Beef checkoff is one of those projects that is supposed to be great. It was a program that was to have been put together by cattlemen for cattlemen and run by cattlemen to advertise and promote their product. Ranchers were to pay $1 per head on the sale of their cattle. Some of our finest cattlemen worked hard to make it a reality. Checkoff money was to be used to teach the majority of the nation that steaks don,t grow in some garden behind the grocery stores; it was a real need. Additional world happenings have made advertising more important. Where once it was health food folks testing the vegetarian route, in recent years it has been rumors of so-called mad cow, disease and other illnesses actually located across the ocean, but did beef buyers know that? Keeping information before them seems an important effort, and hearing that comforting, drawling cowboy voice of Sam Elliott reminding that "Beefit,s what,s for dinner doesn,t hurt the industry, either. Studies done with checkoff dollars have also helped in teaching independent cattlemen, who love a good thick steak with lots of fat marbling it, that what most consumers really wanted was leaner meat and, in the working woman era, easy-to-fix quick meat meals. I,ve read in magazines people disputing anti-beef arguments using beef checkoff info that beef is good for your health, good for losing weight, good if you have diabetes, etc., so it is getting out there. Health people and those looking for weight loss avenues have finally come down on the side of beef; only recently tests proved that the Atkins Diet"all the meat you can eat, was the healthiest and caused the most weight loss by more than 10 pounds. Cattlemen waited a long time for them to figure out that one. But is the beef checkoff program constitutional? On November 1st, US District Court Judge Richard Cebull ruled that the national cattle checkoff program is constitutional. But this came after Steve and Jeanne Charter, during the 1990s, fought in court that beef checkoff violated their rights to pay for, or not, advertising they might or might not agree with. It was determined they violated the law and they were heavily fined. They took it to civil court. In the meantime, last June, in South Dakota, US District Judge Charles Kornmann ruled that the beef checkoff program was unconstitutional and ordered USDA to stop collections in July. This is being appealed. This was followed by a ruling by US District Court Judge Richard Enslen that the hog checkoff program was unconstitutional. To add to confusion, last year the US Supreme Court ended the mushroom checkoff as unconstitutional. But now comes the Montana ruling that it is constitutional. Many who raise beef, and their organizations, are pleased at the last ruling, believing that run properly, these programs are helpful and that in times like these of severe economic pressure, we can,t stop promoting beef. It does seem that if not promoted, urban people can,t figure the truth out themselves, or haven,t the interest. Speaking of interest, the latter judge, while fining the Charters did not make them pay all their penalties and fines, which some believe could cause great trouble; allowing one to pay part and not all, when not complying could cause others to think they might do the same and put the entire operation into serious problems with less money coming in than expected and allotted for. Also the judge mistakenly said in his ruling that the government created and controls the beef checkoff program. (At least I, along with cattlemen across the nation, believe the government did not have a thing to do with it.) In addition, he said that resulting from that, what was said was government speech,, and added the totally silly statement that "Beefit,s what,s for dinner would not be recognized as the beef industry,s slogan were it not for the approval of the Secretary of Agriculture. It was not the government who hired Sam Elliott, or even Cybill Shepherdand who was the guy who died who was hired as spokesperson before that? One suspects checkoff dollars paid some good advertising folks for that line to be recognized as the beef industry,s slogan. It needed no other stamp of approval to make it work than the sizzle of steak cooking in the background. The answer to this muddle is not for beef checkoff payments to stop, but to get the government out of it, then listen to the cattlemen,s voices. It,s bad enough to have the government start programs that people could do as well, but for them to think they started one they didn,t and then take it over is ridiculous. And probably a sure way to make it fail. Later, when calm and reason reigns again, cattlemen can decide what they want to do and how important they believe promoting their product via beef checkoff is. I would like to hear from area ranchers regarding their opinions on beef checkoff, and why they support it or do not. (A Court of Appeals granted continuation of pork checkoff. The National Hog Board is happy to have this ruling and stated that since hog checkoff began, pork consumption has increased 21% and "pork has become the fastest growing meat category in America,s restaurants, according to the vice president. They await the appeal ruling.) |
||
