Charlie Self wrote:

telling the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac".
The farmer responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my
$80,000 tractor"!

Has to be waaaaaaaaaaaay old! When was the last time you heard of a 15K
Caddy?

Or an $80,000 tractor. Probably multiply this by 2.5 or so I'd say.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

"Norman D. Crow" wrote:
....
NY dairy farm, about 200 acres, rolling hills, milking about 30-35 head.

Cousin's place was outside Bergen--enjoyed getting to know several of
the locals there over a number of summers...

Uncle's first tractor was a Farmall Super A about 1950, later a Super C,
biggest tractor he ever owned was a Super H. His son did move up to a
Farmall 650, later a mid size Ford diesel, but nothing over 100HP. There
were times a little more HP would have been "nice", but not necessary for
day to day usage.

One major difference here was that it was settled so late and the open
country encouraged large-scale farming from the beginning. Our town
wasn't founded until 1888 when the railroad ended here before being
allowed to cross into the OK Territory. Grandad came out from central
KS in 1914 and started w/ mules, but got first tractors in the 20s.
Unfortunately I do not know what the very first was, but an early Twin
City was the first "large" one--it was about 30 hp I think. By the 30s
they used Cat Twenty-Two's for the flotation, one of which is still
operational (although I don't have it, sadly). I first drove the
Farmall M, then we got a 400 and 560. Our first big tractor was a Case
930 wheatland model. Grandpa bought a AC WD45 when he got older to have
something he could handle a little easier...it had the snap-coupler
system and we had so many implements for it that Dad upgraded it to a
D17 (about 50 hp, I think) when I was in high school. I did a ton of
row crop on it. When we went to six-row planters we got the first JD
4020. Dad then gradually stepped up over the years as it became
necessary to add acreage and as it became nearly impossible to get good
reliable help. He progressed through JD 4440, 4640, 4840s. I still
have the ('79) 4440 (w/ 4000 original hours) for the scoop and blade,
mowing around the place, etc.

Silvan wrote:

Charlie Self wrote:

telling the farmer 'now be careful you don't damage my $15,000 Cadillac".
The farmer responds "Well, you can be damn sure I'm not going to damage my
$80,000 tractor"!

Has to be waaaaaaaaaaaay old! When was the last time you heard of a 15K
Caddy?

Or an $80,000 tractor. Probably multiply this by 2.5 or so I'd say.

There's such a wide selection of starting models plus options these days
it's essentially meaningless to put out "averages". Most would be in the
factor of 2 or less multipler a few, of course, can be even higher. A
major difference from olden days is the cost of implements owing to all
the enhanced features. A 12- to 16- row planter can push $100k.

The insurance/replacement value of my old '79 4440 is greater than it
cost new, of course, to put some perspective on $$...

Charlie Self wrote:

You don't see that around here, or in upstate NY...or any of New England.
The Northereastern fields are simply too cut up, so farm size is about
what a field size may be in the midwest flatlands. Rolling lands, really.

Not around here, no, but you do see a little of that in Virginia. I ran
down into the far southeastern corner once, near the Great Dismal Swamp.
They had fields that gave me some inkling what it must be like out west.
Trees on the far side far enough away that you could see the curvature of
the earth in between.

I think I run through a fair amount of that in the Carolinas too, but they
have the good sense to hide it all with trees, so it doesn't unsettle the
hillbilly stomach so badly.

I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands.

Me too. Think about where I run. It's good running, but I'd go nuts if I
had to live there, I think. Some places you can see where the road is
going 15-20 miles ahead of you, with a big straight slash right down the
middle of the gently rolling Jummy forests. It just doesn't feel right
without those big green humps surrounding you

The only time I can tolerate flat is when there's an ocean at the far side
of it. I try not to look back the other way.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Silvan wrote:

....
You know more about it than I do, surely, but it certainly looks to me like
what I said above is true. Driving through the rural Carolinas, for
example, it seems like just about every patch of dirt that doesn't have a
strip mall on it has a sign in the corner saying something like "This
Property Owned and Operated by Agri-Mega-Corp."
....

