family
farms. The only questions are how many farms, and where, and for what
purpose...


The decision for which, I will reiterate, was rendered by the *liberal*
block of the Supreme Court with the collusion of the "moderate" Sandra
O'Connor (moderate in this usage being defined as a liberal without the
brazos to declare themselves so).

"National security interests" appears to have become a buzz phrase to
justify even the most outrageous behavior. These days it even trumps
principles like "due process".


Your reference above had nothing to do with "national security
interests" in the referenced case and everything to do with tax revenue and
the ability to advance the cause of statism.

Actually, screwing farmers for the sake of "national security" is nothing
new. Ask the heirs of some of the farmers during WWII who were "relocated"
by Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Denver or some of the other military
infrastructure needs at the time.


I wish I shared your confidence and optimism.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+