And the Winner of the 1996 Presidential Election Is … Archer Daniels Midland

ADM — Socialist Supermarket to the World

Why should the major networks have any qualm about calling the presidential winner early when it’s already
clear ADM and its CEO Dwayne Andreas are the big winners regardless of
how the race between Bob Dole and Bill Clinton turns out?

������Andreas and ADM are equal opportunity
givers. According to a Cato Institute study, ADM and its associates have
donated more than $4 million to the two major parties since the late 1970s.
In return the parties have treated ADM well, creating over $3 billion
in subsidies and special government protections according to the Cato
Institute.

������Concerned Americans don’t have
to go all the way to China to find what’s wrong with socialized agriculture;
ADM is a prime example funded by the United States government.

Price Fixers Extraordinaire

������Aside from their ubiquitous “Supermarket
to the World” commercials, ADM popped into the national consciousness
this summer when the Justice Department began investigating it for illegally
attempting to fix prices on several agricultural commodities, including
lysine, citric acid and high fructose corn syrup (one of the ingredients
in cola).

������At last report ADM was trying to
reach a settlement agreement on price-fixing charges by paying a fine
of up to $200 million to the government, while a federal grand jury was
expected to hand down criminal indictments against Michael Andreas, ADM
executive vice president, and Terrence Wilson, head of ADM’s corn-processing
division.

������ADM’s price fixing is a textbook
study about monopoly and price fixing. Although people commonly believe
monopoly and price fixing are the result of free and unfettered competition,
in fact those thrive only where governments intervene to protect firms
from competition on the marketplace. The swirl of regulations, subsidies
and special market protection enabled ADM to attempt to fix prices.

������More importantly, though, ADM executives
must think the U.S. government is being a little schizophrenic. After
all, the legislation that ADM asks for and usually receives causes much
more harm to American consumers, and does exactly what ADM is being punished
for now — it fixes prices for consumers at far higher prices than normal
market forces would allow.

������Perhaps it’s time the Justice
Department conducted an anti-trust investigation of Congress!

ADM: The Mother of All Welfare Mothers

������According to James Bovard’s
excellent study, “Archer Daniels Midland: A Case Study In Corporate
Welfare,” published by the Cato Institute, ADM is the single largest
welfare recipient in the United States. Bovard found that 43 percent of
ADM’s annual profits come from markets that simply wouldn’t
exist without subsidies or protection.

������Bovard estimates that regulations
and subsidies benefiting ADM cost the U.S. economy up to $40 billion from
1980 to 1995. According to Bovard, every $1 in profits to ADM from its
corn sweetener division costs U.S. consumers $10.

������ADM essentially earns money the
old fashion way — through government handouts.

������In a bit of hilarious irony, in 1994
the Horatio Alger Association, which according to its materials gives
awards to “individuals in our society who have succeeded in the face
of adversity,” honored Andreas for his stellar climb from poor son
of a Menonite farmer to the hardest working leech in America. Apparently
the great American dream now includes getting Congress to set up your
very own medieval fiefdom.

It’s Raining Money

������Andreas knows how the system works
and how to profit from it. He uses a vast network of friends and business
associates to funnel millions of dollars to candidates of both parties.

������One of the major recipients of Andreas’
good will has been former Republican Sen. Bob Dole. According to the Center
for Public Integrity, ADM-related donors contributed $217,800 to Dole
over his career, putting them fourth on the list of all-time career Donors
to Dole’s campaigns. In addition to the out and out contributions,
ADM also contributes to Dole and Dole-related enterprises in other ways.

������Both Bob and Elizabeth Dole have
used ADM’s corporate jet to fly them across the country. Bob Dole
reimburses ADM for the price of a first class ticket on a commercial airline
to avoid having the use of the private jet be considered a campaign contribution,
whereas Elizabeth Dole usually uses the excuse that she was flown at the
request of one charity group or another who wanted her to speak. In one
instance, several executives tagged along with Elizabeth Dole on one of
her jaunts, but her press secretary made certain to emphasize that in
no way was ADM trying to buy access to a politically connected individual.
Perhaps ADM executives simply find Elizabeth Dole a heart conversationalist.

������It’s wrong, however, to imply
this sort of graft is anything but standard operating procedure for politicians.
In fact Bill Clinton has been much more brazen than Dole.

