The Supply Management Trap

The same kind reader who asked about coping with language differences in Turkey sent me a link to this Supply Management article in the Grope and Mall. I can't comment at all on the feather industry side of it but will try to explain the dairy industry side of it and show why it is so difficult to get rid of something that may have outlived its usefulness.

I milked cows as a kid.  We shipped cream until Dad got a job driving school bus in 1960.  One of the reasons I like beef cattle is that the calves do the milking of the cow.  So I am no dairy expert.  I called on my good friend DAC who as dairy cattle nutritionist (among other hats) at U of S has been in the dairy industry, production, politics, policy and all since his youth on a dairy farm near Saskatoon.  He sent me a package of stuff on the Canadian Dairy Industry Supply Management for which I am thankful.

Every country with the possible exception of New Zealand protects and supports its dairy industry directly or indirectly to some extent.  This very truncated version (with great liberties taken in abridging, partially due to my limited understanding of a complex issues), is Canada's approach.  (Dave, I know you will read this, so please fix any glaring errors).

In the 1930s, producers responded to processor problems by establishing producer-owned processing plants throughout Canada.  After WWII there was a shortage of milk and the government began subsidizing milk production.  In the 1950s a great many technological changes allowed the industry to reinvent itself and milk production increased to the point there was a surplus by the late 60s early 70s.  The government wanted to limit its subsidy liability and producers wanted to maintain prices.  The answer was to manage the supply of milk to meet Canadian demand with as close to no imports or exports as possible.

There are five classes of milk in the Canadian system, with classes 2-4 known as Industrial Milk.  Each class has its own price with Class 1 highest and 5 lowest.

1. Fluid milk 
2. Cream, ice cream, yogurt, infant formula
3. Cheese
4. Butter and Milk Powder
5. Ingredients in food production.

Quotas were established for Industrial Milk under the Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), set up in 1966 to regulate supply.  These quotas were distributed to the provinces according to historical production.  This quota came with direct payment subsidies and support prices set in the form of butter and powder purchases by the federal government.  It could not be sold but could be transferred with the herd, if the herd was sold.  Needless to say, herds with quota brought more money.

Provincial Milk Control Boards established quotas for Fluid Milk which could be bought and sold.  CDC, in cooperation with the provinces, set prices at producer and processor levels based on cost of production (COP).  Producers were paid monthly a pooled price based on the percent of milk used in each class.

This worked fine for a while but soon the ability to cheaply move milk longer distances including across provincial boundaries led to a Western Milk Pool (WMP) and an Eastern milk pool, the P5.  Small processors amalgamated into larger ones and soon all processing was done by large interprovincial and international companies.  Industrial quotas and fluid quotas were rolled into one, described as 1 kg butter fat (BF), and were bought and sold across their respective pool areas.

COP which is NOT supposed to take into account the cost of quota was calculated at $74.40 per hectolitre in 2011.  Average pool price for milk in 2012 was $75.50 per hectolitre.

Quota, as a right to produce, has a value determined in the market place. The price of the right to produce 1 kg BF for 365 days was 36,000 dollars or about $98.60 per kg per day.  Depending on how this is amortized at what interest rate it works out to $40 to $50 per hectolitre of milk that the buyer now has the right to produce.  Producers with low incremental production costs (the cost of adding one or more cows to the milking line) are the only ones who can afford to buy quota.

Supply management has provided a good living for two generations of dairy farmers but is has wreaked havoc with Canada's ability to negotiate trade deals.  How to get rid of it and what to replace it with?  Quota is used as security for bank loans; it figures highly into the retirement plans  of older dairy producers.  It has resulted in small high cost dairy farms.  If there is 310 million kg of quota at $100 per kg, it would cost the government $31 billion to buy it out and then what would they replace it with?  How do we keep our dairy industry from being flooded with low cost, highly subsidized product from other countries?

Eugene Whelan and company meant well and Supply Management served the industry well in the short term but in the long term the failure (inability) to adjust will cost the country dearly.

1 hundredweight of milk at 3.5% butterfat (bf) = .441 hectolitre at 3.6 kg bf per hectolitre. 
2.26761 hundredweight at 3.5% bf = 1 hectolitre of milk at 3.6 kg bf per hectoliter. 
1 hectolitre at 3.6 kg of bf = 103.2 kilograms. 
9.7 hectolitres at 3.6 kg of bf = 1 metric ton

Ukraine Slowly Loses Its Freedom

I said in an earlier post that the Regionnaires would likely win the election 10 days from now and it appears I was right to think so.  The Economist blog Eastern Approaches today posted this article: 

Ukrainian politics - Ten days before polling day

The ruling Party of Regions and its allies look set to win Ukraine’s parliamentary election on October 28th. They may even gain a constitutional majority with control of two-thirds of the parliament. This will likely happen despite the fact that most Ukrainians regularly tell pollsters their country is heading “in the wrong direction” and less than a quarter of them plan to vote for the Party of Regions.