This week kicked off the National Book Festival, hosted by Laura Bush and MC,s by Cokie Roberts. I loved one speech by an author named Deedy, who told how books bring unparalleled excitement, the perfect place to escape when life throws you a curve or you just want to learn, improve your mind, deepen your perspective. The joy of opening a book, smelling the slight aroma of printer,s ink, the feeling of the pages in your hands, and the promise of joys unlimitedthere,s nothing better. No computer can ever compare, she assures, no matter how many books are within it or upon its screen. You have to lean back in a chair"or in bed, hold that tantalizing book, and give yourself over to the magic. Last month I heard that Ayn Rand,s book, Atlas Shrugged, is suddenly very popular again. What a book"though it somehow amazes that it,s resurfacing now. But even more amazing is that it ever left. When I first found it. I,d just finished reading Tolstoy, so sweeping a book about the Russian author,s life and times"and leaving that world was difficult. Oh, to be able to stay with this man of intellect and accomplishment. Nothing, no book, could match it, I thought. I,d never heard of Atlas Shrugged, or Ayn Rand; it was just a lucky choice that I ordered it. It,s rather long; maybe I was hoping that would in some way equate to the depth of Tolstoy. From the first sentence, this was one of the most exceptional, unique books written, at least by me. The reader is held enthralled, first of all by the shimmering, mind-tingling and mental acrobatic use of words. Yes, she uses lots and lots and lots of words, but strong words delicately strung together artfully, in breathtaking beauty, each necessary. Jewelsglorious jewelsis the result of the well placed, perfectly chosen words. It is a book that makes you want to savor one word at a time, then an entire sentence; it is not a page turner, but rather a book that you hate to turn a page and leave the lovely words behind. I,m a fast readerbut not with this book. This book"only this book"I could read just one beautiful sentence over and over and over, entranced at how she put it together. Like the old Masters, she wrote lengthy sentences"and if you couldn,t/wouldn,t keep up, she didn,t care. Which is one reason I,m surprised at the book,s present popularity; this world that wants five-word sentences, and of which TV tests say hasn,t the attention span to follow or hang on to more, has apparently been misjudged, underestimated. Thank God. Then came the power of the book. Side by side, they were gracefully explosivethe elegant but strongly crafted sentencesthat touched, or created, a poet,s soul, alongside the no-nonsense story line about grandeur of spirit and power and yet simplicity, applicable to any kind of life. Her premise was simple: perfection and excellence. That every man could/should strive for"and achieve"one thing only: pure excellence. I,ve long believed what some call a Pollyanna-ish idea that if everyone would just love one another and always make the right choice whenever presented with choice in actions or words, life could be heaven on earth. So, her book, her ideas, fell on ready ears. I suspect that long before writing Atlas Shrugged, Rand battled and wondered about such life questions as "If only and "Why? and "Why not? It seems so simple, her idea of everyone having and accepting only high ideals, but few seem to agree or even care to entertain the thought. It could be done"quite easily, actually, but only if people catch the vision and hold to it. The stunning power of her idea of excellence"and hopefully reaching it, pounds from every page, but it,s interesting the vehicle she uses to portray it: every day work. Of course by the time she takes every day work and combines it with dreams, vision, excellence, perfection"oh, yes, and hardheaded determination, plus refusal to accept defeat or failure, it hardly looks like every day work. Most of her books The Fountainhead is another feature strong male jobs (architecture, mining, trains and transportation, construction) with the heroine right in the middle with no acknowledgment of gender-problems. And, of course a small job becomes a company becomes 10 companies becomes an empirebut not without years, maybe decades, of struggle, loss, and backbreaking work. She simply sees those heartaches and sacrifices as part of the game and never takes her eyes from the goal, the dream, the journey of excellence. She has strong male characters. Rourke is as strong as the heroine, not always so in books written by women. You sense she so wanted a man of equal strength and vision that she created him in Rourke"and others. College students and idealists are discovering this book again and my only caution to those who chose to follow this way of life (it has been called "the intellectual,s bible) is that God has no part in her people and their accomplishments. Rand, not a Christian, believed that man was totally in charge of his destiny. True wisdom comes when we realize we are not in charge. Regardless what we think now, eventually life will prove it to us. And that all good things come from God. But were we to decide on a course of excellence and goodness to fellowmen and work, such as Rand sets before us, along with thanksgiving, prayer and honor to God, what