������In June 1994 Bill Clinton received
a $100,000 check from ADM-related concerns. A few days later the Clinton
administration announced a new rule requiring gasoline sold in the 9 most
polluted cities to contain at least 30% ethanol additives by 1996. The
government’s ethanol subsidies are little more than ADM subsidies;
the company takes in up to $2.1 billion revenues solely from ethanol and
ethanol-related subsidies and regulations. In this case, though, a federal
court blocked the proposed ethanol requirement.

������Aside from Clinton and Dole, the
list of politicians who accept ADM money reads like a Who’s Who of
Washington, DC. People such as Robert Byrd, Henry Espy, Henry Hyde, Connie
Mack, Charles Robb, Arlen Specter, and others who normally disagree on
a wide range of areas all agree that what’s in ADM’s interest
is in America’s interest (not to mention politician’s financial
interests).

������For ADM, though, the price of purchasing
politicians is downright cheap. Although corn prices are currently high
and likely to remain so for the short term, the new agricultural “reform”
bill passed by the 104th Congress and signed by Clinton will deliver guaranteed
payments of billions of dollars to agribusinesses such as ADM. Not a bad
return for a few million dollar investment.

The Solution: Get Government Out of People’s Lives

������The problem with many critics of
ADM is that their solution is essentially more of the same. Magazines
such as “Mother Jones” dutifully chronicle the absurdity of
a political system that allows for corporate welfare on the scale it is
practice in the United States, but in the end call for more government
under the “right people.” Under this view, the problem is merely
that a group of ultra-rich, unenlightened and greedy people calls the
shots in Washington, DC. If only the nation would replace them with not-so-rich,
enlightened, selfless, wonderful people surely then the system would work.

������This is no more than a fairy tale.
The problem is not that the wrong people run the system; the problem is
with the system itself. A government that has the power to increase or
decrease the price of farm commodities (or any commodity for that matter)
in order to benefit some at the expense of others will inevitably be used
for precisely that purpose. The solution is not better leaders; the solution
is a better system – one that does not sell our rights and livelihoods
to the highest bidders every few years.

As long as Americans continue to tolerate the constant intervention of the government into the economy and into their lives, the result will continue to be the rule not of the people by the people, but of ADM for ADM.

Capital Punishment Is Immoral

       When considering such hot topics
as capital punishment, the thing to keep in mind is that rationality and
reason must prevail. Some people claim that issues like this cannot truly
be resolved, but this is only because supporters of the various positions
on capital punishment tend to shout past each other with ad hominem attacks
and simple emotional please. In a democratic society like ours it is imperative
that irrationality not prevail.

       Now to the heart of the matter.
There are two fundamental arguments against the state’s use of capital
punishment on those who commit violent crimes.

       The state does not have the
right to kill criminal offenders.

       In a democratic system like
the United States, the state derives whatever rights it possesses solely
from the collective rights of the individuals who compose the state. The
Preamble to the Constitution begins “We the people…” not “The
nation state called the United States…” The powers granted to the
government under the Constitution strictly derive from the rights of individuals.

       For example, individuals have
the right to own property and to maintain that property. If someone should
steal a person’s property, the original owner maintains ownership rights
to the property. The criminal justice system is nothing more then the
expression of the collective rights of all citizens.

       If a collective group of citizens
does not have the right to do something, than neither does the state,
because the state is merely acting as a proxy representative for the collective
rights of all.

       Using this model, it immediately
becomes clear that no collective group of citizens has the right to kill
an unarmed person and therefore the state is not entitled to that right
either.

       Imagine being locked in a
room with five or six other people. All of a sudden one of individuals,
John, stabs and kills another person in the room, Mike.

       You and the rest of the people
in the room quickly grab the knife from John, tie him up and throw him
in the bathroom.

       Now what are you going to
do about John? He’s clearly guilty of murder. You have two options.

       First, you can leave him in
the bathroom until you either find a way out of the room, or wait until
he’s no longer deemed a threat to the rest of the people in the room and
release him.

       Or you could designate someone
to go in and kill John.

       What would happen to you in
both cases once you made it out of the locked room?

       While imprisoning someone
does deprive an individual of his or her rights, a killer has clearly
given up his right to freedom and no reasonable person would condemn you
for that act. In fact you’d probably be considered heroic.

       If, however, you decided to
kill the murderer, you and your fellow plotters are guilty of first degree,
premeditated murder. While you certainly maintain the right to self-defense,
every law in the country agrees that self-defense ends when the perpetrator
no longer presents a clear and present danger.

