A big Shout Out to all the Veterans out there.

The American Veteran is a Liberator.  A friend to the oppressed; an enemy to the oppressor.

Courtesy of Military.Com, here is a history of Veterans Day:

Veterans Day, formerly known as Armistice Day, was originally set as a U.S. legal holiday to honor the end of World War I, which officially took place on November 11, 1918. In legislation that was passed in 1938,November 11 was “dedicated to the cause of world peace and to be hereafter celebrated and known as ‘Armistice Day.’” As such, this new legal holiday honored World War I veterans.

In 1954, after having been through both World War II and the Korean War, the 83rd U.S. Congress — at the urging of the veterans service organizations — amended the Actof 1938 by striking out the word “Armistice” and inserting the word “Veterans.” With the approval of this legislation on June 1, 1954, Nov. 11became a day to honor American veterans of all wars.

In 1968, the Uniforms Holiday Bill ensured three-day weekends for federal employees by celebrating four national holidays on Mondays: Washington’s Birthday, Memorial Day, Veterans Day, and Columbus Day. Under this bill, Veterans Day was moved to the last Monday of October. Many states did not agree with this decision and continued to celebrate the holiday on its original date. The first Veterans Day under the new law was observed with much confusion on Oct. 25, 1971.

Finally on September 20, 1975, President Gerald R. Ford signed a law which returned the annual observance of Veterans Day to its original date of Nov. 11, beginning in 1978. Since then, the Veterans Day holiday has been observed on Nov. 11.

There is a lot more good information and background there.  Please stop by.

And while you are enjoying this holiday, please remember those who have served, and those that serve today.

(Hat tip to Scott at Powerline)

The Toledo Blade has some pieces on Obama, and FDR’s Second Bill of Rights.

Without further ado, here is that list of “rights” that the left want to append to the Constitution:

• The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or
  shops or farms or mines of the nation;
• The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing
  and recreation;
• The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a
  return which will give him and his family a decent living;
• The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an
  atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by
  monopolies at home or abroad;
• The right of every family to a decent home;
• The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to
  achieve and enjoy good health;
• The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old
  age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
• The right to a good education.

Amazingly, this list shares many common points with the UN Declaration on Human Rights, which I have commented on before.

And I have the same general comment – everything listed here is a Benefit, not a Right.

Benefit: 

For those of you looking for a snapshot of what the shape of things to come might be like with the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives all controlled for far left wing ideologues, the WSJ Opinion page has some hints:

- Medicare for all: The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm.
But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government
options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or
both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has
already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate: The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom,
biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be
investigated and face new, more onerous rules.

- Union supremacy:  The “Employee Free Choice Act” would convert workplaces into union
shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees,
which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a
petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results
in an automatic two-year union “contract” after 130 days of failed
negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union
whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest
pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the
Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes: Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high.

- The green revolution:  Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy.

- Free speech and voting rights:  One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration.
This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the “community
organizer” left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls.
The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress –
Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness
Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC.
A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio
and other voices of political opposition.

These are just the highlights, you need to read the whole thing for yourself.

From Wikipedia:

Suspension of disbelief or “willing suspension of disbelief” is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people’s relationships to art. It refers to the willingness of a person to accept as true the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment.

I first heard this term in a creative writing class, from one of those special teachers that not only loved to teach, but also the subject that they teach (I was lucky to run across many of those in my academic life).

I have noticed, over the years, that there is an application of this concept in the world of Politics.

Political suspension of disbelief or “willing political suspension of disbelief” is an aesthetic theory intended to characterize people’s relationships to political figures. It refers to the willingness of the electorate to accept as true the premises of a campaign, even if they are fantastic, heavily redacted, creatively enhanced, or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the electorate to overlook the limitations of a candidate, so that these do not interfere with the acceptance of those premises; and to overlook explicitly unfair, immoral, and/or illegal activities by the candidate or his supporters. According to the theory, suspension of disbelief is a quid pro quo: the audience tacitly agrees to suspend their judgment in exchange for the promised political action.

