Finally!

Saturday afternoon, while the air conditioner people were working outside on our unit, a mighty thunderstorm rolled through our neighborhood. The sky grew suddenly dark, strong winds blew rain and leafy twigs horizontally, and lightning struck so close that there was almost no gap between it and the shattering thunder. One of those bolts hit the tower from which our antenna delivers our internet service. They had to replace their tower, so service just resumed a few hours ago - not sure exactly when because I slept pretty well last night.

It was a long four and a half days. I missed the blogs most of all, both mine and yours. But at least I had Sarah Palin and everyone's reaction to her to keep me company. I have enjoyed the coverage quite a lot. I was not "energized" before this. My first impression - a more Republican Sally Field.

I also caught Rick Warren's interviews of Obama and McCain Sunday night, which Fox rebroadcast. Sarah made me give him a look as I had not followed the primary speeches at all. Thus I had also missed Thompson, Giuliani, Romney, and Huckabee's presentations. But I don't think I would have been as impressed with them as I was in the context of their fun defense of Sarah Palin during this convention. It wasn't knight in shining armor defense of a helpless, trapped female, it was ontologically natural male and female dynamics, which I can't explain, but which all seem glad and relieved to finally participate in.

Not that that's all I cared about. I now care about John McCain. Sarah mentioned something about the qualities that suffering can engender in a person. Not just compassion, but a certain independent wisdom. Sarah seems to have it too, but the only thing that I've heard from her past that would bring it, is the broken foot she played on to win state as she captained her high school basketball team, or maybe her recent maternal challenges contributed, but it seems to be more fundamental than that. I'm glad John McCain and his friends shared more about his experiences. There's always the criticism that people are "parading" their troubles for selfish gain, but I don't see things so black and white. We must all balance our tendency to self-promote, with being open and real with people. It's tough, but I think people know when someone comes across as self-absorbed to the point of walking over others without conscience, lying, and changing their personality to gain advantage (Clinton), and those who almost grudgingly share their story because they want to connect with people on a more personal level. We are story-telling people, and that's how we relate to each other. Not that ideology doesn't have it's place, but stories give ideas context. I love first-person narrative, and if it gives the speaker points, what's so bad about that? We want to root for someone and that's ok.

I'm looking at pictures on Fox of John McCain returning from Vietnam with his injuries right now. Crutches, limping, stiff arms and all. I so admire his spirit to encourage others while he was being tortured - encouraging them to endure it with resolve. That testing matters. Some caved, but some didn't because of him I'm sure. And I like how he's more comfortable with being outside than inside with the crowd, even though he's apparently got the respect and friendship of some pretty respectable people. He's proven that he's not self-serving throughout his political career, even if I haven't agreed with his party-line-defying endeavors. I'm starting to trust him. Maybe he wont be war-mongering like I've feared without much information. Listening to anti-war people, Orthodox and not, has made me rethink issues of defense, but I have to say, Sarah Palin and reviewing John McCain has reaffirmed to me that there is a time and place, though not well-handled by George Bush I guess. I don't believe I have the whole story as I don't trust the media and where else are we going to get it? Divine revelation? Which brings me to Patristic Theology, my other company while being in internet time-out. More on that soon.

The Worst Things Are Since Sliced Bread

Ill-health and the collapse of the American family is due to sliced bread. Sliced bread is the reason for hyper-refined white flour which kills people by sugar toxicity. These people could have been saved not only by the slower digestion of whole grains, but also by having to put forth the energy and skill necessary to slice their own rough, multi-grain, chunky bread. Kneading is also good exercise. Moreover, bread-making requires vigilance and time which requires someone to be a stay at home person to watch the bread and the kids. Home-watched kids get in less trouble.

I don't make my own bread yet, but I just sliced a loaf of Walmart-bought multi-grain bread to make some toast, and I believe that if everyone would do at least that much in the morning, we could be on our way to saving the world.

Gardening Update

The tomatoes haven't grown any new fruit. I just read online that shaking the plants may help in polinization. Or they may have too much nitrogen or a fungus. The leaves and stalks are growing nicely though.

My compost has flies. I just read online that you're supposed to add "brown" stuff as well as "green" stuff. But that oak leaves are very leathery and need to be shredded. I need a shredder to break them and my coffee filters down.

The jalopenos have 4 cute little dark green peppers growing out of their flowers. The bell peppers look like they are about to make fruit too.

The eggplant has a new fruit bud that is covered with a furry light-greenness that reminds me of lamb's ear.

And the okra is getting taller.

I like gardening.

