Saturday, June 23, 2012

Pre-determined Outcomes

How many of you have heard of Trofim Lysenko?


Lysenoism is rampant today, in my opinion. Oregon is the worst offender, yet I've heard California is leading Oregon. It may be hard to dispute that California is worse, since the cause celebre of Oregon has been to be more progressive than our neighbors to the south. Perhaps is is, that we just aren't in as much debt yet, compared to our Californian druyge. What we are finding is, that stupid is difficult, and massive stupid requires larger populations. Oregon is still too rural for the kind of stupidity that California is exhibiting. That takes massive urban influence. Not that cities are bad. But if you want to find large pockets of useless people, the first place I'd look would be in cities. And not all cities. Our largest city had become the home of the worst depredations. A city that was once led by my own--as a youngster--favourite politician, John Lindsay.

John Lindsay was a young rebel, an early libertarian, when libertariansism was in its infancy. His stand against teachers' unions was unheard of, previously. My dad was a teacher, and had taught for more than twenty years when Lindsay became governor. The crux of the matter for teachers was, are we going to be professionals, or are we going to become a protected labour class? 

My dad believed that teaching was a professsion. A view I wish was held largely, today.

Education is an important economic sector. It is important in the way that your children are affected. I know that much noise has been made about the abuse of children by priests. Chances are, you don't have a clue about the abuse your child has been a victim from teachers.

Lysenko is important. Lysenko is the face of the modern Democrat Party.

Take, for example, a recent press release from one of Oregon's United States Senators. In this press release, Senator Wyden advocates for "multiple farm-to-school" projects that "will make gleaners eligible for USDA-backed microloans to purchase the equipment such as refrigerators or vehicles needed to expand their efforts."

Gleaners are people that go through garbage. 

Senator Merkley entices us with his urbanity with his amendment to the Farm Bill. The subsidies for farmers are anachronisms, crying for an end. My family has been farming for around 120 years. Farm subsidies have never--NEVER--assisted my family. During the Depression, it limited the amount of land my family could farm. Under threat of imprisonment, my family complied. Wickard had far-ranging impact. Farm subsidies were crafted to provide payments to people who weren't willing to compete. It is, at best, a negative tariff. Tariffs are placed on products that are imported to this country, in order to provide "protection" for domestic producers of those products. Subsidies are direct payments to producers for products that can't compete in international markets. We're not creating barriers to trade. We simply provide subsidies to industries that can't compete.

Why should we be surprised when Senator Merkley provides subsidies to another industry in the face of failure? On June 20th, his office put out a presser on his amendment to the Farm Bill that will provide a subsidy to organic farmers. 

Take a pause. 

Organic farmers. Their model of production is so screwed up, that they can't compete with "non-organic" farmers. 

“Oregon is a leader in organic farming, and our farmers deserve crop insurance that reflects the high value of the crops they produce,” Merkley said. “There are more than 500 organic farms in Oregon, and that number is expanding rapidly. Today’s vote is an important step toward a crop insurance model that works for this growing segment of Oregon’s farmers.”

I had a salad today. None of the ingredients were "organic." 

I live.


National Academy of Sciences.


You know what science is . Science is the way that "we" will find our way. Religion will never again light the way for our understanding of ourselves. Only science can fill that role. Scientifically. And yet, the National Academy of Sciences has recently released a report that reeks of Lysenko. 

"Global sea level rose during the 20th century, and observations and projections suggest that it will rise at a higher rate during the 21st century, placing coastal cities and infrastructure at increased risk from flooding, storm surges, shoreline erosion and retreat, and wetland loss.  However, sea-level rise is not uniform and varies from place to place.  A new report from the National Research Council projects global sea-level rise as well as for California , Oregon , and Washington for the years 2030, 2050, and 2100."

Here's a quick test. Grab a glass. Fill it with ice. Then, add water. Mark the water level at the point where the ice starts to rise. Let the ice melt. Check the mark.


I love those who state that only government can lead the way to a new, better society. I've recently registered as a Democrat, since I want to stay out of the camps, after they gain complete control. The tempo of change will be rapid, once they've determined that such things as the Constitution is no longer the controlling authority in this nation. Changes in immigration? Why worry? Changes in marriage? Why worry? Changing America's reliance on the individual to care for himself, and for his family? Why worry? Let's let the one percent take care of the rest of us.

Let's just make America like any other place. Why worry?

What do we want the outcomes to be? Simply legislate the outcomes. Want an economy dependent upon alternative energy sources? Simply legislate the outcome. Whether or not the technology exists is an extraneous consideration. Who cares whether or not we can actually do what we legislate. We'll create penalties that will require the outcome. 


Under Democrat Party leadership, states across this nation are victims of Lysenko. Nationally, we're attacked every day by Lysenko.

If you can't love Lysenko, you can't love the New America.

Get used to it.

1 comment:

MAX Redline said...

Lysenko. I'll take your word on his first name, which I've never known, just as I don't know the first name of his pre-Darwinian predecessor, Lamark. But these, if I recall correctly, were primitive forays into the biological world, centering upon a supposed inheritance of acquired characteristics, rather than a reflection of adaptation. Granted, my background is predominantly biology (and one area in which I disagree with Darwin lies in his requirement of long periods of time; environments can change quickly, and those unable to quickly adapt lose their spot on the planet - but that's another discussion). I'm not sure how that translates into a political framework.

One of the confounding issues in what passes for science today is the ubiquitous role of government funding, or grants. Unless your results support the thesis of the government funders, you get no grants, and so there is a built-in mechanism for skewing the results to curry political favor.

James Lovelock, inventor of the Gaia hypothesis and former high priest in the green religion, has recently addressed these issues (and more) - much to the consternation of the greenies.

As Reagan once noted, Government doesn't solve problems; government is the problem.