lies, damn lies, and baseball caps

The American Farm Bureau goes all in 29

15 Oct 2009 11:50 AM
by Tom Laskawy
- Author Feed
Posted in
- Politics,
- Climate & Energy,
- Food
Read More About
- agriculture,
- climate,
- Kerry-Boxer climate bill,
- Senate

Check out the pitch on agribiz lobbying group American Farm Bureau’s (AFB) new anti-climate bill website:

Activists claim there will be droughts, floods, loss of species, and more, if the Senate does not pass the Climate Change bill. But their bill wouldn’t even help the climate ... The fact is politics is driving the need for passage—not facts! The cap-and-trade bill does nothing for Climate Change—it’s simply a tax on U.S. energy that gives other countries a free pass. That’s wrong. This is the kind of policy we ask you to stand against today.

It’s at the heart of a new campaign the AFB is attempting to orchestrate against the Kerry-Boxer climate change bill. Kate Sheppard reports:

According to a memo emailed to Farm Bureau members and obtained by Mother Jones, they’re also urging state bureaus to hand-deliver to their senators’ in-state offices farmer-style hats—or, if you prefer, “farmer caps”—bearing a AFB sticker opposing the legislation. They’re also sending starter kits for the campaign to their state affiliates by Nov. 6.

“Using the familiar farmer cap and the ‘Don’t CAP Our Future’ message sticker to brand the cap with opposition to the issue, state Farm Bureaus can influence your Senators with a visual impact. The farmer caps plan is designed to be used in the state and multiple events.”

In addition, the Bureau has created an “action center” that will be used to target specific senators, a petition that members can sign, and a form letter to send to senators ...

AFB President Bob Stallman has a lengthy history of climate denial and obstructionism—it was his hymnbook from which House Ag Chairman Collin Peterson sang in Peterson’s gleeful dismantling of the House’s climate bill. But the AFB’s new overtly denialist lobbying campaign takes it to another level. And best of all, it’s called “Don’t CAP Our Future.” Get it? Cap-and-trade? Farmers like to wear caps? Wheee!

But like its friends at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, I wonder if the AFB has gone a bit too far. The other main agribiz group, the National Farmers Union, is on board with the idea of addressing climate change. Meanwhile, the USDA actively supports the measure and is on the verge of finalizing their climate bill impact estimates which show a net benefit to farmers. The possibility of bipartisan support has even been raised with GOP Sen. Lindsay Graham’s full-throated endorsement of the Senate bill.

The data is certainly against it, despite the AFB’s attempts to plug up its ears and let loose a loud “I’m not listening!!” The U.N. climate group, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, just updated their latest estimates indicating that climate change is accelerating. Germany’s climate advisory board has looked at the most recent evidence and has concluded we actually need to cut net carbon emissions worldwide to zero by 2050. And two new studies that look at climate change’s effects on agriculture show severe disruptions to industrial agriculture in the near term and up to 80 percent reductions in U.S. corn and soy yields by the end of the century.

Obviously, the AFB already has an ace-in-the-hole in Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.), new Chairman of the Senate Ag Committee—there’s no telling what kind of damage she can do if and when she gets her hands on the Kerry-Boxer bill. Indeed, she’s already said she wants to kill it outright. And it’s true that despite hopeful signs, passage of a climate bill remains uncertain at best. But the AFB has clearly thrown its cap in with the deniers and the do-nothings. If its member farmers do the same and succeed in killing the climate bill—what exactly do they think they will have accomplished? Other than guaranteeing their children’s and their grandchildren’s suffering. Perhaps someone should put that on a cap, too.

Comments

Tom is a writer and a media & technology consultant who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.