There are certainly local differences...and, yes, NC (and perhaps SC, I
don't know as much about it) are quite different from the midwest.
Corporate farms are, in fact, illegal in most of the high plains and
have been so for decades. It's getter harder to preserve these
regulations, but so far, they've managed to keep them at bay. As I
said, our major vertical integration here is w/ Seaboard and their type
w/ the hog farms. We do have some commercial dairy operations moving in
from CA owing to the regulation and expense they're running into there.
For the most part, they're much smaller operations than the hog
production, however. For what it's worth, other than the "close to end
market" argument, I've always thought the large hog operations in NC
were a bad idea. Out here where it's arid and there are areas which can
be far removed from residential areas it's tolerable but even here
they're not universally welcome. I, for one, would be pleased to see
Seaboard forced to diversify but it will never happen--it's the same as
WalMart--the consumer these days is only interested in the minimum cost,
despite their protestations otherwise. If costs rise, production will
go to those places where it is less regulated (read expensive).

It also seems to me that efficiency or no, it must be much easier to go
broke than to turn a profit in that business. I guess that's true of any
business, but it just seems to me, as an outsider, like the deck is stacked
against farming all around. They want your land for strip malls and yuppie
gated golf communities, so they can get higher property taxes.

It's certainly an apt summary...out here on dry land, we figure on one
or two good years out of five, hopefully two others will be break-even
and the fifth is almost guaranteed to hurt...it takes excellent
management and cash flow (and an understanding banker) to survive. It
seems every year there's a raft of new challenges...this year it's
rocketing fuel prices and soybean Asian rust or the BSE panic to name
just a couple you've certainly heard of...

We fortunately don't have the population explosion here as in some
areas, but it is an issue indirectly. Population shifts have
concentrated power in the urban areas here as well so that the cities
dominant policy to the detriment of rural. Our state senator, for
example, has a district that represents 61 of the 105 counties and the
average geographical area of the western counties is significantly
larger than that of those farther east. Something like 80% of the
counties in the western two-thirds of the state are actually declining
in population. Only the half-dozen with a local community-college
and/or one of the packing plants are either growing or even holding
their own...

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:02:46 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
wrote:


Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.

Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
well.

Barry

Ba r r y wrote:

On Sun, 19 Dec 2004 10:02:46 -0500, "Norman D. Crow"
wrote:

Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.

Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
well.

Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
any county-wide zoning at all...

Duane Bozarth responds:

Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.

Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
well.

Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
any county-wide zoning at all...

Consider yourself exceptionally fortunate. In the past 28 years, Bedford County
has almost doubled in population, and is one of Virginia's fastest growing
areas west of Charlottesville. I'm not at all sure there are many areas east of
C'ville that are gobbling farm space as rapidly.

Charlie Self
"It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric
Hoffer

Charlie Self wrote:

Duane Bozarth responds:

Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie.

Flatland farmers understand "A developer wants to buy your land" quite
well.

Certainly and issue around the larger cities/towns, not nearly as much
so in more rural areas...see my other post on demographics...our little
town is no farther to the south or east towards us now than it was when
I was in high school in the 60s. It has moved north by about 1 mile in
that time. The big expansion is the flood of trailers before there was
any county-wide zoning at all...

Consider yourself exceptionally fortunate. In the past 28 years, Bedford County
has almost doubled in population, and is one of Virginia's fastest growing
areas west of Charlottesville. I'm not at all sure there are many areas east of
C'ville that are gobbling farm space as rapidly.


That's too bad...I haven't been back to Lynchburg for almost 15 years
now...we lived in southwest end of Anderson County close to what was
(then) the new golf course. Love Beford County as well...tried to buy a
Civil War-vintage old plantation house just east of the Peak but the
owner had cut off all the land except for a teeny-tiny triangle right up
to the back porch and wouldn't negotiate 10 or so acres off in order to
be able to make something of the place...I've forgotten the number of
the road it was on, but was prime area. B&W was bought out by McDermott
and internal R&D didn't look too promising and my former boss called
from Oak Ridge starting a new consulting firm office at about that time
so never did negotiate anything rural of our own while in VA...