Perhaps the most important reason for this is that Ukraine has reverted to the mixed proportional and first-past-the-post system last used in 2002. Back then, it allowed Leonid Kuchma, an unpopular president, to secure a working majority in parliament thanks to a divided opposition and post-election defections to his camp.

The same conditions are in place now for Viktor Yanukovych, the current president. His candidates can come out on top in first-past-the-post constituencies where three or more opposition politicians are competing. On October 14th the two main anti-Yanukovych forces agreed to withdraw some of their candidates in some districts in order to limit this phenomenon, but they have stopped far short of a genuine alliance. It is testament to the current parliamentary opposition’s ineffectiveness that it allowed this electoral reform to pass last year, giving the ruling party a chance to retain power in an election that could be classed as free and fair (given that an elected parliament had agreed to its rules).

Still, it appears Mr Yanukovych’s team sees no compelling reason to take that chance: there are plenty of ways to skew the vote before international observers, who see this election as a crucial test for Ukrainian democracy, arrive to observe the polling itself. Evidence from various quarters suggests this machinery is in motion across the country.

For more click HERE

This article is not comforting and simply reflects how Ukraine is sinking deeper into the morass.  It is becoming more and more like Putin's Russia.  It was more free under Yushchenko than ever before but that is rapidly giving way to government control and a police state.  Ukrayinskiy Tyzhden, Ukrainian Week has a very depressing article on how the government is clamping down hard on the few remaining independent media outlets, including their own magazine. They concluded the article with this information on a new Law on Slander that will kill investigative journalism.

On September 18th, the Verkhovna Rada passed a bill “On Amending the Criminal Code and the Code of Proceedings of Ukraine to Increase Liability for Attacks on the Dignity and Business Reputation of Individuals”. Officially sponsored by the Party of Regions’ Vitaliy Zhuravsky, the draft law was actually designed at the Presidential Administration as proven by an electronic file posted on the parliament’s website. The list of crimes in the new draft law includes slander, punishable with prison terms of one to two years or two to five years. Slander that accuses someone of a serious crime may carry up to a three-year jail sentence. Top officials are not hiding the purpose of the draft law. In its response to a question by the online publication Economic Truth regarding corrupt property foreclosures based on court decisions, the Ministry of Justice wrote that it was “dishonest activity” similar to that of the publication that “brought forth the legislative initiative to implement liability for slander”. The question about corruption was left unanswered.

  

If passed, the law on slander will destroy the remnants of independent journalism in Ukraine. In lieu of a fair judiciary, any journalist who criticizes an official or publishes an investigation on potential corruption will automatically become an object of criminal persecution with the outcome known in advance. This is essentially an attempt to apply the tools used against jailed opposition members to attack legitimate free media outlets using obsolete soviet provisions of the Criminal Code. Despite promises from government representatives to soften the draft law following sharp reactions by the Western and Ukrainian public and politicians, the law, if passed, will signal the end of free speech and journalism in Ukraine. After that, journalism in the country may degrade completely.The government seems to have taken a step back under pressure from the public. When this publication was being prepared, the Party of Regions’ Vitaliy Zhuravsky stated that he would recall his draft law on slander. However, he also said that he was going to submit a finalized version to the parliament after the election. According to The Ukrainian Week’s source in the Party of Regions, legislative changes on criminal liability for slander will “definitely” be passed after the parliamentary election. 

This is nothing new. If the tactics employed by the government on a massive scale succeed to win them a constitutional majority in the new parliament (300 out of 450 seats)—even if supported by no more than 25% of the population—the Yanukovych regime will be able to completely ignore the international community. In doing so, he may point to having “absolute popular support” and a constitutional majority in the parliament as signs thereof. “All questions about Ukraine will be answered after the election,” said Yanukovych at the Yalta European Strategy conference. In this light, this phrase may gain an entirely new meaning.

For the full article, click HERE

To be honest, moving to Russia is appealing.  At least there it is all Russians and one knows how the system works.

Why the War on Drugs Will Continue and Never be Won

AlterNet today posted an article from TruthOut which links to the previous articles in the series.  For those interested in how the world really works, about 3% of drug money stays in the countries of origin, while the rest enriches people in developed countries.

How Can We Stop the Mexican Drug Insanity When Banks and Much of the Establishment Profit Big Time from Illegal Drugs?

It's the Oil, Stupid

Tomgram: Michael Klare, The Cheney Effect (in the Obama Administration) | TomDispatch

Straight talk on the American Empire's  continuation of Cheney's energy strategy under Obama.  Well worth the read.  No BS about liberty, freedom and all that crap.

Lean Fine Textured Beef

The anti-beef, anti-meat crowd has been having a field day with Lean Fine Textured Beef (LFTB). I had hoped that it would all go away while Tanya and I were in Prague but apparently not. It is quite amazing how much damage can be done to an industry by those with an agenda to harm it whenever and however possible.

Since I have been involved in the beef industry all my life, I thought a bit of background information on ground beef might be useful.