foodprovider Posted 2:32 pm
15 Oct 2009
Of coarse the USDA is in favor of a cimate bill, Remember who appointed them? Cap & trade is seriously flawed. It may have good intentions to push us towards green energy. DO we actually have green energy that can and will compete and be economical with the energy we have now? I am afraid that the US will be signing it's own death wish by implementing Cap & Trade (or Tax as some say). It will drive up the cost of production on EVERYTHING! As it is now, when our own manufacturing segmant cannot be competetive with the rest of the world market, the market leaves us, jobs will leave us. One source claims that for every green job gained we will lose 2.2 other jobs. There has to be a better way to get the result we want.
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 5:44 pm
15 Oct 2009
The main flaw in the cap and trade bill is that it goes way overboard in coddling vested interests, like big Ag and coal. The histrionics about costs are coming from special interest spin-doctors who don't seem to be acquainted with the concept of honesty. The cap and trade bill is such a small (and really inadequately small) move in the right direction that there is no serious risk to the economy, so the sort of hyperbole offered by Foodprovider shouldn't fool anyone. The idea that we shouldn't act because the law might need to be adjusted later is just silly. There has been far too much fearmongering on this issue and far too much delay.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 7:29 pm
15 Oct 2009
If this is so small and inadequate? Why should we enact such legislation? My contention is that the Cap & trade is another way for the gov't to raise revenue. I am not convinced that taxing the industries that create GHG and then allow them to buy offsets from indutries that do not create GHG to the level that get arbittitionaly set wiil actually reduce emmisions of GHG. When I asked an EPA official that question, they said they could not argue that this would actually reduce the production of GHG. This bad peice of Legislation just moves the GHG from place to place, just like a shell game. The losers in this will be the american consumer, and the american worker. Higher prices on everything, and the pressure to produce goods and services cheaper than our foreign competitors will force industry to leave this country. We need a better way.
Permalink
1. Tasermons Partner Posted 10:37 pm
  15 Oct 2009
  Perhaps you'd prefer outright regulation of all industries (agriculture included) by the EPA?
  
  That's probably what'll happen if the cap-and-trade doesn't pass.
  
  Personally, I'm all for regulation. Right now big ag essentially gets a free ride under the cap-and-trade bill. Plus there'd be no "ceiling height" in price on regulation.
  Permalink
  1. foodprovider Posted 7:09 am
    16 Oct 2009
    When the EPA was asked by Sen Feingold on what the impact of implementation of Cap & Trade would mean to the state of Wisc, they response was that it would be economically devastating! That is just the state of Wisc. What about the state you live in?
    You like regulation? Over regulation does nothing but bring down productivity, causes people to stop being creative, discourages self reliance. IS that what you want? You want your children to live in a world where they have no choices?
    I agree that we need to move away form the current status of energy production. But we also need to develop reasonable replacement choices. We currently have Bio-Fuels (Ethanol & bio-diesel) wind, solar come to mind. There will be others that will be more effiecient.
    The cap & trade is a cap & tax.
    Your definition of big ag is what? Large farmers? or is it the whole food processing industry? True, in the house version there are provisions that would shield farmers from having a carbon tax placed upon them, and certain farming practices will be elegible for gaining offsets (namely no-til farming and forestry). What about the processors? The cereal companies, the canning companies, the vegetable packing companies and any other company that processes the raw materials that come from our family farms to deliver to the consumer? As far as I have heard, they are not exempt, and will be taxed. Like I have said before, EVERYTHING YOU EAT, DRINK, CONSUME, PURCHASE, WEAR, AND BUY will cost you more. your wages will not go up as you think they will. Foreign competition for your job will increase. The 3rd world nations that are quickly adapting technologies will bid for YOUR job. Can you compete with someone who makes less than $1 per day? Are you willing to reduce your standard of living? Big AG is not insulated, neither are the farmers. Every imput they buy, equipment, feeds, seeds, nutritionals, will cost more.
    Permalink
neosapiens Posted 9:03 pm
15 Oct 2009
The main advantage of the cap and trade proposal--as weak as it is, is that it sets precedent for action. I'd rather see a simpler bill, but even as muddy as it is, it will create jobs and nudge industry in the right direction. It's quite different from a shell game, since the total emissions cap gets lower over time. What it does accomplish is to encourage innovation so that the cheapest and fastest methods for reducing emissions will win in the marketplace. History tells is that people adapt to price signals--the change in the rules simply means that consumer buying patterns will shift. As electric rates edge upward, people will be more motivated to use electricity more efficiently. And from California's experience, it's fair to guess that half of the electricity Americans use is simply wasted--the potential for improvements are vast. The real 800 pound gorilla in the cost and competitiveness area is our immense national debt. We have to ramp up efficiency and clean energy in order to staunch the flood of red ink in our trade deficit so that we can remain competitive. Cap and trade or a carbon tax will make us more competitive, not less.
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 9:05 pm
15 Oct 2009
And, the cap and trade bill is small and inadequate precisely because industry groups have fought so hard to emasculate the bill. If it's the best that our political system can produce as a first step, then so be it.
Permalink
neosapiens Posted 9:23 am
16 Oct 2009
I consider it to be obvious that Wisconsin will benefit considerably from cap and trade--especially in the long run. Blowing smoke and raising fears isn't a particularly honest approach. Resentment of necessary and beneficial regulations is an understandable human failing, but not a pragmatic reason for opposing them. We've been living with the painful failures of deregulation for long enough that it should be obvious that not enough people will do the right thing without clear and enforceable rules. And, the cost effect of cap and trade will be very minor next to the effects of the declining dollar caused by our debt and over-reliance on foreign oil and foreign goods of all sorts. The real reason the price of everything is about to go up is that we've clung to a failed status quo for far too long.
Permalink
1. foodprovider Posted 9:46 am
  16 Oct 2009
  Well, I consider it to be obvious that Wisconsin will not benefit considerably from cap and trade--especially in the long run. EPA has even admitted that. How would an energy deficit area benefit? Wisc has already chased jobs out of state. Adding a higher cost of business will not creat jobs. Why do we feel the need to always blame somebody for the situation you may be in? If it isn't big ag, it's big oil, or big banking or big anything. Next will be BIGGER gov't. Wisc is already in the top 10 for taxation in the nation. How about we just exempt Wisc becuase their citizens already pay in enough taxes. Put their burdons on the bottom 10 taxed states. Sounds fair to me. Sounds like the philosophy the current administration has.
  Maybe you can afford to have a higher percent of you take home pay go for essential living requirements. Some bearly have enough to buy food.
  Do you think wages will increase the same rate as the added cost of the cap™ tax will affect the goods you buy? Do you think you employer will be able to give you your cost of living raise when his operating expenses increase faster than consumers can buy the product? Maybe your employer will move to a country where the cost of production is cheaper. Will you follow? How much more of your so-called smoke do I need to blow? It should be obvious that people should do the right thing on their own, but they have been conditioned to take the easy way out. You have no one to blame but yourself. The BIG businesses that you love to bash only got big because they convinced you to buy their product. Forgive me for laughing, but "cost effective Cap & Trade"? And you want the Gov't to run this? They certainly have a track record of handling finances now don't they. Ever ask your congressman or Senator if they use Social Security? Or if they would participate in the proposed Health Care pool? Of coarse they wouldn't. They are above us normal people. They don't even think that the citizens of this country are worth the same benefits as they receive. You want them to regulate and dictate what you can or cannot do?
  Permalink
  1. amazingdrx Posted 7:43 am
    17 Oct 2009
    The best outcome for the great lakes region would be that we become a net energy provider, provider. We have huge wind energy resources. I was just at a listening session with Sen. Feingold in Lake Tomahawk yesterday.
    