       In other words, you don’t
have the right to go into the bathroom and execute the murderer. Stretching
this thought experiment further, imagine everyone in Michigan was somehow
in this one room (it’s a big room), and they all decided to kill the murderer.
Every one of them would be guilty of premeditated murder.

       Because no collective group
of citizens has the right to execute a person who does not present a clear
and present danger to their immediate safety, neither does the state which
merely acts as a proxy in defending and exercising the rights of the state.

       Capital punishment kills innocent
people.

       Okay, now that you’ve suffered
through that complicated thought experiment, the following is the most
compelling argument this writer has ever seen against capital punishment.

       One of the greatest mistakes
a system of justice can do is punish the innocent while rewarding the
guilty. When innocent people are imprisoned for crimes they did not commit
at least the state can offer some form of restitution. In capital cases
this is impossible.

       The murder of an innocent
person in an act of rage or hatred or greed is horrific. The murder of
an innocent person by the cold machinations of the state is unconscionable.

       The following is a list of
people who have been sentenced to death in the 20th century, only to later
have their innocence proven. A few were lucky and managed to show their
innocence before the state executed them. Most were not.

       J.B. Brown
       Neil Shumway
       Charles Stielow
       Maurice Mays
       Anastarcio Vargas
       Pietra Matera
       Gus Colin Langley
       Private A.B. Richie
       John Valletutti
       Ralph Lobaugh
       Frank Smith
       Edgar Labat
       Clinton Poret
       Lloyd Eldon Miller
       Freddie Pitts
       Wilbert Lee
       Calvin Sellers
       Thomas Gladish
       Richard Kline
       Clarence Smith
       Richard Greer
       Johnny Ross
       Robert Henry McDowell

       This column original appeared
in the Western Herald in November 1992.

 

Is the Hunting Industry "Targeting" Women?

    It’s not quite PETA-esque, but the Fund For Animals’ recent ranting and raving against the sport hunting industry for allegedly “targeting” women to join the sport is still downright bizarre.

    According to the Fund’s recent report, “Desperately Seeking Diana,” “hunting has been a masculine pursuit … throughout recorded history” an that’s the way things should stay. But, in fact, the status quo is not holding, and hasn’t for a long time. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife service, almost 1.5 million women hunted in 1985 — about 9 percent of all hunters that year. In 1996, almost 1.2 million women hunted, or about 8.5 percent of hunters.

    According to the Fund for Animals, the million or so women who hunt in any given year are actually part of a giant industry conspiracy. See if you can follow the logic — most people who hunt began hunting before the reached their 20th birthday (83 percent of hunters began hunting before they were 19 according to The Fund).

    Furthermore, according to the report, since women’s role in American society today is far more egalitarian than it was in say the 1950s or 1960s, a woman’s opinion on hunting will greatly influence whether or not children are allowed to go hunting.

    Ergo, the hunting industry is trying to hoodwink women into hunting so that they will, in turn, transform their children into hunters as well.

    One of the really demeaning aspects of The Fund’s report, however, is its view that women are largely brainless dupes who are incapable of thinking for themselves. The report and an accompanying press release talk about hunters and gun groups “targeting our moms” and “recruit[ing] women — especially mothers — into sport hunting.” This is not just a queer choice in wording but seems to genuinely reflect the view of The Fund that women, in general, are so unsophisticated that they can easily be brainwashed by hunting interests. For example, here’s how the report describes a woman who told a newspaper reporter that she had changed her mind on gun control after becoming a hunter:

    With sponsors like the National Rifle Association (NRA), the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), and the Federal Cartridge Company, BOW, despite its organizers’ protestations of being “non-political,” advances a pro-gun political agenda. Consider this quote from a BOW participant that appeared in an Omaha, Nebraska newspaper: “I have never taken a position [on gun control], except to realize there is too much violence. So, naturally, I thought it would be a good thing to do away with guns.” But attendance at a BOW workshop opened her eyes: “Now I understand it’s not the guns that are dangerous. It’s the way people use guns.” (Porter qtd. in Thomas et al. 12-3) Before BOW, she favored strict gun control; after the workshop, she was repeating the NRA’s mantra that “Guns don’t kill people. People kill people.” Can that really be a coincidence?

    Well can it be a coincidence? Can a person who has maybe never shot a gun for any reason go to a seminar and learn about guns and hunting and come to the conclusion on his or her own that gun control is not a good idea? Or must it be, as The Fund report implies, that a woman would only change her mind about gun control if she was a helpless victim of NRA brainwashing? Regardless of which side of the gun control issue the reader comes down on, it is absurd to suggest that women are incapable of deciding on their own whether or not they favor gun control.