My Definition of Conservative

Conservatism is traditional conciliar adherence to economy (legitimate custom) with economeia.

Non-participation in vice with love for others.

Education with broad understanding, wisdom and prayer.

Compassionate Conservative is not a bad phrase.

Legitimacy and Custom

Father Jonathan's description of "Conservative" is more specific and resonates with me quite well. I haven't read Peggy Noonan's article yet, but I want to jot down a few thoughts first.

The word that Mr Bramwell highlights to pinpoint Conservatism is "legitimacy" (there's a follow up article that I plan on reading too), and the one that glows at me from Father Jonathan is "custom". As I lose faith in politics and politicians and even capitalism and democracy as the way to act out our faith, and transfer my faith to the physically present Orthodox Church, I begin to understand legitimacy and custom, but not well enough to explain them in that context at this time.

I used to believe in Manifest Destiny (in spite of my Native American sympathies), and that the best, most legitimate man always Calvinistically won (see Mr. Bramwell's article linked in my last post for scholarly examples of people claiming legitimacy), though I don't think I'd ever really narrowed down a traditional custom that I deeply identified with except the rituals of horse management. Not that I ever had the opportunity to make managing horses a habit. I love the smell of the leather and hay mixed with the warm sweetness of the horse and the right amount of manure. I love barns.

I like that there are customs, and I like to participate in an eclectic array of them, such as high tea at Butchard Gardens, formal dining on a cruise ship, Thanksgiving dinner at my grandparent's house as a child, Mexican, Italian, Chinese, Japanese, Lebanese, Indian, or any other ethnic restaurant, hot dogs from a street vendor in New York, and funnel cake and corn dogs from the Texas State Fair. In the customary dining category, the steak and baked potato at our local Mesquite Pit is closer to my innate natural orientation*. "Cowboy Day" at school or camp was always when I felt the most myself. But I think I'd like a nun's habit too. It is also a custom of mine to climb to views of cities from observation towers, or of countrysides from old fort towers and other geographic prominences, but I've never been in a deer stand, I'm too loyal to Bambi and his mother. But I sort of see their point about managing deer populations so they don't starve or eat from agrarians' crops. My hermit intuition says make the people's habitat smaller and let the animals rove free, but I'm not allowed to put animals before people, so I visit them in zoos. Born Free came out when I was born, and it has been a theme song of mine. I loved the first scene in Last of the Mohicans where after they've slain the deer they reverently pray to it, thanking it for giving its life for their sustenance. That's the way to kill a deer.

*I've enjoyed the discussions about Natural Law from Gabriel's Going Along, Energetic Procession, Father Jonathan in the above Second Terrace article, and it is also mentioned in the Who Are We article. Self evidence is an interesting concept. I think it takes a pure heart for the natural thing to become evident. In our court experiences I found the judges, our lawyer and the psychologist to rule from their hearts for the welfare of our kids instead of the letter of the law, but there are perhaps subtleties to the law that I'm not aware of, and perhaps I was paranoid in my expectations. But for their compassion, I'm thankful to the grace of God. As far as revelation of the Trinity, I've heard tell that prophetic visions were sent to some Native Americans about the Trinity and Christ. But I think if one continues in one's pure hearted quest for truth and the ways of God, he will be lead eventually to the Orthodox Church, and hopefully the State will let such a Church grow and remain in peace for which we pray during our Church services.

Right to Homeschool threatened in California

I heard in Fox News that a California Appellate Court in Los Angeles ruled that a parent is now required to have a teaching certificate to legally homeschool in that state. I found this site from Private and Home Educators from California which offers perspective on the issue.

There was a mini debate on Fox where a proponent of the law stated that children needed the experience of "real" teachers to provide appropriate education, plus they needed a diverse environment to learn from people of different backgrounds. This issues brings forward the question, whose children are they anyway? In fact the ruling, as the above link explains, was based on a tangental argument in a child abuse case. Abuse and neglect happens amongst homeschoolers, as it does in any school environment. Our laws are unfortunately a result of abuse and neglect, going back to the Noahic Covenant. I believe that the right to homeschool, more than any other issue, is the definitive question of who is the primary authority over our children, the state or the family. Yes, the state comes in as a last resort when a family abuses their children. But even Social Services will put the child in the care of an extended family member before placing them in foster care (if this isn't true, please let me know). But to say that the state is a better filter in general as to what a child learns than parents is a step further in a direction I don't think any concerned parent wants to go.

