Welcome to the July Agribusiness issue of NorthBay biz magazine. Over the past few decades, the economy in California has been subjected to many a boom and bust cycle in the glamorous but always volatile high-tech industry. If you prefer stability and dependable growth, instead of high-risk glitz, it’s rooted in California’s agricultural heritage. In 2005, ag revenues in California exceeded $35 billion. In the North Bay, the ag community not only contributes significantly to the local economy, but is the resonating force behind our local rhythm of life.
If you think the North Bay lacks culture, just wait until you read this month’s issue. It’s replete with stories not only on local agriculture, but that also reveal the inside scoop on viticulture, apiculture and aquaculture as seen through the expert eyes of local business people. Joining all our stories, special features and columns in this issue is the debut of our newest feature: “Green Scene.” Green Scene will focus on all that’s new in the rapidly emerging world of green business. Please let us know how you like it.
I remember growing up believing I was a Democrat, which wasn’t much of a stretch since several family members belonged to trade unions and a few worked for Mayor Daley in Chicago. As the years passed, my income grew and when it was time to file taxes I’d think, holy s#&%, look at all the money the government took. I wouldn’t be in debt if I had all the money I earned. Identifying next as a Republican was the logical progression. Now here we are a couple of decades later, I’m earning more, but paying lots more too, and still bemoaning high taxes, and yes, still in debt.
At least 20 years ago, I began to recognize that neither major political party really represented my core values. Unable to embrace either party, every election brought the realization that my vote was against someone instead for someone. That’s not the way it’s supposed to work. It doesn’t matter which party is in power anymore—scratch a Democrat and you find a Republican hiding beneath the surface, and vice versa. Oh sure, during a campaign, both parties mouth what they think the voters want to hear and then, when elected, proceed to do whatever they think will most benefit themselves first and the country second. Unfailingly, the country wallows about for another four years in a sea of unkept promises. That party loses the next election and the party out of power comes in promising that this time, things will be different. A few years down the road, a new batch of incompetents is exposed and the cycle repeats. The root of the problem is that government has simply grown too big and sells out to any special interest group that contributes enough money to finance the next campaign. Laws get passed, rulings are rendered, fees are charged and regulations get enacted or changed to benefit these interest groups. And the beat goes on, with you and me always getting stuck with the check.
A couple of days ago, a new missive arrived in my email from The Libertarian Party of California. I went to the website and found this definition of beliefs: “If you describe yourself as socially tolerant and fiscally responsible, you’re a Libertarian! We believe you—not the government—should decide how to run your life, checkbook, retirement, education and family.” Those two sentences compactly express my beliefs. The attached essay was written by L.K. Samuels and is called, “Terrorism, Global Warming and Fear.” It struck a chord because it underscores the divisive and misleading tactics employed by both political parties. Let me share some of Mr. Samuels’ thoughts, which have been edited because of space constraints. A full version can be found at www.ca.lp.org.
“If politicians do anything well, it is to fan the flames of Chicken Little hysteria. They have an innate talent for scaring neurotic people who are prone to believe whatever the government tells them about potential threats. Neither side of the political spectrum is above using propaganda to gain the upper hand in the cutthroat battle for public consciousness and votes.
For instance, according to right-wing neo-cons, the evil menace plaguing mankind is hordes of Islamic militants who target civilians and fly airplanes into buildings. We are told that these terrorist madmen will descend upon our homeland with weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical warheads, and ungodly violence to destroy Western civilization unless we act preemptively.
On the opposite side of the aisle, the big threat to the world is global warming. The leftists’ predictions contend that if mankind continues to pump out carbon dioxide (CO2), the world will suffer catastrophic flooding, severe droughts, rising sea levels, lasting hunger and economic chaos. Some global warming alarmists actually predict the end of humanity within a couple of decades.
Both scenarios pander to the politics of fear, but how accurate are they? In the struggle to rid the world of terrorism, the Bush administration launched a preemptive strike against Iraq in 2003. Two years later, instead of being neutralized, Iraq has replaced Afghanistan as the most fertile training ground for the next generation of professionalized terrorist.
When the Japanese Imperial fleet launched a surprise attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941, it assembled the most powerful carrier force and the greatest air power in the history of naval warfare. During the Cold War, the world was staring down the barrel of 70,000 nuclear warheads and two sometimes trigger-happy nations. When the Islamic terrorists struck the World Trade Center, they had 19 hijackers armed with plastic knives and box-cutters. This is not to say that terrorists are impotent or pose no threat, but by historical standards, they possess far fewer military resources compared to enemies from past wars.
In the case of global warming, the apocalyptic claims grow louder and shriller, especially in California, where Governor Schwarzenegger has imposed laws to reduce greenhouse gasses. But the fundamental assertion that CO2 causes temperatures to rise has no scientific basis. A number of prominent scientists, including Prof. Ian Clark, a leading archaeological climatologist from Canada, have pointed to the analysis of ice core samples that go back more than 600,000 years. All ice core records, including those drilled at the Vostok site in Antarctica, show that CO2 increases lag after warming spells by an average of 800 years. This finding suggests that rising temperatures are responsible for the rise of CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the reverse. The ecological-political establishment is using normal climatic cycles as evidence that the world is coming to an end. Interestingly, experts made similar dire predictions of an impending ice age during the cooling trend from 1940 to 1975.
Whatever direction political leaders take the issues of terrorism and global warming, it’s almost assured they’ll polarize the public, enrich the well-connected, increase the authority of government and do little to mitigate any crisis.”
That’s it for now. Enjoy this month’s magazine.