It's a mixed bag...the farm economy plus oil/gas reserves are almost
depleted here now have been so depressed that local economy is not at
all healthy. If we didn't have the community college we'd be one of the
80% of counties I was speaking of earlier. I do like not having a high
population density, I would like to see a more vibrant local economy
such as we had during the post war era through about the mid-70s...

Eddie Munster wrote:
Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.

As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.



And why in hell

would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?


Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.

Those were lean days.


But cheating didn't bother her?

Hank Gillette wrote:
In article
,
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:


Pump gas for cars has been colored since I was
little--yellow to red.


Don't forget blue Sunoco.


Didn't forget. Just never saw Sunoco gas. Saw lots of Conoco, Shell,
76, etc. Never saw any color that wasn't some shade of red. Guess it
depends on what part of the country you live in.

Silvan wrote:
Duane Bozarth wrote:


That's why 90% of farms are owned by Conglom-Ag isn't it?

Actually, that's not true at all...in actuality, other than the
corporate hog and chicken producers, most are still family-owned
businesses...of course, they have gotten larger...


You know more about it than I do, surely, but it certainly looks to me like
what I said above is true. Driving through the rural Carolinas, for
example, it seems like just about every patch of dirt that doesn't have a
strip mall on it has a sign in the corner saying something like "This
Property Owned and Operated by Agri-Mega-Corp."


(non-irrigated)). Today, assuming similar growing conditions, I'd
expect near 80 to as much as 100. However, the recent spike in fuel
costs is definitely a hit--I'm studying carefully what to do for next
spring. Winter wheat, of course, is already in and up (and looking
good, here, too!)


It also seems to me that efficiency or no, it must be much easier to go
broke than to turn a profit in that business. I guess that's true of any
business, but it just seems to me, as an outsider, like the deck is stacked
against farming all around. They want your land for strip malls and yuppie
gated golf communities, so they can get higher property taxes.


You are probably not that wrong, just in statistics. The number of
farms continues to drop and the size of farms continues to rise. So
big corporation farms in terms of acres, continues to increase, but
total numbers of farms also continues to decrease.

The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.

Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.

I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."

Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
business requirements of today. More power to them.

"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
....
The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.

No, it has not passed away as an institution in the historic farming
areas...they family farm has certainly evolved,but it is every bit as
much a way of life as ever.

Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.

That is true although other than the last sentence doesn't fit with the
other two...

I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."

There may be some of those, but there certainly have been a large number
of long term farm families that have not been able to make it over the
last 20 years. Much of this is certainly exacerbated by inconsistent
government policies to be polite. Remember the Carter grain embargoes
and the (1st) Bush crackdown to lower the high bread prices? Both of
those came after pleas to produce more for the export market which these
policies immediately killed...the resulting collapse of the grain
markets did force many failures. That's a very brief synopsis of a
complex issue but certainly that part of it played a significant role.

Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
business requirements of today. More power to them.

I'm going to insult you, but I don't mean it...obtw, please continue to
keep my food costs cheaper than anywhere else in the world...

Charlie Self wrote:

....
Lynchburg, AKA Falwellville, is about 30 miles east of here.

Hard to believe today, but I'd never heard of the village painter's son
before I got there. Lynchburg certainly was a culture shock to a KS farm
boy right out of school to get to the "proper" behavior of The Old
Dominion...

My wife likes it. I prefer Roanoke, 30 miles west.

Roanoke was far bigger than Lynchburg back then ('68) although that was
certainly far larger than where I came from, of course...never really
spent any time in Roanoke. Drove by to get to Blacksburg or to/from KS
when visiting is about all...

By the time we left, the influx of new hires by B&W and GE had diluted
the originals to the point it was no longer the totally closed society
it was when we arrived...

Overall, did enjoy our time there although I feel much more at home back
here now.

George E. Cawthon wrote:

Eddie Munster wrote:
Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.

As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.



And why in hell

would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?


Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.

Those were lean days.


But cheating didn't bother her?

Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
give a damn what the government wants.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:


Eddie Munster wrote:

Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.

As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.