Over 40% of the value of a beef carcass is in about 25% of the high end cuts. These are the cuts along the longissimus dorsi or rib-eye muscle; Porterhouse, T-bones, and Rib steaks or variations there of. To achieve the desired tenderness and flavour a certain amount of intramuscular fat, called marbling, is required In general, the more marbling it contains, the better a cut of meat is; USDA Choice or Canada AAA has more marbling in the rib-eye than USDA Select or Canada AA.

Beef cattle fatten from the outside in and marbling is the last fat laid down. Steers and heifers (youthful, feedlot finished) going to slaughter carry a lot of exterior fat, though much less than in the past as genetic selection for faster marbling and better feeding regimes have greatly reduced the amount of exterior fat necessary to achieve the same desired level of marbling.

If you can remember back 30 years, that outside fat along with a lot of bone went onto the supermarket shelf with the cut of beef. I recall T-bone steaks with an inch of backfat. Consumers did not want either the fat or the bones. Eventually by the mid-80’s the industry got the message. Since that time, external fat was closely trimmed at the plant and at the time of processing into retail cuts, visible fat was again trimmed. Other than standing rib roasts and T-bone steaks all cuts were boneless.

About 50% of all beef in USA and Canada is consumed as ground beef. As much beef as possible is sold as various cuts (type and volume of cuts varies with season) and the rest is ground. According to Canadian regulations ground beef can be labeled as follows with the maximum fat contents specified (note that most supermarkets and meat stores have their own in-house standards which are actually lower in fat content than the allowed maximum):
Extra-lean: a maximum fat content of 10%
Lean: a maximum fat content of 17%
Medium: a maximum fat content of 23%
Regular: a maximum fat content of 30%

As you can imagine, grinding meat from youthful cattle “finished” to the degree of fatness required to meet USDA Choice or Canada AAA grades, results in some expensive and no matter how carefully trimmed, some higher fat ground beef. Cow beef which is leaner and cheaper is also ground and may be mixed with beef from feedlot finished animals. Lean trim from other cuts is also included in the grind.

Carefully and closely trimming cuts of beef results in “trim” made up of fat and lean meat. As much lean as possible is separated manually and included in ground beef. But it impossible to get it all. A couple of decades ago, a process was developed where the remaining high fat, low lean content trim was finely ground, heated to about 100°F and spun in a centrifuge to separate the lean from the fat, (much the same as a cream separator for anyone raised on a farm).

 The result is a product that may not look very appetizing in its raw form but is 90% to 95% lean beef. About 14 to 16 lbs (6 to 7 kg) per carcass of perfectly good beef are recovered that otherwise would go to the rendering plant. One of the pluses of this product is that when it is included in lean or extra lean ground beef and made into patties, you can actually eat the hamburgers. Otherwise lean or extra lean ground beef hamburgers are about as edible as rubber tire, only they smell better on the BBQ.

Now comes the issue of food safety. Going from live animal to meat requires a great deal of care to prevent contamination at every point along the chain because of course all living animals carry bacteria. Food safety is the number one priority of any meat processing plant and very stringent procedures (Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point or HACCP) are in place to ensure so far as is humanly possible that the meat that leaves the plant is safe to eat. The plant has its own inspectors and they are backed up by government inspectors. And because no system is fool proof, every couple of weeks across North America, if you follow the websites, there is a recall of something that didn’t check out

Bacterial growth is a function of surface area. You can take a pound of sirloin steak home and eat it raw with a very large margin of safety because it has a small surface area: top, bottom, edges. Now think about ground beef. I have no idea the surface area of a pound of ground beef, though I expect someone figured it out. It is a huge number which is why recommendations are to cook ground beef thoroughly “until it is dead”.

Lean fine textured beef would have several times the surface area of ground beef so controlling bacteria was critical. Citric acid has been used. In 2001, I believe, Beef Products Inc. developed a process to control E. coli using ammonium hydroxide to raise the pH of the product. Ammonium hydroxide has been used in food production since 1974 and was approved by USDA and FDA for use with LFTB.

The American Meat Institute says that “USDA data show that the incidence of E. coli in fresh ground beef has been declining significantly over the past decade. The number of USDA ground beef samples testing positive for E. coli O157:H7 dropped 55 percent between 2000 and 2010”. And further that “all forms of lean finely textured beef are safe when produced in compliance with USDA regulations”.

Of course there is a system to totally control bacterial growth and make all foods safe to eat, which we have had for over 30 years. It is called irradiation. But you already know what the Luddites have to say about that.

Which brings up an interesting conundrum for someone who considers himself a progressive and a liberal. The Left believe in justice and equality of opportunity for all, that safety nets should ensure poor have money to buy food. The Right is dedicated to production of abundant, affordable, nutritious, wholesome food. One would think there might be some synergies here. But no. The right prefers to see the poor starve in the streets, while the Left’s food strategy seems to be:
1. prevent as much food production as possible
2. if food is produced it should be so expensive only Latte Liberals and Chardonnay Socialists can afford it.
3. if it is affordable, people should be too frightened to eat it.