    Most of the questions/comments were on healthcare. I asked him about a national power grid that would allow great lakes wind and farm biogas power from our state to be sold anywhere in the country that it is needed, and create a steady supply of renewable energy from coast to coast.
    
    That would spur new industry here and help get organic agriculture going. The byproduct from biodigestion is organic fertilizer. If farmers are payed to produce energy and save money by not using fossil fuel based fertilizer, their financial picture will be vastly improved.
    
    Just as the interstate highway system allowed farmers to sell their products all over the country, this would make a free market in energy possible.
    
    Since you argue that government can do nothing right, would you rather have Halliburton own the highways and Blackwater patroling them? How much would a speeding ticket cost then? Would one be tortured routinely at toll booths?
    
    I would say that without government run fire departments, police, and highways, contracting that all out to mega-corporations as teabaggers would recomend, we would be living like Iraqis in no time at all. Except that Iraquis already have single-payer healthcare, as a progressive at the Feingold listening session pointed out.
    
    You have latched on to a really tired talking point provider, get over it.
    
    As far as cap n' trade, I prefer subsidy diversion. Cancel subsidies for fossil and nuclear power, and chemical ag, and divert part of those saving to the buildout of a national high voltage power grid and subsidies for renewable energy and organic fertilizer from recycled waste stream biomass.
    
    Manure, crop and food waste, garbage, wood waste, and even sewage can be used to produce energy, reduce GHG, cut fertilizer costs, build up soil into a living ecosystem that sequesters carbon, and vastly reduce GHG. Nitrous oxide (300X the GHG effect of CO2)emitted by ammonia fertilizer and raw manure and sewage and methane (20x the GHG effect of CO2) released by manure and chemical fertilizer run off are a huge source of climate change.
    