And why in hell


would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?


Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.

Those were lean days.


But cheating didn't bother her?


Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
give a damn what the government wants.


I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
to a swear/strong word but fraud.

Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
agreed with various laws and policies.

While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
references indicate. Going through the depression means to
me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
course, a great number of people didn't experience the
depression at all even though they were adults during the
period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
held, and the social stratum they lived in.

Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.

George E. Cawthon wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:


Eddie Munster wrote:

Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.

As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.



And why in hell


would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?


Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.

Those were lean days.


But cheating didn't bother her?


Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
give a damn what the government wants.


I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
to a swear/strong word but fraud.

Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
agreed with various laws and policies.

While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
references indicate. Going through the depression means to
me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
course, a great number of people didn't experience the
depression at all even though they were adults during the
period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
held, and the social stratum they lived in.

Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.

There were two overlapping events, Prohibition and the Depression. Note
that I said "Prohibition and the Depression" not either/or.

--
--John
Reply to jclarke at ae tee tee global dot net
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"Norman D. Crow" wrote in message
...

To best of my knowledge, there's so little farm gasoline these
days there is no off-road available (certainly not here, anyway). For
the old tractors and trucks, we buy pump gas, keep records of what is
off-road (local Co-op has key pumps so we have separate farm/non-farm
keys) and deduct the tax off the taxes when file.

One doson't want to be caught by the weigh station guys w/ long
haul/non-farm use farm diesel! They're pretty serious about
enforcement...

Yep, they really want to know about that diesel fuel. I was still driving
truck when that changeover came in the 90's. Wasn't just the weigh
stations,
they set up random checks all over PA just to see the color of your diesel
fuel.


The color in diesel is to distinguish high sulfur - illegal in commerce -
from low sulfur. Farm or any off-road use ok for high sulfur. You want to
use Uncle's roads, you follow his rules on fuel.

J. Clarke wrote:
George E. Cawthon wrote:


J. Clarke wrote:

George E. Cawthon wrote:



Eddie Munster wrote:


Sorry I should have mentioned gasoline. and diesel.

As for the time frame, a long long time ago on the Saskatchewan prarie.
I think it was to take out a red colourant.



And why in hell



would you use bread instead of diatomaceous earth?


Because it worked. (??) My Grandmother ran a grocery store and probably
wouldn't understand (or approve of) your city words.

Those were lean days.


But cheating didn't bother her?


Most people who lived through Prohibition and the Depression really don't
give a damn what the government wants.


I think you missed the point. I assumed he was objecting to
my use of "Hell" so I was tweaking his moral values--object
to a swear/strong word but fraud.

Your comment seems to imply that to disagree and being a
scofflaw are the same. Most of the people I know that went
through the depression were law abiding whether or not they
agreed with various laws and policies.

While we are at it maybe some definitions are needed. The
depression was from 1930 to 1939, at least that's what my
references indicate. Going through the depression means to
me experiencing it in a meaningful way which means the
person would need to be old enough to be aware of what was
going on. I take that to mean that the person was born at
least by 1924 and to really experience it they would have
needed to be at least 15 by 1930 or born by 1915. Of
course, a great number of people didn't experience the
depression at all even though they were adults during the
period. It depends on the geographic area, the jobs they
held, and the social stratum they lived in.

Nonetheless, to imply that those born before 1915 generally
approved and practiced fraud is a bit outrageous.


There were two overlapping events, Prohibition and the Depression. Note
that I said "Prohibition and the Depression" not either/or.



Yeah, sorry I missed that addition of Prohibition. Always
like it when some one adds an extraneous point in the middle
of a discussion. But, the two didn't overlap much;
prohibition was from 1919 to 1933. So the overlap was only
3 years. Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest
laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
large criminal group and a huge crime wave. Nonetheless,
I differ with your viewpoint. I'm rather thankful that I
grew were people were generally honest, law abiding, and
generally didn't defraud their fellow man.

"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest
laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
large criminal group and a huge crime wave.

Revisionist History at its best. The gangs were there before, they were
there after "the great experiment." Booze just provided a good source of
quick money above the gambling, prostitution and extortion which preceded
it, and the racketeering and drugs which followed.