From what I have gathered from reading the newsletters and comments on the internet these past several years:
The anti-women, anti-health care, anti-poor, anti-labour Right is trying to set social progress back some 200 years to save the earth.
The anti-food, anti-modern, anti-technolgy, anti-business Left is trying to set economic progress back some 200 years to save the earth.

“Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us” Calvin, from Calvin and Hobbes

Its About Development (not NGOs vs Mining companies)

Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) is Canada's Official Development Agency (ODA) through which the Government of Canada channels money for international aid and development.  My own experience with CIDA has been that any programs which are simple and useful they tend to kill and while they claim to be "results driven" their bureaucratic overhead is some four times that of comparable European ODAs.  

CIDA has been very reluctant to work with the private sector other than consulting firms, on the grounds that they would rather forgo development than do something a commercial company might benefit from.  But to give credit, they have co-funded some development projects with Canadian mining companies (see article below). Having said that, CIDA has funded some good on-going development programs through NGOs to alleviate poverty in some of the poorest parts of the world.

This is apparently changing.  Policy now seems to be to fund development projects where the investment pays off not in development necessarily but in increased trade.  They are unfunding KAIROS Canada, long time effective development NGO composed of several Canadian churches.  There is a suggestion that KAIROS may have angered the Harper government by refusing to whitewash Israeli atrocities against Palestinians and not necessarily siding with Canadian mining companies when they may be in the wrong.

CIDA has also greatly reduced funding to Canadian Catholic Organization for Development and Peace (CCODP).  You can read more details on Dennis Gruending's Blog HERE. 

Now what CIDA has done is fund to the tune of many millions of dollars Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) projects with three Canadian Mining companies. You can read the backlash on Dnnis Gruending's Blog and many others. I am not in a position to defend the projects or the companies because I know nothing about them, however I do know a little about CSR having worked on a couple of projects with my friend Wayne Dunn.  When done right, CSR projects can bring real benefits to both the communities around the mine and the mining company.

Wayne has written a couple of articles on his experience with CSR.  The first is reprinted below with his permission.  It is also available on the website of Canadian Association of International Development Consultants (CAIDC).  His second article is available on the website of the McGill Reporter HERE.

********************

 

I have been listening to the debate regarding CIDA’s partnership with some Canadian mining companies and felt compelled to put forward some thoughts based on over two decades of experience working at the interface where the interests of communities, global private sector, governments, development agencies, environment, NGOs and others meet.  There have been some spectacular successes and abysmal failures at that interface.  Impoverished people and communities have been uplifted, or they have been pushed further down, environmental miracles and disasters have occurred.  It has been far less about the types of partners involved than it has been about the right partner, plan and approach, based on the specific situation.

The recent discussion over CIDA's collaboration with Canadian mining interests in support of international development has been framed in terms of the interests of Canadian NGOs vs the interests of Canadian mining companies.  The discussion is more properly framed in relation to the interests of the people and communities that should be the beneficiaries of Canada's development assistance.  It’s about the world’s poor and how CIDA can best support education, health and other development issues.

CIDA does not have an easy role.  Its budget comes from Canadian taxpayers and it has a responsibility to ensure that the money it invests in development produces results.  CIDA often works with and through Canadian partners including NGOs, educational institutions, private sector (including mining) and other partners.  There are successful examples for all types of partners, just as there are unsuccessful examples.  No single group holds a monopoly on success, or failure.

I was one of the first to facilitate a large, developmental partnership project between CIDA and a Canadian mining company.  Canadian mining company Placer Dome wanted to go far beyond normal practices and assist the families of 2,500 retrenched mineworkers to establish alternative income streams.  The company committed $5,000,000, CIDA contributed $2,000,000, a number of local NGOs and organizations were involved and the direct impact was felt by thousands of families in hundreds of communities across Southern Africa.  The indirect impact changed the social face of the South African mining industry and led directly to the industry’s progressive (and economically self-interested) HIV/AIDS programming and the project was published in the Stanford Social Innovation Review (link) and used as a case study by the Stanford Business School.

After the success of work in South Africa the World Bank asked Placer Dome to help develop a strategic approach to HIV/AIDS programming in Papua New Guinea that would engage all stakeholders.   We put together a plan and CIDA contributed $200,0000, Placer Dome about the same amount and other partners including Australian Aid, World Bank, World Health Organization, PNG AIDS, Chamber of Mines and others contributed cash and resources.  The end result was a Public Private Partnership Strategy and programming for HIV/AIDS in PNG that was enthusiastically endorsed by a broad cross section of the HIV/AIDS constituency.

In Turkey Eldorado Gold was in the process of developing a gold mine and their work with local communities identified agricultural development as a key local priority.  CIDA partnered with Eldorado (CIDA $200,000 cash, Eldorado ~$750,000 cash and in-kind) and strategies and programs were developed that helped to increase income and productivity of the farmers.