    Cap n' trade can be attacked on better grounds than "government can't do anything right". Trading is still completely unregulated, credit default swaps and bundled mortgage "instruments" are still being created and traded. Any cap will be manipulated up as soon as corporate lobbyists get to politicians. We need more regulation, not less.
    
    Outlaw corporate bribery passing as "free" speech. Regulate all trading and put the mechanisms into place to enforce those regulations. I guess jailing Martha Stewart and now Madoff was supposed to scare wall street straight? It's not working. Thousands more white collar criminal need to be installed in country club prisons before the routine insider trading and widespread market manipulation will stop.
    
    Subsidy diversion will do what cap n' trade will never do. Spur a comnmercial wave of renewable energy and organic ag, that is the way to create an exponentially expanding anit-GHG wave around the world. Only exponential growth in these GHG cures can face up to exponential climate change in time.
    
    The Arctic may be ice-free this next summer! No time to lose. The dark ocean will absorb the 24hour sunlight of the arctic summer where the ice cap reflected it, in that case how long will Greenland glaciers last? What will that do to the gulf stream and other ocean conveyors?
    
    We are playing god with the biosphere, all justified by ridiculous talking points from corporate shills endlessly repeated by duped "conservative" citizens. Wake up provider.
    Permalink
neosapiens Posted 10:04 am
16 Oct 2009
Arguing about the size of government is also a distraction, and not a reason for failing to act on something as important as climate change. Feelings of disdain for government is also not a valid reason for doing nothing about climate change. It seems to me that you're grasping for ways to defend what is morally indefensible. Frustration at not getting your way in the political arena isn't a reason to block desperately needed reform. Raising social justice as an issue is also ironic, since addressing climate change is the single biggest social justice issue humanity has ever faced. It's exactly the sort of attitude that you're exhibiting that has made the global environmental crisis as dire and urgent as it is.
Permalink
1. foodprovider Posted 10:15 am
  16 Oct 2009
  Show me where enacting cap & trade will not cost jobs. Show me where it will actually lower GHG and not just trade it. Show me where it will not raise the cost of production. Show me where similar programs have worked in other countries. Show me emerging industrial countries (China, India) will not go after our industry. But maybe that is you whole scheme to eliminate anything you deem industrial.
  I may not get my way in the political arena, but I am going to make my views known. I am not alone, my congressman and senators know and understand my concerns.
  Permalink
neosapiens Posted 10:30 am
16 Oct 2009
As to the affordability and befits of cap and trade (and that it has worked in Europe), see EDF's analysis: http://www.edf.org/documents/10458_EDF_Cost-Brief_Oct2009.pdf

Of course, China and India are going to fiercely compete for jobs--and the answer is to stay ahead by investing in green technologies, efficiency and environmental protections that promote long-term health and wellbeing for Americans (which will greatly reduce medical costs and increase worker productivity--making us more competitive).

It's interesting that you would make the mistake of thinking that I'm against industry, when I've worked my whole career in high-tech and I'm very much a creature of the information age. I'm simply for responsible, ethical business practices. It's misguided, and frankly grossly unjust, for us to continue to shift the cost burden of irresponsible business practices onto society at large. For example, we don't need to burn coal, and we could save vast sums of money and avoid enormous human suffering if we had the political will to switch to cleaner and more efficient systems.
Permalink
1. foodprovider Posted 2:50 pm
  16 Oct 2009
  I didn't think you were against industry, I was pointing out what could happen to the US industry. We all should be for fair and ethical business practices. And I agree that we do need to change the way we produce and use energy. But I do not agree that Cap & Trade should be the tool used. It will end up costing us too much as it is currently submitted. http://accf.org/publications/126/accf-nam-study
  Permalink
neosapiens Posted 1:04 pm
16 Oct 2009
And as to the misleading EPA figures that show a disadvantage to midwestern states, Joe Romm has provided an answer on his blog:
http://climateprogress.org/2009/10/15/epa-analysis-feingold-climate-bill-allocations-fair-to-midwest/
Permalink
1. foodprovider Posted 2:40 pm
  16 Oct 2009
  ok..so who are we supposed to trust? EPA says one thing and Joe Romm says something else. One group says let the gov't guide and run our lives, and yet they will bash data that doesn't suit their motives. And the other group may not be any better. What is right?
  Permalink
  1. Tasermons Partner Posted 3:12 pm
    16 Oct 2009
    Foodprovider, you oppose cap and trade, and you also oppose regulation.
    