The most extreme examples of this are with candidates/movements with little or no public record. A “maskirova” (cover story/deception/legend) is created to gloss over inconvenient facts or relationships. As the electorate (public) at large has little or no knowledge of the candidate/movement, it is easy to accept the maskirova, and then, applying the political willing suspension of disbelief, not only support said person or group, but to apply their own beliefs and conceptions to “fill in the holes” of the maskirova.

The natural check on this syndrome is the free press. In normal circumstances, the press will attempt to pull back the curtain on the maskirova, to display the truth of the candidates past, or public relationships, or stands on issues. Unfortunately, the press being made up of people, they too are susceptible to the political suspension of disbelief. This is compounded when the candidate/movement perpetuating a maskirova is from the same political framework as the press.

This leads us to a situation such as now besets the United States. One candidate has many historic ties to far left radicals, outright self described communists, socialists, domestic terrorists, and black nationalists. What little record the candidate has on public issues is to the far left (when he bothers to vote at all). Public officials from this candidates party have stated on the record that they will pursue his opponents supporters if they perceive “lies” about their candidate. Some have even banned poll watchers from the parties (traditionally in place to try to assure voting irregularities are reported or stopped from happening). None of this is covered by the press, in more than a passing “nothing to see here” manner.

So, in 2008, we have a situation where the political suspension of disbelief, affecting not only the electorate, but the supposed guardians of truth and light in the press, could very well lead to the election of a man and a movement that few have actually taken the time to examine, and who’s actual stand, and motivations, may not be known until well after he is sworn in to office.

Is there a cure for this syndrome? I don’t know. But what I do know is that we are facing the very real possibility of a single political party – and far left mindset – dominating the Presidency, the Senate Leadership (with a left wing majority), the House of Representatives leadership (with a left wing majority), and the Press.

You can be assured that within the two years from Jan 2008 to Jan 2010 (when the next election cycle could allow for the possible change of the senate or house to the political right) that two new Supreme Court justices will be named (no doubt at all that Ginsburg and Stevens will retire), probably from even further to the left of the judicial spectrum than even Ginsburg.

If on other Justice could be convinced to retire; Souter, let’s say; the new administration could but it’s far left stamp on the Supreme Court for a generation.

You can also be sure that the Fairness Doctrine will be reimposed, leading to a virtual freeze out of any but the most bland and shapeless forms of talk radio.

And, moves to strengthen voter registration laws will be shelved, even as community organizing groups will receive increased federal funding, to expand on their fraudulent voter registration drives.

But maybe none of that will happen. Maybe some of the press will wake up and actually do their job. Maybe the electorate will wake up and do THEIR job, and actually research the candidates and their stands.

But probably not. That requires motivation, and positive motion. Much easier to sit on the couch, and listen to Katie, and Charlie, and Keith tell you to watch the maskirova, but don’t look behind the curtain…

It is rare that the Tacoma News Tribune’s Patrick O’Callahan has anything to say that I find particularly insightful or even of passing interest.  I daresay, my scribblings are of even less interest to him, had he ever chanced upon them by accident of a web search.

But he has a piece today that caught my attention, and I would like to expand upon:

McCain’s ‘country first’ ethic is tough sell in 21st century

I consider McCain a noble man. I believe he’s dead serious when he talks about putting country first. He especially impressed me in the 1990s when he led efforts to normalize American ties to communist Vietnam. He recognized that normalization was in this country’s best interests and acted accordingly, despite the sadism he’d endured in Hanoi.

I also think McCain was being honest when he said he’d prefer to lose an election than see his country lose a war. A Democratic supporter of Barack Obama would certainly argue that McCain doesn’t understand America’s real interests, but I don’t doubt that he’s thoroughly committed to what he thinks those interests are.