In all of these cases a development impact was achieved because CIDA picked the right partner for the situation.  The mining companies, by virtue of their presence in the area and understanding of the situation, were uniquely positioned to produce results in these cases. In other cases it may well be an NGO or others that would be the best partner.  Experiences like these should help to guide the current debate. 

Canada has a global responsibility to support development around the world.  The execution of that responsibility should not be about one Canadian group or another, but rather about the impact on development.  It isn’t a mining company vs NGO issue.  The mining sector has done terrible things to people and communities, in Canada and globally.  But, so have churches, NGOs, governments and others.  All these groups have positive accomplishments too.  CIDA cannot, and should not exclude entire sectors from its partnership programs.  CIDA must find the partners that enable it to be the most efficient at supporting development for the world’s poor.

Wayne Dunn has worked with private sector, governments, NGOs, civil society and others on over 60 social responsibility/development projects in over 30 countries.  He can be reached at +1.250.743.7619 or wayne@waynedunn.com

The "Wayne is Great" Folder

My friend Wayne in Canada, (not to be confused with our mutual friend Wayne of the same clan in Ireland), was asked to do a short article for a McGill University publication.  He ran it by the other Wayne and myself, did some serious editing and came out with a good piece.  He said when it gets published he was putting it in his "Wayne is Great" folder.

What a brilliant idea.  I had never heard of it before.  Every one of us needs to keep an "I am Great" folder and add things we have accomplished that we can be proud of. All of us at times fail and we can get down on ourselves.  Our friends and family reassure us we are not hopeless failures (well, my friends anyhow; my family not so much - just kidding) but if we have a "I am Great" folder, we can look back and reassure ourselves that we CAN DO!!

And ask your family and friends or co-workers to suggest stuff to put in it.  We don't always remember what we have accomplished, being focused on the tasks remaining.  If it is written, put a copy in the folder; if it is something you have built, put a picture in along with details.  Figure out some way that is meaningful to you.

I know some of the things that are going in my "Al is Great" folder.  From times long past, it is likely to be just a list of things that I will add to as I remember.  For more recent accomplishments, it will be documents and pictures.

Anger, Depression and Cholesterol - Learning new things

"Hear me, my chiefs. I am tired; my heart is sick and sad. From where the sun now stands I will fight no more, forever." Chief Joseph.

I started writing a blog post in my head a few weeks ago.  Like Chief Joseph, I am tired of fighting.  It seems that all my life, I have been angry about something at someone or in most cases a great many someones.  I do not suffer fools gladly.  I hate injustice, corruption, unbridled greed and people who claim to speak for God.  In no particular order. And it/they are everywhere.

Being filled with anger, hatred and frustration, speaking and striking blindly in all directions, (or so it seems to me) is exhausting.  I hate it.  I wish I could stop.  I wish I could be like some I know who stick their head firmly up their rear, hearing, seeing speaking no evil, only reading and quoting nauseatingly sweet syrupy platitudes and pretending the world is all sunshine and roses.

Constant anger and a low boiling point are signs of depression.  Many years ago, (but not soon enough, ask my kids) I went on the little white pills.  They didn't do anything for me but I found that other people didn't act like complete assholes when I was taking the pills but started again as soon as I stopped. They do keep my temperament much more on an even keel even at a low dose.

This was as far as I got in my composing.  Then this past week, I read an article in The Globalist, a weekly freebie of international news and views that comes in my Inbox every Friday.  A strange place to learn something about one's health.

The article Limbaugh, Lipitor and the Incivility of American Political Life speculates on a connection between the "increasing incivility" in America and the $30 billion per year consumption of cholesterol lowering statin drugs. 

The article says statins can reduce fatal heart attacks in patients with increased risk factors — such as diabetes, very high cholesterol, or prior heart attack — and that these drugs can be life-saving for some patients. . .  According to Dr. John Abramson, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and author of Overdosed America: The Broken Promise of American Medicine, "These drugs have been on the market for 21 years... and yet there is still not a single study that documents a health benefit to women of any age, or men over 65 who don't already have heart disease or diabetes." . . . Yet the immense yearly expenditures on marketing statins has assured that over the past decade most of the medically insured, over-50 population of the United States has been prescribed statins.

The fly in the ointment as usual is the side effects Overlooked in the developed world's rush to medicate cholesterol to lower and lower levels have been profound questions about the relationship between cholesterol and cognitive function, mood and behavior. The pre-statin scientific literature provided numerous hints of a link between low (or lowered) cholesterol and violent death, as well as aggression. Reducing cholesterol reduces levels of serotonin, a critical brain neurotransmitter, and low brain serotonin is well known to be linked to violence, impaired impulse control and aggression in both humans and animals. 

Eureka (Yeah?  Well you don't smell so good yourself...but I digress).  For years I have been feeling smug when I go for a physical.  I might be 50 kg overweight but my heart rate is low 60 to 70, blood pressure low-normal (boosted by coffee and insufferable politicians) AND my cholesterol levels off the scale on the LOW side. 