    Perhaps you think magical pixie fairies will solve our problems?
    
    Just how do you propose to solve the problem if not through cap and trade or through regulation?
    Permalink
  2. neosapiens Posted 3:18 pm
    16 Oct 2009
    Everyone makes mistakes. I generally take the EPA at its word unless and until someone points out a really good reason to question their results. And I trust organizations like the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Environmental Defense Fund to be fair, even-handed and to admit their mistakes. And, yes, I've found Joe Romm to be a trustworthy source so far.
    In this particular case, Joe made two good points of criticism on EPAs numbers and cited sources.
    Permalink
foodprovider Posted 5:32 pm
16 Oct 2009
Why can't we enforce the regulations we already have? Seems all congress wants to do is create new regulations. Face it, we do not have the funds or the resources to regulate the ones we have. So, to create increased revenue (AKA taxes), we will create a new regulation and place a fee or a tax on it to where no-one will be free of that tax. Then we will have to figure out a way to enforce the newest regulation. The snow ball gets bigger. And Taser, i've only heard that magical pixie fairies appear when you get a bad case of the wrong type of smoke inhilation. So let me know when you see a few.
Permalink
1. neosapiens Posted 6:12 pm
  16 Oct 2009
  Arguing over funding regulatory enforcement for other areas isn't an excuse for not dealing promptly with an emergency like climate change. You don't worry about paying your trash bill when your house is burning down--you deal with what's more important first.
  Permalink
2. Tasermons Partner Posted 3:19 pm
  17 Oct 2009
  Foodprovider, just what regulations do we already have, that aren't being enforced, that would deal with this problem?
  Permalink
foodprovider Posted 5:24 pm
17 Oct 2009
Ok, so i tire some of you one here. But I just don't get one thing, Show me where there is a subsidy specific for chemical ag. Show me an ag subidy that an organic producer does not qualify for. Then I will shut up.
Permalink
1. Tasermons Partner Posted 3:11 pm
  18 Oct 2009
  Uh, Foodprovider, though the topic of chemicals in agriculture is important, that wasn't the topic we were talking 'bout.
  
  The cap-and-trade/climate legislation doesn't have anything to do with chemical sprays.
  
  I think perhaps you misunderstand what it is, exactly, that the climate change legislation is about? We can try and clarify for you, if you're confused.
  Permalink
  1. foodprovider Posted 6:39 pm
    18 Oct 2009
    Taser..I was responding to a post by the good Dr X. Sorry for confusing you.
    Permalink
RogueIntellect Posted 7:46 pm
17 Oct 2009
The truth is that humans are the problem not the livestock they raise. Humans that commute over an hour to work everyday from the over developed suburbs to jobs in the city. Humans that have paved over the very best land for producing foods. Humans that buy over packaged products and generate tons of trash and pollution.

More fertilizer, from chemical to sewer sludge is poured on the lawns of America per acre than has ever or will ever be applied to my cattle farm. Do articles like this make you all feel good about your selves-that there is an evil enemy out there and it could never be you that is destroying the world?

Ironic that there has been a reported sharp decline in green house gas emissions in the last year due to the economic recession.

http://www.livescience.com/environment/etc/090921-recession-causes-steep-fall-co2-emissions.html

This would mean that the problem is humans not the animals grown for consumption, because there has not been a significant decrease in meat production. Oh and today there is more Arctic Ice than the 30 year average. The Ice Cap melting is not a new thing. From 1817 to around 1860 the ice and glaciers melted enough to allow for exploration and mapping of the arctic region. In 1903 Roald Amundsen sailed in a small sailing ship with a small gasoline engine and navigated the Northwest Passage from Greenland to Nome, Alaska. It took 3 years to complete the journey.

Scientist have also released information that the Pacific Ocean has begun a cooling cycle. These cycles last approx. 30 years.

I do not deny that alternative energy sources are necessary as fossil fuels are a finite source. But I have to wonder if the Cap & Trade Bill and global warming scare is not more than a ruse to put money in the pockets of a few well placed individuals.