Listening to him Thursday, it struck me that country-first is pretty much McCain’s religion. He described his own embrace of that demanding creed in terms eerily similar to the way many Christians talk about their conversions.

Imagine my dismay, when I read these paragraphs, and agreed with Mr. O. completely.

And O’Callahan points out something that I had missed:

He started as a young sinner: “I didn’t think there was a cause more important than me.”

Then came the epiphany: “I fell in love with my country when I was a prisoner of someone else’s.”

Then was born new creature: “I wasn’t my own man anymore. I was my country’s.”

This is a theme that I recognize in my own life, and that of many of my friends.  No, none of use had to deal with the POW experiences of McCain, but in service to our country, on distant shores, at the tip of the spear, we found something more than ourselves to believe in.  Some higher purpose that “keeping up with the Jonse’s” and material aquisition, and personal comfort.

This is how we like our heroes: Nathan Hale regretting he has but one life to lose for his country; George Washington walking away from one of the richest estates in Virginia to endure long years of wartime hardships.

Indeed, it is this very selflessness and self sacrifice that makes a man more than he otherwise might have been, and draws the admiration and respect of his fellows. If not the definition of a hero, it is part of the fabric of such.

A lot of small-government libertarians are deeply alarmed by McCain’s willingness to regulate and his hostility to private interests he views as self-serving…

Most average Americans won’t share the ideological horror of pure libertarians. But some won’t warm up to McCain’s stoic message: Country first, always and in everything. Stand tall. Life is tough. Keep on fighting.

He sounds as if he wouldn’t think the loss of an assembly line is the end of the world. Obama, by contrast, is all solicitous sympathy.

Indeed, as a recovering Libertarian, I find a lot to dislike in McCain’s political stances.  But there can be no doubt that he takes his stands in conformance with his personal creed, Country First. And I take solace in his mindset that America is the promised land of opportunity; and that adversity is our path to learning, and gives us new opportunites.

Part of my instictive distate for Obama, and the rest of the Liberal Elite is that they have confused the Country with the Government.  While these two things are not exclusive, neither are they part and parcel of each other.  

The Country is the People, and the Land, and – and this seperates us from all other nations on this earth – the Constitution.  All of the government today could be wiped away, and the bureaucrats swept off to some desert island, and still there would be the People, and the Land, and the Consitution, and we would rebuild.  

McCain’s like that tough old turkey of a World War II-vet uncle who keeps pushing you to join the military when you don’t like the idea. He’d put his hand in the fire. But with the Greatest Generation dying and the draft long since abandoned, that’s getting to be a tougher ethic to sell.

And this is the saddest parapgrah I have read in a long time.  It is so accurate and intuitive that it should bring you to tears.

I have written before, and will again, of the increasing void between the citizens of the nation, and the military – the “rough men who stand ready to do harm” in their defense.  And the increasing trend in the schools and media to denigrate the military and their accomplishments, and ridicule the very idea of military service.  This is a necessary part of the agenda of those that would put the Government first, instead of the Country.

To see the results of a military totally divorced from the people, one need only watch the video of the crushing of the Tienanmen Square demonstrations in China.

I truly believe that this election will shape the next 30 years of American history.  That a sweep House and Senate seats, and the White House delivered into the hands of a party that is Socialist in all but name, with the support of approximately 50% of the voting population, will threaten our very economic engine, and take to an era of the omnipresent Nanny State.  I have no doubt in my mind that the two most leftist Supreme Court judges would take the opportunity to retire, so that they could be sure of equally leftists replacements. 

Or we could hold the line in the House and Senate, and have in the White House a man who believes in Country First.  Who will hold the line on what is best for the nation, and the people – not what is best for government bureaucrats and union organizers, and community organizers, and the myriads of other leeches who suckle from the public teat, and seek to make business a tool of the state.