    This, of course, fits with The Fund’s generally sexist views of women which boiled down to its essence seems to be that women are incapable of violence unless brainwashed into it by men (The Fund includes a list of “Non-Consumptive Outdoors Experiences For Women” from which I deduce that men hunt, while women bicycle and hike).

    For the most part, The Fund’s report relies on stereotypical views of male and female roles, dismissing the experiences of women who choose to hunt as inauthentic because hunting is a “male” activity. Now that’s insulting.

Source:

Targeting Our Moms: Hunting and Gun Industries Set their Sights on Mothers and their Children. The Fund For Animals, press release, May 11, 2000.

Money, Motherhood, and the Nineteenth Amendment: The Hunting Industry’s Open Season on Women. The Fund For Animals, May 2, 2000.

Terrorists Plant Bombs at Meat Plant in Great Britain

Over the weekend terrorists believed to be animal rights activists managed to destroy a vehicle at a meat processing plant in the UK with a firebomb and planted nine other bombs that police managed to defuse before they detonated.

The Times (UK) quoted a police officer saying, “The risk is that someone is going to get seriously hurt as these groups use more powerful devices.” Of course the most likely person to get hurt are the brave men and women asked to dispose of and defuse the bombs. I suppose in the twisted view of the terrorists, endangering law enforcement official is a legitimate act since the police serve the oppressive capitalist exploitation of life.

Nobody actually claimed responsibility for the bombs, but Animal Liberation Front spokesperson Robin Webb all but confirmed that this was the work of animal rights activists. “Due to the seriousness of the offences and the sentences handed out, it would be very unusual for anyone to claim responsibility. However, placing devices under refrigerated meat lorries bears all the hallmarks of the Animal Liberation Front and I’m confident this was their work.”

Source:

Police thwart firebomb attack by animal welfare activists. Daniel McGrory, The Times (UK), May 22, 2000.

It’s Getting Better All the Time: A Review of ‘Myths of Rich and Poor’

By Brian Carnell

Myths
of Rich and Poor: Why WeÂ’re Better Off Than We Think

By W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm
Amazon.Com Price: $17.50