So finding a possible reason for this behaviour of mine has made me feel immensely better.  Now I wonder if they have a drug to increase cholesterol or do I just keep taking serotonin boosters?

Two Different Bibles?

“Mark you this, Bassanio, the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose.”—from “The Merchant of Venice”

The Religious Right has been claiming the high ground for years to the point of stating that one cannot be Christian unless one holds their conservative values and that liberals seeking social justice are godless. So I was very pleased to run across a website for The Christian Left www.thechristianleft.com which tells me that it is not just the “godless” who are seeking social justice.  Though if it were, it wouldn’t bother me, nor change my politics.  If being a Christians means I have to be anti-sick, anti-poor, anti-oppressed, anti-minorities, anti-women, anti-environment, pro-wealth and pro-war, then I am just as happy to be out of it.

The home page of the Christian Left is quite lengthy but well worth reading*. It begins:

We are The Christian Left. We’re all around you. We’re among the people. Take a look. We’re part of the Body of Christ. We’re Christians. We’re Liberal. We make no apologies. In fact Jesus' ways are “Liberal.” That’s why He was killed. The Pharisees and the Sadducees were the conservatives of their time . . .We’re not ‘Communists’ or ‘Marxists’ either. We reject all such labels. We will not be profiled or pigeonholed and we will not ‘Be Quiet.’ We’re Christians. We’re Liberals. Please get used to it . . . The most common religious viewpoint which might be described as ‘left wing’ is social justice, or care for the poor and the oppressed. Supporters of this might encourage universal health care, welfare provision, subsidized education, foreign aid, and Affirmative Action for improving the conditions of the disadvantaged. Stemming from egalitarian values (and what Jesus Himself said), adherents of the Christian left consider it part of their religious duty to take actions on behalf of the oppressed.

When we have Rick Santorum making statements like Obama’s agenda is some phony theology not based on the bible or others suggesting “liberalism is a hatred of God”, Mike Lux at Crooks and Liars wonders “What Bible is Santorum Reading?” 

[T]he Bible I read…is overwhelmingly supportive of helping the poor, showing mercy to the weak, refraining from judging, treating others as you would treat yourself, calling on the wealthy to give their money to the poor, and all kinds of other liberal, lefty, progressive values.

Several paragraphs such as this one bring out the clear message of social justice:

The anti-immigrant conservative has to ignore Leviticus, which says: "Don't mistreat any foreigners who live in your land. Instead treat them as well as you treat citizens and love them as much as you love yourself." The pro-death penalty conservative has to ignore Jesus who told the Pharisees that he who is without sin should cast the first stone. The anti-labor conservatives have to not worry about Jesus' brother James (the undisputed first leader of the early Christian church according to most historians) saying "Now an answer for the rich. Start crying, weep for the miseries coming to you ... Laborers plowed your field and you cheated them: listen to the wages you kept back, they are calling out: realize the cries of the workers have reached the ears of the Lord."

He continues:

Now, look: people have every right to believe whatever they want to believe about God, Heaven and Hell, sin and salvation, the soul, and all sorts of theology. . . And if you want to believe in a God who doesn't care about the poor, loves the wealthy more than anyone else, and wants you to be selfish, feel free. But when you claim to fervently believe in the holy words of the Judeo-Christian Bible, and your political philosophy is violently opposed to most of what is actually in that Bible, I have to call you out on that. . .

I will go so far as to say that the modern conservative faith is the direct opposite of what the Judeo-Christian Bible teaches: modern conservatives argue that everyone should take what they want and devil take the hindmost, that we are all on our own, and that if you are rich it means that a Darwinian selection process allowed you to succeed, and that you owe nothing to anyone else. Modern conservatives are far more faithful to Ayn Rand, who openly rejected Christianity because of its values of helping the poor and caring for others. Give her credit for one thing: at least she was honest.

Now someone will say “Well, you are just ‘Cherry-picking’.  The whole Bible is inspired by God and you just can’t pick and chose.  ‘[E]ther it’s all God’s truth in all its parts, or none of it is’”.  My answer to that is to refer you to my previous post “Why can’t I own a Canadian?” 

Every religious denomination, every preacher, every bible teacher cherry-picks in the sense that some verses are emphasized and others are ignored.  That is why there are so many different versions of Christianity. During the civil war in USA, Northern Christians used their bibles to prove slavery was wrong while Southern Christians used their bibles to prove slavery was right.  (Hence Southern Baptists – and thanks, Snowbrush).  Martin Luther cherry-picked Ephesians 2:8-10 and justification by faith became the founding scripture of Protestantism.

Contrary to what the fundamentalists would have you believe, the Bible did not “fall from the sky on the 4^th of July” fully formed in its King James version.  The notion that “the Bible (KJV) is without error in all its teachings, including creation, history, its own origins, and salvation” is wishful thinking.  It is Holy Scripture; it is not a history text, biology text, chemistry text nor physics text. As Galileo famously argued, scripture teaches us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go.