We have seen where Obama and Biden and their fellow travellers would take us.  It was called the Soviet Union, and it was a spectaular failure. Their new model is Western Europe, which has already decided to emulate the loser in the cold war, is failing fast, and will, in 30 years, be a far different place, more like Eastern Europe under the Soviets.  Except for those countries like Spain and Italy who will have willingly committed suicide through lack of procreation, and who’s lands will become Islamic due to immigration (immigrants brought in for their tax revenue, to support the pensioners who were unwilling to breed their replacements). This is the new model for the Democrat party, except they will use South Americans to pay the taxes.

I may not agree with John McCain on every issue, but given a choice between a man who believes in his Country first, versus a man who believes that Government is the answer to all ills, I will side with McCain.

And maybe we should talk once again about that Military Draft thing…

As this election season drags on, and the GOP, lead by it’s new standard bearer, John “Maverick” McCain, lurches even further to the center-left than it had already been drifting; and given the near third party status of the Republicans in Washington State (after the Democrat party, and Really Democrat Party) , I am finding myself out in right field, without a Party to support.

I am not alone, by any stretch of the imagination.  There are many others out here.  We can see each other, and even converse with each other, commiserating in our sad new existence.

We find the basic tenants of the Democrat Party politically repugnant. Some of us even find Democrat stands on certain issues immoral, naive, reckless, or even suicidal, on a national level.  The Democrat party has been, for most of it’s history and to this day, the party of Racism and Separation.  It is a party that sees the Constitution as blunt instrument (when it can be twisted to fit their agenda), and a malleable “living” document when they can use the Judiciary to redefine it’s passages. Or, when all else fails, they simply ignore it.  They are what we fought the Cold War against – a party run by a privileged elite (Super-delegates, in current parlance), dedicated to retaining and reinforcing racial separation (now known as Diversity), protectionism (under the guise of human rights, and “fair-trade”), appeasement and surrender to our enemies (far too many example to cite).  They are, in short, a Party dedicated to remaking America into a third world banana republic, with a Democrat Politburo in charge.  They are not Democrats, in any true sense of the word.

The GOP (who should be forced to renounce the name Republican, as they no longer deserve it, or adhere to the principals the party was founded on), the party that championed emancipation of the slaves, women’s suffrage, and the civil right act (despite Democrat opposition to all of the above), has become corrupted by power, and is now attempting to move to the left, to court the less fervent fellow travellers of the Democrat party.  The ultimate expression of this is the elevation of a man who has opposed many Conservative – no REPUBLICAN – principals, as our nominee for the highest office in the land, and along with it, leadership of the party.

I used to be a Libertarian, once upon a time, when I thought that some of their stands might soften with time.  Unfortunately, the Libertarians have done the ONE thing that the Republican Party has not – stayed true and locked in to their core principals.  While that includes many things that I do support, including a firm grasp of the Constitution (what is now known as strict constructionism), and personal liberty, they also take many stands that are logically cohesive to their philosophy, but are naive at beast, and suicidal at worst.  Among these are their stands on unfettered and uncontrolled immigration, and their policy of “military protectionism” – that the US Military is and should only be a self-defense force.  These are wonderful ideas, and lofty goals, but in the real world, they are very likely to get you killed.

There is also the Constitution Party, which is part Libertarian, and equal parts Protectionist and Isolationist, with some Christian philosophy on the side.

I am sure there are many other parties out there, many of which I am not familiar with.

But I, and the others out here in Right Field, see none of these as a new home for us.

What are we looking for?  I can’t answer for everyone, only for myself.  If I could invent a party, it would have the following stands:

1) The Constitution should be interpreted with the original intent of the framers.  Specifically the Bill of Rights should be enforced as intended, with emphasis on the 9th and 10th amendments.

2) Immigration is a positive force, and necessary to the future growth and prosperity of the nation, but our borders must be controlled, and we must have a single official language for the business of the nation, to bind us together.

3) The United States must remain strong enough militarily to defeat any enemy that would attempt to harm our citizens, either directly, or by attacks on our economic or strategic interests. 