I'm seeing a lot of "Indian" cigarettes around now that we're the second or
third highest tax state in the US. More casinos, too. Did the laws cause
the tribes, or just the tribe's corruption problems?

George E. Cawthon wrote:

The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.

The other weird thing about these rural North Carolina farming towns is you
drive in, and are greeted by a big sign that says "Bienvenido a Sometown,
NC. Población 1280." Then every other building has a Western Union
billboard on it, also in Spanish, and most of the downtown stores have
names like "El Mariachi Gordo" and such.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

Silvan wrote:

George E. Cawthon wrote:

The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.

The other weird thing about these rural North Carolina farming towns is you
drive in, and are greeted by a big sign that says "Bienvenido a Sometown,
NC. Población 1280." Then every other building has a Western Union
billboard on it, also in Spanish, and most of the downtown stores have
names like "El Mariachi Gordo" and such.

That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.
National Beef (packing) is the largest employer in the county here by
far and in-town population here is also now majority non-Caucasian.
National started out in the 60's w/ SE Asian refugees, now is more
Mexican. While there are some problems, I don't want the job(s)
they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for
themselves and their families. I'll also give National credit for not
being a major violator of green card reg's, etc. The first-generation
Vietnamese, Laotions, etc., for the most part sent their kids off to
school and they either became local tradespeople, etc., or left the area
for other types of employment as do a majority of Caucasians young
people because there aren't sufficient other opportunites,
unfortunately. The Mexican traditions aren't so strong in that regard
so a major task is to get them to begin to become assimilated. I'm on
board of local Community College Foundation and various other ways we
are beginning to make such changes visible--enrollment is up, ESL
classes are very popular, many small businesses are becoming quite
successful and these individuals are becoming more involved in C of C,
civic clubs, etc.

But, these workers are not farmers and not representative of the
general actual farm-resident population. I don't know of a single one
who has gone into farming/ranching in the county on his own. Of course,
a lot of that has to do with the high initial cost and the limited
availability of sufficient land -- the entrance for a non-farm Caucasian
would be almost as stiff a hurdle.

George wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote in message
...

Prohibition was undoubtedly one of the stupidest

laws in U.S. history and resulted in the establishment of a
large criminal group and a huge crime wave.


Revisionist History at its best. The gangs were there before, they were
there after "the great experiment." Booze just provided a good source of
quick money above the gambling, prostitution and extortion which preceded
it, and the racketeering and drugs which followed.

I'm seeing a lot of "Indian" cigarettes around now that we're the second or
third highest tax state in the US. More casinos, too. Did the laws cause
the tribes, or just the tribe's corruption problems?



Yep booze provide the money to power "organized crime."
Wonder why it was not called "organized crime" before that?

Too far off topic to continue. Indian cigarettes are a
minor problem in the "Indian problem." Too bad Congress
never had the guts to straighten things out.

Duane Bozarth wrote:

That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.

Cotton too. Or hell, tobacco, apples, strawberries, basically everything.
Not peaches that I've noticed. I wonder why?

Mexican. While there are some problems, I don't want the job(s)
they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for

Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them
into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an
entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in
grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no
matter how you look at it.

Hard workers though. Damn hard workers. I find that they're generally good
and decent people just trying to make a living any way they can, who have
come here to escape abject poverty and perpetual unemployment. So that's
why it really sucks that they're stuck perpetually doing scut work. But
then, OTOH, the alternative is pretty scary too. Next they'll want to do
*my* job for 1/3 or less what I make.

I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to be seen as offering an
opinion one way or the other. I am merely making observations about how I
see the situation.

But, these workers are not farmers and not representative of the
general actual farm-resident population. I don't know of a single one
who has gone into farming/ranching in the county on his own. Of course,
a lot of that has to do with the high initial cost and the limited
availability of sufficient land -- the entrance for a non-farm Caucasian
would be almost as stiff a hurdle.

