The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) ban on the slaughter of so-called "downer" cattle garnered major publicity, like it was a huge step foreward for American beef, saving the consuming public from all manner of filth and disease.
Now the truth emerges: fewer than 1,000 head of the 34 million head slaughtered last year, were killed under the non-ambulatory regulations. The old rule was that non-ambulatory cattle, that became that way after they arrived at the packing house, could be re-inspected and slaughtered if no disease was found. Now no non-ambulatory cattle can be slaughtered for human consumption.
As a fig leaf to try and buy cheap grace, the new rule is great window dressing. In terms of actual achievement in improving public health, there isn't any. No unhealthy cattle were slaughterd before, because they were inspected individually by USDA inspectors before they were allowed through the slaughter line.
This is just one more example of how radical, vegetarian, animal rights groups like HSUS and PETA (People Eating Tasty Animals) can forment all kinds of press coverage and phony scares, only to have very little actual results, since their sensationalist charges were overblown to start with.
The downer cattle flap came from highly questionable video HSUS staged at a California packing plant. They got non-English speaking packing house workers to demonstrate pushing non-ambulatory cattle into the slaughter line, when probably the hapless foreign workers HSUS was taking advantage of, didn't even know what they were doing.
(HSUS, which stands for the Humane Society of the United States, is playing on a similar name to the very respected, non-controversial mainstream group American Humane Society).
Tragically, the liberal press and many innocent, well-intentioned people fall for the radical group's publicity stunts. They never take the time to find out the truth.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
South Korean beef circus continues
A deal is a deal to most people and nations. The U.S. and South Korea signed a comprehensive trade pact less than a month ago, which includes the full resumption of U.S. beef exports to South Korea.
The anti-government leftist opposition in South Korea, egged on by vegetarians and animal rightists in the U.S., are demonstrating in the streets, suing in the courts and threatening politicians with their careers, if U.S. beef is allowed in the country.
The South Korean premier still swears the deal is on, and that the beef trade will resume in June. But he continues to play a cat and mouse game, trying to placate the U.S. and the South Korean opposition at the same time. Only God really knows what the actuall situation is with the trade pact with South Korea.
The premier is his own worst enemy, saying soothing things to the South Koreans to play down the whole controversy, when what he really needs to do is bang the podium and tell them the unvarnished truth.
Here is what he needs to say: "Our own South Korea beef herd is hopelessly corrupted with BSE. We have had nearly 30 cases, while the U.S. has had only two, both out of cattle imported from Canada. For the peace of mind and good health of our people, we need wholesome, safe U.S. beef to upgrade the quality and safety of what we feed our people. That's why I'm proceeding immediately with importing U.S. beef."
The leftists in South Korea are obviously coordinating their smear campaign against U.S. beef with the leftists in the U.S., as today Barack Obama came out and urged President Bush not to send any South Korean trade pact to the U.S. Senate for ratification. (As if he ever shows up to take part in Senate debate or vote on any legislation anyway. Of the 100 Senators, what right does he, of all people, have to say anything about it?)
South Korea has double dealt on the beef issue from the get-go. Numerous shipments of U.S. beef, after agreeing to receive them, have been returned for trivial paperwork errors or alleged "bone fragments" that U.S. inspectors could not find after they were returned. Straight forward, truthful, honest integrity on the part of South Korea is needed to unravel this circus.
The anti-government leftist opposition in South Korea, egged on by vegetarians and animal rightists in the U.S., are demonstrating in the streets, suing in the courts and threatening politicians with their careers, if U.S. beef is allowed in the country.
The South Korean premier still swears the deal is on, and that the beef trade will resume in June. But he continues to play a cat and mouse game, trying to placate the U.S. and the South Korean opposition at the same time. Only God really knows what the actuall situation is with the trade pact with South Korea.
The premier is his own worst enemy, saying soothing things to the South Koreans to play down the whole controversy, when what he really needs to do is bang the podium and tell them the unvarnished truth.
Here is what he needs to say: "Our own South Korea beef herd is hopelessly corrupted with BSE. We have had nearly 30 cases, while the U.S. has had only two, both out of cattle imported from Canada. For the peace of mind and good health of our people, we need wholesome, safe U.S. beef to upgrade the quality and safety of what we feed our people. That's why I'm proceeding immediately with importing U.S. beef."