       EveryoneÂ’s heard the glum rhetoric:
the U.S.Myths of Rich and Poor
economy is no longer as competitive as it used to be.
Young adults today will never achieve the standard of
living their parents enjoyed. Large numbers of people are doomed to work
at low-paying McJobs flipping hamburgers.
       Economist W. Michael Cox and journalist
Richard
Alm have a reply to such notions: hogwash! Their book, Myths of Rich
and Poor
, presents a detailed look at economic trends over the past
25 years that demonstrates Americans are living better than ever.
       How can this possibly be when
everybody knows that wages have been stagnant since the 1970s and the
government reports that more than 13 percent of Americans continue to
live in poverty? Alm and Cox argue persuasively that the mediaÂ’s obsession
on what Americans earn is misplaced; instead they argue the real
focus should be no what Americans consume.
       Consumption figures clearly show
an America with increasing prosperity. In the third quarter of 1997, for
example, a record 66 percent of American families owned their own homes.
Forty-one percent of poor families owned their own homes. Per capita
ownership of everything from large appliances to books is on the rise,
in large part because the amount of time people must spend working to
buy goods and services keeps declining.
       The discrepancy between wages, which
are down, and consumption, which is up, is caused by the ways in which
wages are measured. First, government measures miss a lot of the money
people earn from benefits, income transfer payments and other sources.
Alm and Cox note that while wages are down, per capita personal income
has risen 1.6 percent annually since 1974.
       Second, the governmentsÂ’ official
measure of inflation, the Consumer Price Index, overestimates the extent
of inflation by as much as 1 percent. Once adjusted for this effect, the
decline in wages actually disappears and results in a real wage increase
of 12 percent since 1978.
       Alm and Cox also dispense with the
horror stories of growing income inequality. Citing a long-running study
of 50,000 Americans by researchers at the University of Michigan, Alm
and Cox note that few people stay in the bottom-fifth of income levels
for long. Of the people in the University of Michigan study who were in
the bottom fifth of income earners in 1975, only 5 percent were still
there in 1991. As Alm and Cox put it, “Â…[the] data suggest that low
income is largely a transition experience for those willing to work, a
place Americans may visit but rarely stay.” Many of those in the
bottom fifth are young people beginning their career or older Americans
who may have large asset holdings but relatively low income.
       The real message of Myths of Rich
and Poor
, however, is the role that the free market plays in promoting
technological change and invention that improve the living standards of
all Americans. In a chapter appropriately titled “New and Improved,”
they note consumers today can buy many products that didnÂ’t even exist
in the early 1970s, and the 1990s versions of 1970s products are usually
much cheaper and of much higher quality. TodayÂ’s 19-inch color television
is not only much cheaper but also of vastly superior quality than one
consumers could buy in the early 1970s. Bulky calculators that cost $120
in 1972 have been replaced by wafer thin models costing $10 and less.
The improvement in performance and price of computers since 1970 has been
one of the most extraordinary economic events of this century.
       Alm and Cox characterize this constant
innovation and improvement as “churn.” But economic churn has
its downside and its detractors – for every improvement in process or
products, some special interest group pleads to be protected from superior
products. Detroit whined about Japanese cars in the 1980s. U.S. high-tech
industry complained about cheap memory chips from Asia. Today big steel
companies complain they are undercut by smaller domestic firms and large
foreign companies. And the cry is always the same – pass protectionist
legislation to save American jobs and firms.
       Alm and Cox remind us that adopting
such regulatory regimens would have meant stifling past innovations that
we now take for granted, and adopting them today would mean stifling future
innovations that today we can only begin to imagine. The constant churning
of the economy has created levels of wealth unimaginable at the beginning
of this century – today most of those in the bottom fifth of wage earners
enjoy higher consumption levels than did their middle class counterparts
only a couple generations ago.
       This point is made clear in Alm and
CoxÂ’s comparison of European economic performance with that of the United
States. Critics of the United States point to wages which are higher in
some European countries such as Germany than in the United States. But
as Alm and Cox point out, consumption figures show U.S. consumers consume
significantly more than their European counterparts – the United States
continues to lead the world in per capita ownership of everything from
dishwashers to televisions to VCRs to personal computers. How can Americans
earn less but consume more? The answer is that the wage figures arenÂ’t
very helpful since they donÂ’t take into account the cost of living. After
adjusting for this, it turns out the United States leads the world in
per capita income by a wide margin — $28,338 compared to JapanÂ’s $23,667
and GermanyÂ’s $21,594 per capita personal income.
       But the picture is even worse for
Europe since job creation has stagnated there since 1980. From 1980-1996,
for example, the United States added more than 27 million jobs. In the
same period, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom managed to
add only 3.4 million jobs (and almost half of those were in the United
Kingdom which privatized many of its governmental functions during the
1980s). The massive regulatory apparatus in places like France and Italy
not only lower European standards of living but also hinder job creation
primarily by hindering innovation.
       Myths of Rich and Poor covers
an impressive array of issues, most of which canÂ’t be touched on in this
review, and is required reading for anyone trying to understand the economic
trends of the last 25 years.

… and E-Mail I Like

On the other hand, to balance the ad hominem attacks, I do receive a lot of
email asking for permission to recycle an essay on my web site. I actually landed
on article in an anthology this way, but for the most part it’s individuals
or groups who want to take one of my articles and reproduce it on their site.

In traditional publishing the short answer is no unless the requestor wants
to pay a fee. For example, a few weeks ago I got a nasty letter from an Associated
Press representative who demanded I remove an AP story that had been cut and
pasted into one of my discussion forums. The story included a link back to the
CNN web site where the article orignated from, but the AP representative wanted
the text removed so I complied.

I maintain a slightly different view of intellectual property. I do reserve
the right to prevent anyone from illicitly copying my material, but if you ask
nice I almost always say yes. The only time I say no is when I definitely don’t
want to be associated with the site doing the copying.

For example a couple years ago I noticed I was getting a lot of hits to my
site from what appeared to be a pornography site. When I visited their site
I was appalled. Both I and Elisabeth have written a few things about rape, and
this site had taken those essays and copied them wholesale without even trying
to change many of the links. Unfortunately the pages on rape tend to get a lot
of hits from people looking for pornographic depictions of rape situations and
this guy thought he would attract traffic by stealing our pages.

But unless you’re running a site like that, I’m generally flattered that people
would want to re-publish my stuff. Just fire off an email to me at [email protected]
with the URL for your site, along with what pages of mine you want to include
on your site.