Market Farming

["jay gee" <jgj23 AT mindspring.com>]

Jill Taylor Bussiere wrote:

>>>>Robert,
    I agree totally with your statement below - our foreign policy, and the
 IMF and World Bank have been inroads for corporate America and Corporate
 Elsewhere - at the expense of the self-sufficiency (and democracy) of many
 countries.

>Robert wrote:
>> However, we should not open the door to exploitation by corporate
>> America.  In other words, we should change our usual approach to
>> "developing" nations.  We need to respect their traditions, realize that
>> indigenous peoples do not need to be converted to our economic system,
>> and forget, for the nonce, about traditional commerce.  Supporting the
>> populace is one thing; converting them, another.
<<<<

Jill,

The IMF and World Bank are extensions of policies started long ago
during empires of the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries, before the USA
came on the scene.  Whether it was the Hudson's Bay Company,
the East India Company, etc., the result is the same and the reasons
the respect shown for locals initially declines is similar to the reason
government bureaucracies are more interested in preserving their
hierarchies than providing service to the customers.

Where ignorance reigns supreme, people follow their emotions as
opposed to their logic.

As Jennifer explained, she felt uncomfortable with her hair covered
and her husband gave his name a "latino beat."   Were they living
in an Islamic country, they would be the norm.  It is the nature of
diversity.  But logic says, "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Part of our current problem is that people want to lead by fiat, not
by example.  Bill Clinton was the perfect example.  OTOH, our
current Chief Executive is limited by his outlook and vocabulary.

The average politician is not interested in doing what IS RIGHT,
s/he is interested in doing what the people who get him/her
elected believe is right (or if not right, at least profitable to them).
This applies whether the constituency is business, labor, welfare,
education, agriculture, organized religion or "diversity."

The hard choices which need to be made have less to do with
the policies of our government than they do with the low quality of
the people we elect to represent us.  A long time ago, the U.S.
House of Representatives fixed its size at 435 members.  While
the Constitutional Conventions indicated the appropriate size
of a political constituency was 30,000 people, this historical
bit of information was ignored because the power of the people to
prevent doing wrong and promote doing right is diluted when
people don't know and have no access to their elected reps.

A truly proper sized House would seat 10,000 representatives
and probably do a much better job than the current House.
Why, because it is too expensive to lobby 10,000 elected
representatives and among those representatives will be real
experts in individual subjects, not just unemployable lawyers.

Before we can change our foreign policies and commercial
system to a more world equitable one, we have to change
the people who govern us and we have to focus on ourselves.

I'm not talking about Republicans or Democrats either.

Further, we have to make sure our own people are educated to
think for themselves and that they are forced to do so, not only
by their educations, but by the system.

When we have internal peace and justice at home, people
around the world will ask how was it done.  Those who
aspire to peace and justice can build a local system of their
own and model it on our system if they choose to.

Bombing with butter has not worked to cure poverty in the USA.
Bombing with butter will not cure poverty in Afghanistan, nor will
it make them love or admire us, or change their opinions of our
way of life.

The fire is out and we know the cause was arson.

It is fire prevention time and the best way to prevent
recurrence of this type of fire is to catch, or eliminate
the arsonists and their sponsors, take away their tools for
committing future acts of arson, at the same time
demonstrating to others that the price of committing such
acts against our people will be unacceptably high in terms
of local casualties and property loss.

If you truly feel that "bombing with butter" is the appropriate
response, contact your congressional representative to meet
and explain your point of view.  If a meeting is not possible,
see the local office chief of staff and explain your point of view

to him/her.  If that is not possible, write a long letter, providing
all the historical, logical and emotional support for your case
that you can.  You may strike a nerve and get some help for
dealing with the future.  But I doubt if any smart representative
will try to swim against the tide on this one, the result would be
political suicide.

Jay Gee
not a farmer -- but interested in farming