The leftists in South Korea are obviously coordinating their smear campaign against U.S. beef with the leftists in the U.S., as today Barack Obama came out and urged President Bush not to send any South Korean trade pact to the U.S. Senate for ratification. (As if he ever shows up to take part in Senate debate or vote on any legislation anyway. Of the 100 Senators, what right does he, of all people, have to say anything about it?)
South Korea has double dealt on the beef issue from the get-go. Numerous shipments of U.S. beef, after agreeing to receive them, have been returned for trivial paperwork errors or alleged "bone fragments" that U.S. inspectors could not find after they were returned. Straight forward, truthful, honest integrity on the part of South Korea is needed to unravel this circus.
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Farm Bill only highlights Dem's Pork Barrel spending
The Democrats seized control of Congress in the 2006 election by blasting the Republican majority at that time for budget earmarks and uncontrolled spending.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The Democrats didn't reform earmarks. They only made is easier for members to bury them in the verbiage of a bill, with less attention called to them, making them harder for the press and public to find. The Farm Bill, as well as much other recently passed legislation, is loaded with earmarks. The bloated Farm Bill increases spending by $30 billion over 10 years. One estimate is that in 2008 there were 11,610 earmarks from individual legislators, totaling $17.2 billion in the 12 appropriations acts for 2008.
Just two of the hundreds of earmarks in recent legislation include Hillary Clinton's earmark for a Woodstock Museum in New York and Barack Obama's earmark for a Carp Barrier on the Great Lakes in Illinois.
All the earmark spending is built into the baseline of next year's budget, so they replace this year's earmarks with new ones in next year's budget, without adding to the overall spending total. This is out-and-out fraud.
This would be a great campaign issue for 2008, except that Republicans slip in earmarks for spending in their districts at nearly the same rate Democrats do. Democrats encourage this, so that no one can raise the truth about earmarks.
There is only a brave handful of solons who are untainted and can legitimately blast earmarks, including Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake. Even John McCain is less tainted by earmarks than your garden variety Senator or Representative. He just lacks the guts to take on the fight.
Like they say inside the beltway in Washington "To get along, go along."
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. The Democrats didn't reform earmarks. They only made is easier for members to bury them in the verbiage of a bill, with less attention called to them, making them harder for the press and public to find. The Farm Bill, as well as much other recently passed legislation, is loaded with earmarks. The bloated Farm Bill increases spending by $30 billion over 10 years. One estimate is that in 2008 there were 11,610 earmarks from individual legislators, totaling $17.2 billion in the 12 appropriations acts for 2008.
Just two of the hundreds of earmarks in recent legislation include Hillary Clinton's earmark for a Woodstock Museum in New York and Barack Obama's earmark for a Carp Barrier on the Great Lakes in Illinois.
All the earmark spending is built into the baseline of next year's budget, so they replace this year's earmarks with new ones in next year's budget, without adding to the overall spending total. This is out-and-out fraud.
This would be a great campaign issue for 2008, except that Republicans slip in earmarks for spending in their districts at nearly the same rate Democrats do. Democrats encourage this, so that no one can raise the truth about earmarks.
There is only a brave handful of solons who are untainted and can legitimately blast earmarks, including Oklahoma Sen. Tom Coburn and Arizona Rep. Jeff Flake. Even John McCain is less tainted by earmarks than your garden variety Senator or Representative. He just lacks the guts to take on the fight.
Like they say inside the beltway in Washington "To get along, go along."
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
"Green" meets reality in the Denver Post
The Food Editor of The Denver Post devoted today's weekly food section to cooking the perfect steak. This is certainly a worthwhile use of repertorial enterprise, paper and ink. It is encouraging anytime a food editor isn't a vegetarian or so hopelessly "green" and organic as to be useless.
The section and its depth was overall, quite impressive. One little subsection was a real riot.
The editor decided to interview somebody actually in the beef production business, and selected Wayne Kruse, owner of the Centennial Livestock Auction in Ft. Collins, a ranch near Wellington and a member of the Colorado Beef Board. The editor proceeded to extol the virtues of organic grassfed beef to Kruse, and asked him how to get the perfect grassfed steak. Kruse said grassfed was "like shoe leather" and to make his steak corn fed.
She did interview a couple of professional chefs, detailing the various steak cuts, what to look for and what to buy. Mercifully, the recipes relied basically on the quality and taste of the beef, not a bunch of sauces, side dishes and treatments to disguise the beef.
