Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Is More Food Really The Answer?

According to the United Nations, as reported in: UN chief: food production must rise 50 percent by 2030, found at: http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Jun03/0,4670,UNFoodCrisis,00.html the world food supply not only needs to increase, but food producing nations must "...minimize export restrictions and import tariffs during the food price crisis and quickly resolve world trade talks".

So what the UN Secretary general was saying is that not only does the world need more food, but we need cheap food too. Of course this is all geared toward certain countries. On the receiving end it is geared toward countries that do not produce enough food for their own population. In other words, it is geared toward countries that do not even come close to performing the basic work necessary to meet the basic needs of their own people - basic needs being food, water and shelter. Of course this is not how the UN sees it; the UN would rather blame those countries at the other end of the spectrum, those who produce enough food to feed their own populations and then have some surplus left over. Here is an example of this last: "The United Nations is encouraging summit participants to start undoing a decades-long legacy of agricultural and trade policies that many blame for the failure of small farmers in poor countries to feed their own people."

No, the failures of small farms in poor countries are not due to policies of other nations in my opinion. Rather these failures are due to tyrannical governments oppressing people of those poor nations. Look at Myanmar for the perfect example. They not only oppress the people during fairly normal times, but have done so after a catastrophic natural disaster. Even when food and other aid freely flows into the country from abroad what has happened to it, it has in great part gone to the 'haves' and not to the 'have nots'. It is either about time that the UN start to address the real problem here, and try to look for lasting solutions. Having countries like the USA or Brazil dole out welfare like shipments of food, farm equipment, and fertilizer to third world nations is doing little to resolve their problems. Assuring that honest, moral, beneficent governments come to and remain in power in these countries would do an awful lot more in the long run. Then again whom am I trying to kid, because if we really live to see that happen it would not be the UN that would be doing it. As a matter of fact, it is many of the countries who participate in the UN who are apparently responsible for the same oppression that is responsible for keeping the masses of their own countries downtrodden in misery. I guess that leaves us with one place to start, so why not abolish the UN!

Edited to add: Oh, how could I forget? Maybe there is also another solution to this mess. Maybe those in third world countries ought to start acting responsibly when it comes to population growth. They could exercise some form of birth control and reduce the need for handouts while also reducing their own suiffering due to overpopulation. After all, overpopulation causes food shortages, and shortages of all other resources, just look to countries like India if you don't beleive it. They could start with abstinence, or condoms, or the pill, or family planning (as the one child rule in most of China). Or they could go with good old oral sex for a more fun solution. What a thought, can you imagine anyone trying to solve a shortage of resources by actually realizing that over population is the root cause for those shortages, and then trying to stem overpopulation. I must be some sort of radical, but it makes sense to me that there are just too many rats in the cage and not enough rat chow to go around.

All the best,
Glenn B

1st Amendment Only Good For Dems?

Did anyone catch Fox News this morning at about 0610 hours? Some goon guy named Bob Beckell was on the show as a Democrat Strategist or something like that. He blatantly stated his dislike of right wing bloggers, and if I heard it and understood him correctly he in essence said they should not be allowed to be blogging. So I guess what he is implying is that it is okay for the leftists to blog - since he did not comment about them in a negative manner, and since he is apparently on the left, thereby in essence saying that the Right of Free Speech applies only to the left. This guy, in my opinion, is a blowhard fool, and I have to wonder how the hosts on the Fox News show did not catch the implication, or even the direct statement he made about right leaning bloggers, and then call him to task for it. Yeah, I know he is entitled to his opinion, and entitled to speak under the 1st; but so too am I deserving of that right just as much as he - maybe even a bit more since I support the Constitution.

All the best,
Glenn B
View My Stats