4) We must help nurture democracy and freedom around the world, using all tools at our disposal.

5) We must support and promote free trade.

6) In support of all of the above, we must be engaged with other nations, but we must never forget that diplomacy is only credible when backed up by the threat (or promise) of force – be it economic or military.

I am sure there are other planks that would be important, but these seem to cover it.

If anyone knows what party may meet these criteria, please let me know.  I think I have a lot of friends who would be interested, as well.

UPDATE:

A commenter asked for some support to my allegation as the historical racism of the Democrat party.

Trail of Tears & Indian Removal Act- Supported by Andrew Jackson, President, Democrat

The Republican Partywas formed in 1854, primarily as an Abolitionist (anti-slavery) party, to oppose the Democrat Party.  Indeed, many anti-slavery Democrats joined the Republicans.  See also the Kansas-Nebraska act.

The Copperheadswere anti-civil war Democrats, some of whose action went over the line into treason.  Think about today’s House and Senate leadership, when you read about them.

The Ku Klux Klan formed in 1865, had, by 1868 become a virtual military arm of the Democrat party in the south. Indeed the Klan became synonymous with the Democrats.  They were such a powerful force in that party, that the 1924 convention was referred to as the “Klanbake Convention”.  Even today, a former Klansman is an Elder Statesman of the Democrats in the US Senate – Robert Byrd of W. Virginia.

The Internment(and confiscation of property) of Japanese (and other asian) Americans during World War II was performed under Executive Orders (#9066 and 9095 respectively), issued by Franklin Roosevelt, President, Democrat.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964was passed with support of 82% of Republican Senators, and 80% of Republican Representatives.  Only 69% of Democrat Senators, and 63% of Democrat Representatives voted for it.

After this, the Democrat party began to shift to more subtle forms or racism.

Entire Bureaucratic industries have risen up, ostensibly to help the poor, the economically disadvantaged, the immigrant.  What they have done, is to ensure the failure of anyone that becomes entangled in their web.  Welfare (and WIC) were instrumental in destroying the African-American nuclear family.  Bi-Lingual education (and indeed, in many places, multi-lingual government services) have ensured that many immigrants are kept isolated in their cultural “ghettos”, and do not fully integrate into American society. 

The crown jewel of todays Racism from the Left (which, there can be no argument, means the Democrat Party, for all intents and purposes), is the concept of Diversity.  The very term “Diversity” is meant to be warm and fuzzy, inviting, even welcoming.  In truth it’s basic underlying theme is DIFFERENCE and SPERATION, keeping every little Ethnic, Racial, and Religious groups in their own little space, separate, distinct (but EQUAL) to all others.  It is the ultimate expression of Racism and Separatism.

The nemesis of the great evil of Diversity is a concept that reigned in America previously – the Melting Pot.  It is in the melting pot, that all races, creeds, and colors combine, bringing along much of the good, less of the bad, and making a new and better whole.  Diversity can never deliver an integrated society (look at Canada).  It can only deliver an equal society, where all values, and morals, and ethics are equally valid, and therefore, equally invalid.  Through Integration, and the Melting Pot, the many join to become one, not by forgetting who they were, but by adding that to the mix.

The ultimate expression of Diversity is the proposed menu requirements for the Democrat National Convention this year:

…caterers must provide foods in “at least three of the following five colors: red, green, yellow, blue/purple, and white,” garnishes not included, according to a Request for Proposals, or RFP, distributed last week.

I think I would rather have a good Stew…

 

I have long been opposed to ethanol (and many bio-fuels) on many grounds, not the least of which is that I feel it immoral to use foodstuffs to create fuel while millions starve in the world.

Many others have noted that as the population increases, along with standards of living in the developing world, that the most basic resources will become scarce, including the two most basic: Food and Water.

I will leave speculation on the coming water wars for another time, as shortages of food are far more pressing today.