In fact, I tried one of the methods to season my steak for supper tonight. I like the way I do it better, although I may have had too lean a steak to really develop the flavor. The article even mentions buying the steak where I buy mine: USDA choice from Sam's Club. It has thicker cuts that grill better, and better quality meat for less money than your typical supermarket.
Having gotton used to seeing beef butchered, so to speak, in mass media accounts, it was refreshing to see a relatively positive and friendly treatment of the subject.
The section and its depth was overall, quite impressive. One little subsection was a real riot.
The editor decided to interview somebody actually in the beef production business, and selected Wayne Kruse, owner of the Centennial Livestock Auction in Ft. Collins, a ranch near Wellington and a member of the Colorado Beef Board. The editor proceeded to extol the virtues of organic grassfed beef to Kruse, and asked him how to get the perfect grassfed steak. Kruse said grassfed was "like shoe leather" and to make his steak corn fed.
She did interview a couple of professional chefs, detailing the various steak cuts, what to look for and what to buy. Mercifully, the recipes relied basically on the quality and taste of the beef, not a bunch of sauces, side dishes and treatments to disguise the beef.
In fact, I tried one of the methods to season my steak for supper tonight. I like the way I do it better, although I may have had too lean a steak to really develop the flavor. The article even mentions buying the steak where I buy mine: USDA choice from Sam's Club. It has thicker cuts that grill better, and better quality meat for less money than your typical supermarket.
Having gotton used to seeing beef butchered, so to speak, in mass media accounts, it was refreshing to see a relatively positive and friendly treatment of the subject.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
USDA releases CRP land for feed production
You can tell the campaign season is on his hot and heavy, when the looney government attempts to look like they're doing something about the nation's problems, start to come out. Motion is more imporant than actual help or a well thought-out plan.
Because livestock producers are complaining about the high cost of grain to feed their animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is going to allow land to be taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to raise feed for livestock. To the untrained eye this may look like a real solution. It's anything but.
In the first place, no good crop land is in the CRP. It is a well known fact that landowners take the least productive land they own and put it in CRP. Only if the land is so poor it can't be leased to someone for more than the CRP payment amount, or it slopes and can't be irrigated, or it has bad alkalai soil or a severe infestation of weeds or bugs--then it is put in CRP.
No great amount of feed, certainly not enough to bring relief from high grain prices, can be raised on CRP land. The good productive land is already in production, raising grain to sell at the current high prices.
Secondly, it is the same fallacy as releasing oil from the nation's petroleum reserve to bring down high gas prices. There's about enough oil in the reserve to last a week or so, at the rate Americans burn up oil. That won't affect the oil market one whit.
So it is with feed from CRP land. Mark my words: USDA's action today won't drive down the Chicago Board of Trade grain futures contracts tomorrow. Nobody that really knows how agriculture works is intimidated. This is a farce.
Because livestock producers are complaining about the high cost of grain to feed their animals, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) is going to allow land to be taken out of the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) to raise feed for livestock. To the untrained eye this may look like a real solution. It's anything but.
In the first place, no good crop land is in the CRP. It is a well known fact that landowners take the least productive land they own and put it in CRP. Only if the land is so poor it can't be leased to someone for more than the CRP payment amount, or it slopes and can't be irrigated, or it has bad alkalai soil or a severe infestation of weeds or bugs--then it is put in CRP.
No great amount of feed, certainly not enough to bring relief from high grain prices, can be raised on CRP land. The good productive land is already in production, raising grain to sell at the current high prices.
Secondly, it is the same fallacy as releasing oil from the nation's petroleum reserve to bring down high gas prices. There's about enough oil in the reserve to last a week or so, at the rate Americans burn up oil. That won't affect the oil market one whit.
So it is with feed from CRP land. Mark my words: USDA's action today won't drive down the Chicago Board of Trade grain futures contracts tomorrow. Nobody that really knows how agriculture works is intimidated. This is a farce.
Monday, May 26, 2008
Federal aid for Weld, Larimer Counties set
In one of the few really legitimate uses of federal power, President Bush has declared portions of Weld and Larimer counties, Colorado, disaster areas and eligible for federal economic assistance. Hard hit by a series of tornadoes last week, crops were lost, irrigation systems destroyed, farm buildings wiped out, as well as 150 homes in Windsor destroyed and another 600 damaged.