The books of the Bible were written over the centuries by men for men (and not always by the men whose names appear on the various books.  The bible was translated by men for men, interpreted by men for men; labouriously copied over and over again by men for men, with errors, additions and subtractions deliberate or otherwise until the printing press made such work redundant.  Books were added and subtracted until the present day canon was arrived at.  Roman Catholics, Protestants and Orthodox each have very different canons.  Catholic Bibles have 73 books, 46 in the Old Testament, and 27 in the New Testament. Protestant Bibles have 66 books with only 39 in the Old Testament. Orthodox Bibles have 76 books with 49 in the Old Testament.

See Here for a brief outline of the Church Councils convened over several centuries to agree on biblical canon. Politics, power and money have been part of religion since humans first bowed down to a rock.

So everyone reads the same bible, more or less, cherry-picks the verses to support their ideology and accuses the other of being godless.  More on this subject another time.  I have been all week getting this far but have found some excellent writings (see below) on the subject of reading the bible which I hope you will read.  I hope to come back to it at a later date.

Charles Scriven, Ph.D., chair of the Seventh Day Adventist Forum board (publisher of Spectrum), president of Kettering College of Medical Arts wrote a series of three articles in 2010 in the Spectrum Magazine blog around “Why Can’t I own a Canadian?” examining how people read the bible.  They are Grace, the Holy Spirit, and the Threat of Fundamentalism; Part I and Part II and Biblical Realism as an Alternative to Fundamentalism, Here.  

*Note: You may want to read the comments at the bottom as well before you make up your mind about The Christian Left.  They seem to be banning any commenters from their FB page that raise any issues they do not agree with and do not differentiate between trolling and honest dialogue.  They have no problem with comments on their website though.

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

Snopes says this been making the rounds of many years but considering the lunacy being promulgated during the current GOP campaign of presidential hopefuls, in particular by Santorum, it seems fitting to run it by again.

In her (1990?) radio show, Dr Laura Schlesinger said that, as an observant Orthodox Jew, homosexuality is an abomination according to Leviticus 18:22, and cannot be condoned under any circumstance. The following response is an open letter to Dr. Laura, penned by a US resident, which was posted on the Internet. It's funny, as well as informative:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination .... End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some other elements of God's Laws and how to follow them.

1. Leviticus 25:44 states that I may possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

3. I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of Menstrual uncleanliness - Lev15: 19-24. The problem is how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself, or should I ask the police to do it?

6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination, Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this? Are there 'degrees' of abomination?

7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle-room here?

8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair, like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively and thus enjoy considerable expertise in such matters, so I'm confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your adoring fan,

Jim

Two Presidential Elections - Political Not Funny Jokes

America has a presidential election in November which is not news.  However, Obama has lost a lot of progressive voters because he has broken most of the promises he made and has pretty much sold out to the moneyed crowd.  The only reason he might win again is that the Republican party so far has failed to put forward a credible candidate.

These two op-ed pieces put the choices in perspective:
Bill Boyarsky's What’s Really at Stake in 2012  in TruthDig lays out the GOP position - they do not care which GOP candidate is elected as long as he/she is not so brain-dead they cannot hold a pen to sign bills a Republican controlled  HoR and Senate will put forward and the bills they intend to put forward will take America back to the 19th century.  Read the comments under it to get the reaction of disillusioned progressive liberal voters to Obama's presidency.

Obama, the Human Rights Hypocrite by Paul Craig Roberts in Counterpunch describes what has happened during the Obama presidency, essentially a continuation of W's policies.

As a foreigner, I am hoping for Ron Paul as he has promised to put a "Closed" sign on the American Empire, take all the troops etc home, close all the military bases and stop interfering in the affairs of other countries.  Of course, we all hoped Obama would do something along those lines too.

Russia has a presidential election on March 4th with 5 candidates running, which is not news either. While Putin is expected to win, for the first time there is opposition in the streets and even with a 10% or more padding margin, it will be by a reduced majority.  That is news.

Of the (Kremlin approved) opponents, Zyuganov, leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation will be the strongest contender, mainly as people vote in protest. Zyuganov and Zhirinovsky leader of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (and a "clown") get a few seconds coverage on the nightly news compared to Putin's several minutes but of Mironov (A Just Russia) and Prokhorov (Norilsk Nickel and Russia's 3rd richest man) we hear nothing. 

Prokhorov was the only independent to make the cut.  The Election Commission goes through the deliberately obtuse required documentation with a fine tooth comb and if the candidate does not meet Kremlin approval, then one undotted i is all it takes.

Putin is credited with bringing "stability" to Russia after the chaotic decade under Yeltsin (See Casino Moscow by Matthew Brzezinski for the 90's in the FSU).  The truth is that much of the spoils had already been divided up by 2000 so of course the shooting died down... a little.  If you read Anna Politkovskaya's "Putin's Russia" which cover's his first four years as president, it is obvious that stability meant that the criminals were in control of the business, the old Soviet Nomenclatura were safely ensconced in the bureaucracy and the FSB kept it all under control so everyone at the top got their share of the loot and anyone who complained was looked after, so to speak.  