"I own that I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

Thomas Jefferson.

The Tennessee Valley Authority in the last 20 years has built 5 nuclear power plants and has never put them online because they have discovered that just one produces more power than they can sell. Thus they sit in full operation (necessary to not have them degrade) waiting merely for rods to be inserted. How many coal fired plants could be taken off line, if these were fired up?

Another thing to consider, for every acre farmland in this country that falls to development (90 acres a minute) an acre of rain forest needs to be cleared to make up for it. Food has to come from somewhere, world agriculture is going to have to feed 7 billion people in the very near future. With US farmers making up only 1.25% of the US population they have become an easy target for finger pointing. Farm Bureau is one the few organizations going to bat for them on several issues.

It would be interesting if farmers quit producing for just one year and boycotted the consumer. Very interesting indeed.
Permalink
foodprovider Posted 6:40 pm
18 Oct 2009
Scientist: Cap and trade will hurt Earth
Warns more CO2 needed to sustain, expand plant growth

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted: October 09, 2009
12:00 am Eastern

By Chelsea Schilling
Carbon dioxide emissions are good for Earth and don't cause global warming, a noted geologist and best-selling author is warning Congress

Leighton Steward, author of "Fire, Ice and Paradise," is storming Capitol Hill to convince senators that a cap-and-trade energy bill could harm the environment by reducing the Earth's CO2 levels, according to U.S. News & World Report.

"I'm trying to kill the whole thing," he said. "We are tilting at windmills."

Steward, member of a nonprofit group called Plants Need CO2, plans to meet with several lawmakers this week.

Proponents of the global warming debate claim the planet is warming due to greenhouse gases produced primarily from fossil fuels.

Steward was one of many scientists who accepted that idea.

But now he is bringing Congress "a mountain of studies and scientific evidence that suggest CO2 is not the cause for warming," according to the report.

Not only does Steward argue that carbon dioxide does not cause warming, he says CO2 levels are already too low and that more, not less, is necessary to maintain plant growth.

Steward told U.S. News & World Report's Washington Whispers he believes a cap-and-trade plan to reduce emissions would mean considerable and unnecessary taxes for American taxpayers.

He also told the magazine that reduced CO2 levels would mean slowed food production. Plants grown at elevated CO2 levels produce larger fruit and take in less water, he said.

The scientist also declares CO2 is harmless to humans.

Steward noted that Earth's atmosphere has about 338 parts per million of CO2.

By contrast, he said, CO2 levels on Navy subs aren't considered dangerous until the air has 8,000 parts per million of CO2.
Permalink
1. neosapiens Posted 9:22 am
  19 Oct 2009
  The concentration of CO2 in the air that the human body can tolerate is completely unrelated to tge amount that is safe from a climate perspective.
  And the very thorougly debunked myth about greening the earth with extra CO2 is pretty humorous. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/11/co_2-fertilization/
  Permalink
2. Tasermons Partner Posted 3:36 pm
  19 Oct 2009
  This is like saying we need to global warming to raise ocean levels so there will be more ocean habitat for declining fish stocks...while completely ignoring the fact that the increase would wipe out most of the estuaries, mangrove forests, and reefs that the fish use for nurseries.
  Permalink
beez kpr Posted 7:41 pm
25 Oct 2009
I often wonder why we as people are so short sighted. Or is it we are AFRAID of getting out of our comfort zones!! I am a firm believer most people are just fearful an afraid of taking chances or changing anything
they are stuck in a comfort zone. they think an will not take a chance on any thing that may make life better because something might go wrong. Just some random thoughts before hitting the sack... Bill
Permalink

Add a Comment

You are not logged in. Thus, you cannot post a comment. If you have an account, log in. If you don't have an account, well, by all means go make one! Meet you back here in five.

Hello, Visitor! Why not register?

Viewed

Commented

The American Farm Bureau goes all in 29

15 Oct 2009 11:50 AM
by Tom Laskawy

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Add a Comment

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

The American Farm Bureau goes all in 29

15 Oct 2009 11:50 AM by Tom Laskawy

Posted in

Read More About

Related Stories

Comments View as Flat

Add a Comment

Posts With the Mosts

Recent Comments by ...

Sections

Columns

The Fine Print

15 Oct 2009 11:50 AM
by Tom Laskawy