The federal aid will dovetail with the property owner's private casualty insurance, filling in the gaps for things like temporary housing, utility systems interrupted, reseeding of crops, replacement of livestock, etc. It will also assist the local governments in rebuilding roads and infrastructure, water and sewer systems and public buildings.
Legitimate acts of God, such as these tornadoes, are what government is best positioned to assist with. Unlike the bloated Farm Bill, which lavishes money on those who don't need it, genuine, unpreventable losses like these should be covered.
Despite the federal money and funds from private insurance, what has been most impressive has been the private assistance from volunteers in the clean-up, minor and temporary repairs, financial and human emergency assistance, temporary housing and food, clothing and babysitting. It has truly been a neighbor-to-neighbor, community-to-community effort, so typical of the can-do attitude in rural America.
There's been no bellyaching here, no sitting back, waiting for the government to act. As one lady said at a community church service Sunday morning "We aren't victims, we're survivors."
The federal aid will dovetail with the property owner's private casualty insurance, filling in the gaps for things like temporary housing, utility systems interrupted, reseeding of crops, replacement of livestock, etc. It will also assist the local governments in rebuilding roads and infrastructure, water and sewer systems and public buildings.
Legitimate acts of God, such as these tornadoes, are what government is best positioned to assist with. Unlike the bloated Farm Bill, which lavishes money on those who don't need it, genuine, unpreventable losses like these should be covered.
Despite the federal money and funds from private insurance, what has been most impressive has been the private assistance from volunteers in the clean-up, minor and temporary repairs, financial and human emergency assistance, temporary housing and food, clothing and babysitting. It has truly been a neighbor-to-neighbor, community-to-community effort, so typical of the can-do attitude in rural America.
There's been no bellyaching here, no sitting back, waiting for the government to act. As one lady said at a community church service Sunday morning "We aren't victims, we're survivors."
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Hogs at the trough II
Just in case you thought my recent blog on the sell-out of Republicans on the pork-laden, bloated Farm Bill, joining Democrats to pass it by veto-proof majorities in both houses of Congress--now the numbers are in, and the situation is even worse than I reported.
One example of the campaign cash agribusiness firms spread around to get their way, a normally conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado's fourth congressional district, backed the farm bill and voted to override President Bush's veto. She was one who had not read what she voted on, joining the majority in passing a bill that had 37 pages missing, and is of dubious legality. It turns out, she had received over $300,000 in campaign contributions from agribusiness entities.
After serving three quite sensible, conservative terms in the House, generating expensive re-election campaigns against under-qualified but over-funded opponents, Musgrave has turned hard left. She has turned into one more garden variety pork barreller--falling for the philosophy "Tax and Spend--Spend and Elect."
Colorado representatives John Salazar, a gentleman farmer at best, and Mark Udall, outdid her in reaping agribusiness campaign contributions, but not in logrolling the Farm Bill.
Salazar and his brother, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, maintain the fiction of being "moderate Democrats." They are out-and-out liberals, who vote for a conservatiave no-hoper like the Flag Burning Amendment once in a while, in order to claim to be "moderates."
It is very difficult to stomach Musgrave's sellout. Udall, running for the Senate, and the Salazars, we expect such behavior and understand. But Marilyn Musgrave? Please wake me up from this bad dream.
One example of the campaign cash agribusiness firms spread around to get their way, a normally conservative Rep. Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado's fourth congressional district, backed the farm bill and voted to override President Bush's veto. She was one who had not read what she voted on, joining the majority in passing a bill that had 37 pages missing, and is of dubious legality. It turns out, she had received over $300,000 in campaign contributions from agribusiness entities.
After serving three quite sensible, conservative terms in the House, generating expensive re-election campaigns against under-qualified but over-funded opponents, Musgrave has turned hard left. She has turned into one more garden variety pork barreller--falling for the philosophy "Tax and Spend--Spend and Elect."
Colorado representatives John Salazar, a gentleman farmer at best, and Mark Udall, outdid her in reaping agribusiness campaign contributions, but not in logrolling the Farm Bill.
Salazar and his brother, U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar, maintain the fiction of being "moderate Democrats." They are out-and-out liberals, who vote for a conservatiave no-hoper like the Flag Burning Amendment once in a while, in order to claim to be "moderates."
It is very difficult to stomach Musgrave's sellout. Udall, running for the Senate, and the Salazars, we expect such behavior and understand. But Marilyn Musgrave? Please wake me up from this bad dream.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)