I had not given much thought to food shortages in the past, as, like most Americans, I was content that the Breadbasket of the World (in which I include the US and Canada) could easily produce enough to feed not only the North America, but the world. 

I began to reevaluate this stand when the ethanol craze began to kick in, and perfectly good food crops, and wonderfully arable land, began to be dedicated to the production of an absolutely horrible alternative energy source.

Then, in December, I read a piece in the Economist (excepts below):

Rising incomes in Asia and ethanol subsidies in America have put an end to a long era of falling food prices.

The Economist‘s food-price index is now at its highest since it began in 1845, having risen by one-third in the past year.

The overall rise in the price of Cereals (grains, including Corn), was due to to major factors:

One is increasing wealth in China and India. This is stoking demand for meat in those countries, in turn boosting the demand for cereals to feed to animals. The use of grains for bread, tortillas and chapattis is linked to the growth of the world’s population. It has been flat for decades, reflecting the slowing of population growth. But demand for meat is tied to economic growth… and global GDP is now in its fifth successive year of expansion at a rate of 4%-plus.

Not surprisingly, farmers are switching, too: they now feed about 200m-250m more tonnes of grain to their animals than they did 20 years ago. That increase alone accounts for a significant share of the world’s total cereals crop. Calorie for calorie, you need more grain if you eat it transformed into meat than if you eat it as bread: it takes three kilograms of cereals to produce a kilo of pork, eight for a kilo of beef. So a shift in diet is multiplied many times over in the grain markets. Since the late 1980s an inexorable annual increase of 1-2% in the demand for feed-grains has ratcheted up the overall demand for cereals and pushed up prices.

Because this change in diet has been slow and incremental, it cannot explain the dramatic price movements of the past year. The second change can: the rampant demand for ethanol as fuel for American cars. In 2000 around 15m tonnes of America’s maize crop was turned into ethanol; this year the quantity is likely to be around 85m tonnes. America is easily the world’s largest maize exporter—and it now uses more of its maize crop for ethanol than it sells abroad.

Ethanol is the dominant reason for this year’s increase in grain prices. It accounts for the rise in the price of maize because the federal government has in practice waded into the market to mop up about one-third of America’s corn harvest. A big expansion of the ethanol programme in 2005 explains why maize prices started rising in the first place.

With the twin gravities of Ethanol production, and increased Meat (and Cereal) consumption by the developing nations, we find ourselves in a food crunch.  Supplies are short, and the modern “just in time” replenishment model used in the industrialized world, is having a hard time coping:

From the New York Sun:

Major retailers in New York, in areas of New England, and on the West Coast are limiting purchases of flour, rice, and cooking oil as demand outstrips supply.

Spiking food prices have led to riots in recent weeks in Haiti, Indonesia, and several African nations. India recently banned export of all but the highest quality rice, and Vietnam blocked the signing of a new contract for foreign rice sales.

“I’m surprised the Bush administration hasn’t slapped export controls on wheat,” Mr. Rawles said. “The Asian countries are here buying every kind of wheat.” Mr. Rawles said it is hard to know how much of the shortages are due to lagging supply and how much is caused by consumers hedging against future price hikes or a total lack of product.

“There have been so many stories about worldwide shortages that it encourages people to stock up. What most people don’t realize is that supply chains have changed, so inventories are very short,” Mr. Rawles, a former Army intelligence officer, said. “Even if people increased their purchasing by 20%, all the store shelves would be wiped out.”

Now, this is far from the doomsday scenario painted by the Club of Rome in The Limits of Growth(or the Charlton Heston classic film Soylent Green), but it is certainly a foreshadowing of the coming wars for resources on this planet.  However, this is, by no means a certain result.  There are action which can avert the food crisis, at least.  One of these is the use of Genetically Modified (GM, aka Biotech) foods.