I've thought about getting into farming myself many times. It just seems
like an honest way to make a living, and it's an important job that most
people have gotten too good in their own minds to do. But you can't just
go buy a farm and start farming. It takes massive capital reserves. Land
is expensive, equipment is expensive, everything is expensive, and there's
the inevitable learning curve that guarantees the break-even point will be
many years in the future, if ever. It's a difficult proposition all
around. It's really hard to get into if it's not a family legacy thing.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:20:00 -0500, Silvan
wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

That's not unique to NC, either...it is, of course, symptomatic of the
large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist.

Cotton too. Or hell, tobacco, apples, strawberries, basically everything.
Not peaches that I've noticed. I wonder why?

Mexican. While there are some problems, I don't want the job(s)
they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for

Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them
into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an
entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in
grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no
matter how you look at it.

Yeah, but their children tend to do a whole lot better. At least here
in Arizona it's the classic immigrant pattern. It's very rare for the
immigrants' children to become day laborers and dishwashers.

I think that's one of the major driving forces for the (mostly)
Mexican immigrants who have families he A better life with more
opportunity for their children.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Silvan wrote:

Duane Bozarth wrote:

....
Mexican. While there are some problems, I don't want the job(s)
they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for

Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for
less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture.
....

Some areas are much worse than others...we don't have the transient
field workers here that are the prime examples of what you're talking
about. While I'll not claim our local packer is lily-white and fully
enlightened, they also aren't nearly as manipulative as many I've heard
of. While they're demanding in terms of promptness, etc., the wages and
benefits are far from poverty level even for those on the kill floor and
opportunities to move up within are available...a little more foresight
in some areas could probably reduce their turnover significantly,
though, so I'm certainly not saying they're anyways close to perfect...

Hard workers though. Damn hard workers. I find that they're generally good
and decent people just trying to make a living any way they can, who have
come here to escape abject poverty and perpetual unemployment. So that's
why it really sucks that they're stuck perpetually doing scut work. But
then, OTOH, the alternative is pretty scary too. Next they'll want to do
*my* job for 1/3 or less what I make.

I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to be seen as offering an
opinion one way or the other. I am merely making observations about how I
see the situation.

In general, I agree although there are significant numbers here that
are going to community college and the bulk of the kids are doing
pretty well in school...of course, intermediate sized communities can
assimilate easier than either very small ones overwhelmed or huge ones
who already have similar problems. In this area, they do have a decent
wage and the opportunity if they take it to make something better for
themselves and their kids. The only thing that really bothers me off is
that there are a significant number of illegals who don't go through the
system...that is a constant source of conflict within their community,
as well...

....
I've thought about getting into farming myself many times. It just seems
like an honest way to make a living, and it's an important job that most
people have gotten too good in their own minds to do. But you can't just
go buy a farm and start farming. It takes massive capital reserves. Land
is expensive, equipment is expensive, everything is expensive, and there's
the inevitable learning curve that guarantees the break-even point will be
many years in the future, if ever. It's a difficult proposition all
around. It's really hard to get into if it's not a family legacy thing.

If one were serious about that, there is education that can help with a
lot of the experience/knowledge thing. There are opportunities in areas
such as here to work for/with existing farmers who have no identified
family members to take over. It would be a sacrifice for a while, but
I'm aware of a number of these. Of course, there would be a major
shock in coming to the high plains from back there...

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:39:09 GMT, ted wrote:

In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
added and was less costly, hence the fine.


Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because
of differing tax rates.

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
ideas
down others' throats.


That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 17:32:24 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
ideas
down others' throats.


That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!

Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers.
They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

In article , ted
wrote:

In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
added and was less costly, hence the fine.

I remember purple gas on Grampa's farm north of Winnipeg when I was a
kid. We ran it in the snowmobiles, but not in the car.

On 23 Dec 2004 00:18:53 GMT, otforme (Charlie Self)
wrote:

rcook5 responds:

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...

I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force
behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even
though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious
ideas
down others' throats.


That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!

Actually the pilgrims were the ramees, not the rammers.
They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England

Old George, with "bigoted"? Dear me. I'm a bigot.

The Pilgrims broke from the Anglican Church in an attempt to found their own
Catholic Church.