a winning combination that would be for blessings to come our way. Just remember: man is not God, as she believes, and you,ll be fine and definitely the better for adding her ideals to your life. You can hardly read her books without wanting to improve yourself in positive ways"because it,s obvious that, if applied, it can and willwork. Don,t be afraid of its length"you will so love it you,ll nearly weep when it ends. I can,t possibly say it is the best book ever written, but there is no other like it. Her book. "The Fountainhead (also made into a movie) follows similar principles of life, but is shorter, more like a regular novel, and not of the same calibre. However, some start with it (or go back after reading Atlas Shrugged). I hope you,ll read Atlas Shrugged. It will enrich your life (and yourthinking process and language just from being dipped into this heavenly, mysterious world of eloquence and mastery.) Plus you,ll be supercharged to create dreams and visions of your own and apply them"plus very hard work"to the place and work where you have been planted to bloom. The essence of the book is excellence. Watch excellence fall into your life, even as you are reading this book, and remain afterwards. Many claim that it changed their lives. It will be interesting to see how it affects the modern population now that this book is back in vogue. It seems an interesting time for it to resurface"almost a clash or worlds and ideals, though, indeed, they should be timeless. It,s promising that people are leaving technology long enough to simply sit with a book, read and grow. Reading is the only way known to really grow, completely mature. Whatever you are expert at, you got there partially by reading about it. Growing through reading is important since the record states that the more we turn to technology the more illiterate and backwards we become. One is a time waster of simple turn the switch and follow, activity. The other makes you think, mature and grow. We desperately need the latter. |
I felt this week like the columnist who wrote he,d surely been born at the wrong time since when he was a child the focus was on adults, and children "were to be seen and not heard, but when he grew up, things had flipped and the focus was on youth. He felt he had been in the generation that never mattered. Well, humility is good for everyone. But this week I read that Crayolas are now washable"and it was the bale that broke the camel,s back. I, too, was born at the wrong time. Mostly, I,ve survived watching today,s young generation experience motherhood with all those amazing time- and back-savers: disposable diapers, bottles with formula ready to drink, disposable Wipes, etc. to start with. So different from a morning after babies, baths, spent washing, then boiling bottles, nipples, caps and lids"then boiling a tub of water with which you created the day,s formula, measuring this and that like a scientist in a very hot, steamy lab, then pouring the concoction through a funnel into 12 to 20 bottles, refrigerating those, cleaning up, then washing the utensils. This was comparable to milking cows: there was no way it could not be done for even one day"or baby didn,t eat. Next, though begun in the morning and stopped to fix lunch, then came the second half of the dayrinsing diapers"and other baby clothes, washing (often by hand, sometimes boiling first to sanitize), rinsing again, hanging outside, then basketfuls brought inside to fold and pile in stacks for a few hours and put away. (Of all the wasted time in my life, the silliest was folding and stacking all those diapers for the few hours.) There was no wind-up swing to keep a baby or two entertained for hours, or rocked to sleep"just loving arms and, if lucky, a rocking chair. No pacifier to stop crying. No TV (sometimes by choice) for keeping toddlers company. Instead of 40 spilled glasses of milk and juice per child per year, today there are spill-free covered cuppies. No Day Care. Nor even baby-sitters, especially if out in the country. Obviously, there was no time for women to "work, as if she wasn,t, or get away. They spent every minute or every day and year with their children until their first day of school (except a hospital stay when another baby was born.) Someone also pointed out the difference in having the babies then vs. now: No shots to eliminate or ease labor pain (possibly a bad idea, anyway, as it slows things down), but many observe it and think This is childbirth?,. Still, I survived the unfairness of all that. What I wouldn,t have given for disposable diapers, though; it,s a thought of pure heaven. Yet it is totally unimaginable. For one thing, what would I have done with all that extra time: cook larger meals? bake more cakes? clean house better? write and read more? help more with baby calves? and, oh, yes, iron all those little dresses, shirts and jeans before perma press days? Secondly, "silly me"I doubt I,d have accepted disposable diapersand would any father have allowed it? It would have seemed such a waste of money, a terribly unnecessary expense. Better to buy 36 cloth diapers"that could be passed down to later babies"and wash them daily. It wasn,t unusual for two babies a family to be in diapers in the era ofbig families. Why