It was reported just recently on Ukrainian news that Putin is worth almost 140 billion.  Even if it is rubles, $4.5 billion is not bad for a small time mid-level spy to accumulate.  I also read a while back of a $1 billion house (???) being built near Sochi someplace by Putin's friends for him.  Just to show their appreciation for the stability of course.

 Zyuganov is calling for a reStalinization of Russia, however if you look at recent news items from BBC in the lead up to the election, it would seem it is already happening.

Rosenberg's Russia: On the election trail

Russia: Protests and opposition to Vladimir Putin

Vote rigging fears ahead of Russian poll

Anger over corruption in Russian city of Novosibirsk

Political Jokes

My brother Stan sent me these as I usually have a quotation at the end of my emails.  Too good not to share and some are VERY apropos given the political climate in Canada and USA at the moment.

The problem with political jokes is they get elected. ~Henry Cate, VII

We hang the petty thieves and appoint the great ones to public office. ~Aesop

If we got one-tenth of what was promised to us in these acceptance speeches, there wouldn't be any inducement to go to heaven. ~Will Rogers

Those who are too smart to engage in politics are punished by being governed by those who are dumber. ~Plato

Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build a bridge, even where there is no river. ~Nikita Khrushchev

When I was a boy I was told that anybody could become President; I'm beginning to believe it. ~Clarence Darrow

Why pay money to have your family tree traced; Go into politics and your opponents will do it for you. ~Author Unknown

If God wanted us to vote, he would have given us candidates. ~Jay Leno

Politicians are people who, when they see light at the end of the tunnel, go out and buy some more tunnels. ~John Quinton

Politics is the gentle art of getting votes from the poor and campaign funds from the rich, by promising to protect each from the other. ~Oscar Ameringer

I offer my opponents a bargain: if they will stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about them. ~Adlai Stevenson, campaign speech, 1952

A politician is a fellow who will lay down your life for his country. ~Texas Guinan

Any American who is prepared to run for president should automatically, by definition, be disqualified from ever doing so. ~Gore Vidal

I have come to the conclusion that politics is too serious a matter to be left to the politicians. ~Charles de Gaulle

Instead of giving a politician the keys to the city, it might be better to change the locks. ~Doug Larson

Don't vote, it only encourages them. ~Author Unknown

There ought to be one day - just one - when there is open season on senators. ~Will Rogers

NOTE: Would someone please tell S.W. Anderson of Oh!pinion that I can't open his blog the last few posts.  Am I persona non grata ?

Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

Yesterday was my 1000 post, according to Blogger which keeps track of such things.  The little map I have on my blog site to the right and about half way down says I have had 46,729 hits since I started.  Since it seems to count whenever I go there too, I would round it back to about 45,000 hits and call it good.  Monthly hits look like this:

 

I have 40 admitted followers. Readership is steadily increasing and the number of countries astounds me.  I didn't save the January stats yesterday but think there were at least 50 countries, most with one to three hits but several with 20 to 50. 

Which brings up the subject of statistics and its uses.  I am NOT a statistician, I am an analyst (self-taught).  We had a statistics department when I was with Saskatchewan Agriculture.  Statisticians make me mental.  They are so precise, worse than accountants.  Accuracy and consistency are paramount.  Even if the numbers are not 100% (e.g. GDP or July 1 Cattle on Farms), the methodology must be explicable and consistent. And it is a good thing it is so.

Their job was to provide as accurate data as possible to the likes of me.  My job was to squeeze management information out of it.  Stuff you could make decisions from.  About and approximately were good enough.  So I would round it, massage it, reorganize it sixteen ways to breakfast to see what I could learn or to demonstrate a point or substantiate a policy position.

Statistics don't lie IF they are honestly gathered and tabulated.  To me, anything less than that is unethical and unprofessional on the part of the statistician.  It is what is done with them that makes the difference.  The analysis, the spin, the presentation, what is left in or left out, the conclusions drawn.

Just a simple example.  I could have divided the monthly hits by the number of days and got daily hits.  I could have looked at seasonal variations and blog posts per month variations.  I could have (if I had saved each months detailed stats) reworked the data excluding hits from countries with less than 10 hits. Or just looked at Canada and USA or even just Canada.  What might I have learned?  I don't know.  Maybe that increased readership in America accounts for the majority of the total increase.  What would that mean?  Darned if I know.

Look at the chart again.  The X axis is perfectly horizontal and the Y axis at perfect right angles to it, so the slope on the line is truly as it appears.  I could have (if I knew how) sloped the X axis upwards somewhat, keeping the Y axis perfectly vertical, changing the perspective from which you view the chart.  The information on the chart would still be perfectly accurate BUT the slope of the data line would appear steeper than it actually is.  The impression left with the viewer is that the number of hits is rising much faster than it actually is, unless the viewer takes time to read the chart carefully.

But any and all of this is only possible if the original statistics are accurate to start with.