"Catholic?" Not even in the sense of universal.

In the process, they were not exactly polite,

They were anything but polite. They were the rump extremists in the
Puritan movement who would not make peace with the authorities.

and things got a
wee bit rough under the British Monarchy (much of the idea the Puritans were
trying to get across involved democracy that, though religious, created a stir
of fear in the monarchy).

They were, dare I say, a Royal pain in the a**?

They were pushy and none too bright about who they
went up against. Thus, onward to Holland in 1608, where they had a hard life
because of their oft expressed views, including the view that their way was the
only way, sort of a pre-Falwell "my way or hell" deal that tended to irk those
who didn't agree with them.

All true. But they didn't actively try to overthrow the established
church or government. They would have been perfectly content to be
left alone to do things in their own way -- which included excoriating
anyone who didn't agree with them, including their nominal brethren.

Of course the idea of religious toleration was nothing if not novel in
early 17th Century England. The country was enmeshed in the religious
unrest -- and outright warfare -- which was sweeping Europe and
everyone had the horrible examples of Germany, France and Spain before
them. In those days you could make a pretty good case that not
conforming to the offical religion amounted to treason. Most people in
authority viewed it as subversive, at a minimum.

In that sense, they were, as you say, the "ramees." In fact, though, they were
insisting their view of Anglican and Catholic theological matters was the only
way, and making changes that worried those in power. Of course, viewing "their
way" as the only way is a common trait amongst religions, so this doesn't
really set them apart, then or now.

The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
the power.

We have some slight degree of religious tolerance in this country, though not
nearly as great as we pretend. The Pilgrims had none...but weren't powerful
enough to enforce their way.

Exactly. And that's why your statement strikes me as incorrect.

Also keep in mind that the pilgrims represented only a tiny minority
even within the puritan movement. Puritanism was a broad intellectual
current in England at the time but only a very small number of those
of Puritan sympathies were ever extreme enough to become pilgrims.

Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

--RC

"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

Duane Bozarth wrote:
"George E. Cawthon" wrote:
...

The family farm, as an institution, generally passed away long ago.
There are lots of gentleman farms, but I would hardly call those
family farms.


No, it has not passed away as an institution in the historic farming
areas...they family farm has certainly evolved,but it is every bit as
much a way of life as ever.


Anyway, farms are a business whether family or corporation owned. If
you don't know how to run a business you fail, no matter how hard you
may work. A lot of so called farmers don't seem to understand that.


That is true although other than the last sentence doesn't fit with the
other two...


I have to laugh everytime I hear about some poor guy and his wife
losing the family farm because of the poor economy, government screw
ups, or what have you. Usually it turns out that he owned it for only
5 years (not what most people envision as "the family farm") and that
the guy really knew very little about farming or running a business.
Another one of those "poor me, it's not my fault I failed."


There may be some of those, but there certainly have been a large number
of long term farm families that have not been able to make it over the
last 20 years. Much of this is certainly exacerbated by inconsistent
government policies to be polite. Remember the Carter grain embargoes
and the (1st) Bush crackdown to lower the high bread prices? Both of
those came after pleas to produce more for the export market which these
policies immediately killed...the resulting collapse of the grain
markets did force many failures. That's a very brief synopsis of a
complex issue but certainly that part of it played a significant role.


Don't get the idea I am running down "the family farm." Successful
farms are still around, but the owners learned and adapted to the
business requirements of today. More power to them.


I'm going to insult you, but I don't mean it...obtw, please continue to
keep my food costs cheaper than anywhere else in the world...

I'm not going to intersperse my comments, it just gets too
hard to read. The family farm IS over as an institution.
that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are
farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a
fraction of what they once were. Just like there are damn
view hunter-gathers clans anymore. Very few people are
farmers relative to the number of people in the U.S. I
think the percentage at one time was close to 50 percent.

Farming is a business, period. People that have some
illusive dream about farming, go broke.

Ah yes, the farmer-government relationship. Farmers say
they want no government intervention, then do everything
they can to climb aboard the hand outs. Government screws
up almost every time they intervene whether it is about
grain, dairies, potatoes, sugar beets or whatever. Of
course, farmer coops/product promoter groups also screw up.