Courtesy of the International Herald Tribune:

Soaring food prices and global grain shortages are bringing new pressures on governments, food companies and consumers to relax their longstanding resistance to genetically engineered crops.

In Japan and South Korea, some manufacturers for the first time have begun buying genetically engineered corn for use in soft drinks, snacks and other foods. Until now, to avoid consumer backlash, the companies have paid extra to buy conventionally grown corn. But with prices having tripled in two years, it has become too expensive to be so finicky.

In the United States, wheat growers and marketers, once hesitant about adopting biotechnology because they feared losing export sales, are now warming to it as a way to bolster supplies. Genetically modified crops contain genes from other organisms to make the plants resistance to insects, herbicides or disease.

In Britain, the National Beef Association, which represents cattle farmers, issued a statement this month demanding that “all resistance” to such crops “be abandoned immediately in response to shifts in world demand for food, the growing danger of global food shortages and the prospect of declining domestic animal production.”

The chairman of the European Parliament’s agriculture committee, Neil Parish, said that as prices rise, Europeans “may be more realistic” about genetically modified crops: “Their hearts may be on the left, but their pockets are on the right.”

Of course, the Ludditesstill oppose GM/Biotech foods:

Opponents continue to worry that such crops have not been studied enough and that they might pose risks to health and the environment.

Biotechnology still certainly faces obstacles. Polls in Europe do not yet show a decisive shift in consumer sentiment, and the industry has had some recent setbacks. Since the beginning of the year France has banned the planting of genetically modified corn while Germany has enacted a law allowing for foods to be labeled as “GM free.”

In the end, however, this resistance will give way to public acceptance, and continuing development.  Or people will go hungry (best case) or starve (worst case – which is actually happening now in less developed places).  People are already rioting in places where food is scare, or growing too expensive for average people to buy.

Another part of the rise in food prices, is the cost of production and transportation.  As the price of Oil increases, the price of nearly everything else increases with it.  Oil, and Petroleum products, are used in nearly ever phase of food production, in some capacity or another, up to, and including, running the trucks that take the produce to the market.  The ripple effects of sharp increases in fuel prices are large and sweeping.

And many of the same factors that contribute to the spiraling food costs are also helping to spike the price of Oil:  Increased demand from developing nations, with burgeoning middle-classes, and all the things to go into making and supporting the lifestyle that we North Americans, and (to a slightly lesser degree) Europeans have enjoyed for many years.

And the REAL fun hasn’t even started yet.  Along with Climate Change (always has, always will – man has little or nothing to do about it) will come changes to the availability of fresh water supplies.  That’s when things will start to get really nasty.

Not that they have too… For much of the world, water conservation, and Desalination can alleviate the worst of this problem, if not eliminate it entirely.  But for regions, this will be the greatest threat they will face.

None of the problem that will cause the Resource Wars are inevitable, or unsolvable.  Indeed, many of the answers are at hand today.  We just need the courage to move ahead. 

We must try new things, and new technologies, if we are to save lives, and ensure everyone a decent lifestyle.  We must be willing to try GM/Biotech foods.  We must be willing to exploit existing fuel reserves, while working on ways to exploit new ones.  We must stretch beyond the confines of this single planet, to the veritable cornucopia of resources that awaits us on the moon (including Hydrogen 3, which can be used for Fusion power) and other bodies (every type of metal we need, in enough quantity that it is virtually limitless).

Or we can play it safe.  Cut back, economize, refuse to use GM foods, refuse to install Solar Power farms (because they would displace some desert tortoises) or Wind-farms (because the ruin the view from Hyannisport), or drill for oil off the coast (not that we can stop our neighbors from doing so) and keep converting food into fuel…

UPDATE:  Just ran across an intersting, and related editorial at USA Today, by Oliver Thomas.  While I find his faith in the IPCC and antropogenic Global Warming distrubing, though not surprising from a man of Faith, he has some very good points to make.

UPDATE 2:  Japan’s hunger becomes a dire warning for other nations