one thing is difficult to deal with and another not, I don,t know. But when I read about washable crayons, I nearly lay my head down and wept. Oh, the terrible, terrible unfairness of it. When we lived on the Dumbbell Ranch, the four older children shared the second bedroom from about ages 3, 2, 1 and baby for a couple years, until James got a separate room. One day I went into their room to get year-old Chris from her crib, and one wall, as high as they could climb, was a rainbow of every colored grand and glorious scribble possible. I sat on Londa,s bed. Why? I wondered. I,d done a lot of painting of rooms"could that have prompted a copycat reaction? Or was it just an explosion of creative artistry? Maybe one was going to be a de Vinci. Was it all of them, one, two or three? Innocent Chris contemplated her Mommy considering crying. And"like it mattered"why on just one wall? It was a cute, fun room. Robyn and James slept in bunkbeds against one wall and Chris had the crib against the opposite wall"neither of which probably left sufficient wall room for their full artistic expression. So, Londa,s single bed provided lots of wall space"lengthwise, plus there was the bed to stand on so as to reach higher. And higher. Still I sat therethinking how this bed was where I kneel with Londa to say her nighttime prayers, the "Now I lay me,s and all the "God bless-es How could that angelic place and those angelic babies have resulted inthis? Well, it wasn,t the first time my day,s plans had been hijacked by children,s adventures, so I filled a pan with hot soapy water and began to scrub. That,s when I discovered this was a far worse situation than ever imagined. First, the walls were a rough, crayon-hugging, stucco. Second, trust an expert: washing crayon just smearsand smears. Heloise wasn,t yet on the scene, at least not in my house, so I got cleansers and brushes and worked and workedand it just got worse, larger and uglier. I can tell you this: If you mix all colors together, you get something like a horrid purple-y black. It now covered more area"to the ceiling and wall-to-wall, looked hideous, I was hot, tired, frustrated, behind in regular work, had bleeding knuckles and cleanser-raw hands. The only helpful thing is that I had few interruptions. Chris, always the patient one, seemed content to sit in her crib with bottle, toys and gingersnap, and, with great interest and wide-eyed curiosity, watch me entertain her. The other three were mysteriously, innocently quiet, looking at books and coloring in another room. I don,t give up easily. I washed the wall hour after hour, day after day, to no avail. I was unforgettably exhausted. I think I finally painted it. I know I never conquered those Crayolas. Now they are washable. How could I have missed that wonder? What,s next? Potty training serum? A vaccination so that hair cut to the scalp magically grows back? Snowsuits, boots and mittens that come off and go on with a snap of fingers every time children want to come inside and go back outside? Sticky-finger shots so doors and windows aren,t stained? Toys complete with batteries? Bubble gum in hair disappears by mental telepathy? Runny nose and colic immunizations? Whatever it is, learning of it can,t possibly compare to the jolt of learning that Crayon scribbles are now quickly and easily just wiped off. After all these years, I think I,ll go cry. |
The newly implemented luxury tax hasn,t stopped George Steinbrenner and the Yankees from spending the big cash on big name free agents to help their team win. The Yankees have just signed Japanese star Hideki Matsui to a 3 year, $21 million deal. On top of that, they outbid the Boston Red Sox for pitcher Jose Contreras from Cuba. Contreras was signed for 4 years at $32 million. The Yankees also just resigned pitcher Roger Clemens to a one year, $10 million deal. That brings the Yankees payroll to about $150 million, which means that with the new luxury tax rules, they will have to pay about $50 million that will be dispensed to other teams. After the Red Sox got beat out for Contreras, Boston president Larry Lucchino commented, "the evil empire extends its tentacles even into Latin America. This has made Yankees officials, not the least Steinbrenner, absolutely furious, though he is yet to make a comment. Quite frankly, the Red Sox have no room to complain. First of all, the reason Contrer assigned with the Yankees was because he wanted to play in pinstripes. Second, the Red Sox voted for luxury tax. The Yankees are spending the money, yes, but they are being taxed for it and 34% of their local revenue is being given to other teams. Yet they are still whining. The more money that the Yankees spend, it,s more money going into other teams pockets as well, they are just upset that Contreras would rather play in New York. Hail to Steinbrenner. Never has a team had such a great fan following, and he does everything in his power to make that happen. They signed Matsui and Contreras because they were to good to pass up, but the goal for the Yankees is to actually start slashing the payroll because of the luxury tax. Either way, they are being penalized for spending so much, but good for them. Whatever it takes to win. |
Copyright © Grant County News All Rights Reserved