You didn't insult me. And now the food production thing.
Hell the earth was suppose to run out of food by now, but
your cheap food is still coming. Markets go up and markets
go down, the successful farmer has to pay attention and
hedge his bets even if that means getting into stock market
futures. Like I said, business, one part is making the
crop, the other is management. The guy I know that are
successful do both well. And if you have no idea of
economics, you WILL fail.

Charlie Self wrote:
GregP responds:


On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 23:39:09 GMT, ted wrote:


In Alberta up until 1969 (when I left) There was an official whom we
called "Purple Charlie". He roamed the country checking every town and
village for purple gas. He'd start at one end of the street with a
large syringe with a rubber tube and check every gas tank. Farmers
were allowed to use "purple" in farm work vehicles but not their cars.
The fine was quite heavy. Farm gas was ordinary gas with purple dye
added and was less costly, hence the fine.


Diesel fuel for boats was (perhaps still is) dyed blue because
of differing tax rates.


When I was a kid, anyone who caught another person unscrewing a gas cap with a
syringe or hose in his hand was subject to one helluva tongue lashing at best.
In some cases, a but kicking ensued, and in others, it was a simple matter of
calling the cops.

Charlie Self
"Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder
respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell


Yeah, I find it hard to believe that someone with a tube
would be unscrewing gas caps. Guess the Cannucks are
different. Just touching another person's car was
considered bad manners, but unscrewing a gas cap? In 1969,
I had a 1964 Chrysler 300 and never remember a person
touching it without asking permission. No body in the U.S.
would be checking gas in private cars without a search
warrant where I live.

I remember when I was in the military several of us were
walking down the street in New Haven CN in 1959 and stopped
to look at some rich kids Ferrari. Heck most of us had
never seen a Ferrari. Two seconds after we stopped to look
(no touching), we heard a yell, "Get away from the car.
And, we did, right quick.

wrote in message
...
The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
the power.


Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to
reality.

Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that
anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of
accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his
antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.

I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government
vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization. Only thing that
kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant
the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of
the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically
derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and
quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor.
Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the
standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard -
he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process
which protected and protects him.

Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different -
were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn
the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and
there's not a lot of difference.

Charlie Self wrote:

George E. Cawthon responds:

The family farm IS over as an institution.
that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are
farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a
fraction of what they once were.

That doesn't mean it's over, just a smaller absolute number...

Regarding farm policy...

One can't generalize entirely...as in any other area of public policy,
there are individuals in both the public and private sectors holding
opinions across the entire spectrum. The major problem now is quite
similar to other economic areas, there is no simple answer that will
solve all the problems w/o creating others. Part is public policy, part
is US self-reliance, part is present position and how to change that w/o
total disruption of a sizable segment of the overall economy, part is
the role in the continued balance of trade ...

On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 09:25:23 -0500, "George" george@least wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty
unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got
the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into
oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have
the power.


Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to
reality.

Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that
anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of
accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his
antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.

Actually I've found Charlie to be a pretty reasonable person whose
posts add a lot to this NG. I haven't seen anything of the behavior
your attribute to him.

He's not always right, but which of us is?



I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government
vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization.

Your certaintity is misplaced.

I'm referring to the fact that most of us would have found puritans,
and especially the pilgrims, anything from annoying to infuriating to
be around.

Only thing that
kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant
the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of
the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically
derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and
quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor.
Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the
standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard -
he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process
which protected and protects him.

Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different -
were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn
the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and
there's not a lot of difference.

Only if you're philsophically tone-deaf.

I don't know what your problem is, but you obviously have one. I am
not going to get into this with you, so feel free to read me out of
your particular Church of Absolute Knowledge.

--RC


"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells
'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets
fly with a club.
-- John W. Cambell Jr.

wrote:

He's not always right, but which of us is?

Me. I'm always right.

Handed.

--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Rue/5407/
http://rosegarden.sourceforge.net/tutorial/