The proponent also said that parents can always "debrief" a child when they get home from school. This is true as a last resort which some parents must utilize depending on their situation, but in my experience children are not the best informed witnesses for what goes on at school, nor do they always tell everything they do or are bothered by either out of fear, not recognizing a bad situation, or loyalty to a friend or teacher. Additionally, the amount of time an impressionable child spends somewhere will affect the child in an unpreventable way.

I have also heard the argument that children should go to public school to be witnesses of their faith. Yes this can have a positive impact on the school, but I personally don't believe children should feel responsible for saving others. They are only children once and for a short period of time, and nurturing them full time in a healthy, protected environment will equip them to be more saintly influences on society if they do not get infected with the passions by how bombarded they are with them at an increasingly early age in the school scene.

I do think that children need to be sensitive and knowledgeable of other points of view, but I am not a proponent of letting children decide for themselves in an unbiased manner at an early age. I believe that the Orthodox Church's reasons for infant Baptism and Communion support the view that children are the Lord's and should be nurtured as such unless they decide differently and actively leave at their "age of accountability". They are to be trained in "the way that they should go" so that "when they are old they will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6).

When it is increasingly easy for children to be exposed to the underbelly of humanity, we parents must work harder and more consistently to protect and nurture them in "whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy" (Philippians 4:8 )

Agrarianism considered again

John Zmirak from Taki's Magazine writes persuasively on the topic in his article, A Road Not Taken, Distributism. This is from the last half:

Explained with brutal brevity, Distributists such as Chesterton and Belloc favored action by the State on the economy--though much less radical steps than those enacted by Franklin Roosevelt, not to mention the draconian measures socialists and fascists advocated. As Carlson explains, Distributist laws, had they been enacted, would have reduced concentrations of real estate and farms, diminished the competitiveness of chain stores and centralized industries, and encouraged the growth and flourishing of small farms, artisan workers, small businesses, and mom and pop shops. Distributists favored the confiscation of some land--most of which, in England, had been accumulated with the connivance of the State, or outright stolen from the Church, so it was already “tainted” from a property-rights perspective--and its division into small plots which could be worked by willing farmers. They also supported tax laws that favored small businesses over large, and strict laws forbidding mergers and “monopolies.” In postwar Europe, Röpke pressed for several such measures, but with no success. In their absence, the welfare state indeed grew up, as he’d predicted; as the family further fractured, the birth rate plummeted. Now the Continent itself is being colonized. Whether Distributist measures would have prevented this decline is hard to determine, since they have so infrequently been attempted. (One exception, Carlson notes, is the U.S. federal government’s promotion of home-ownership after World War II, which helped millions of Americans become home-owners. On the other hand, this development gave birth to the suburb.)

Libertarians such as Tom Woods have offered cogent critiques of the ethics and possible outcomes of a government-sponsored Distributist agenda, and knives have been drawn between the paleo-libertarians and neo-distributists. But I don’t think the quarrel between them need be so bitter. As I’ve written before, in a friendly critique of Rod Dreher’sCrunchy Cons, it really is possible to square the circle here. How about this: Those of us who understand the importance of economic independence, the virtues of independent farms and mom and pop businesses (and here comes the radical step) should patronize them. And convince our friends to join us. And boycott everything else. We should spend the extra money to shop downtown instead of driving to the mall, buy vegetables at farmers’ markets, and fund all this by eschewing our least important luxuries. That’s how the thriving organic food industry came into existence, and the home-schooling movement, too. Each happened by private initiative, without the heavy (corrupting) hand of the State ever getting in the way. There are now thousands of independent farms that would have otherwise closed down, and thriving downtowns (like Nashua, New Hampshire, where I’m happy to say I shop), supported by consumers who think it’s important that they exist. And thanks to home-schooling, millions of kids who can actually read.

Of course, the most radical among the Distributists will complain at this point: “That’s not enough. That’s merely a drop in the bucket. Only a serious initiative by the government could turn the situation around....” To which I would say: Even if you’re right--what is the current likelihood of that? Why not take all the energy and talent you might use trying to organize a mass movement favoring compulsory Distributism… and channel into persuading people to practice it? You’re much likely to succeed, and will gain avoid the likely hazard of increasing the power of the modern, “servile” State.

Maybe I'll go to the Farmer's Market next time after all.

Texas Primary

I probably wouldn't go to the polls today, but Sunday night as we were eating our last meat meal at Chili's, a couple from the Bible Church we attended before finding Orthodoxy warmly reunited with us. I have a long history with them. Longer than I knew at first.

When I was in Jr. High, my family attended another Bible Church, and I barely remember a young police officer and his beautiful wife who was pregnant when we left that Church. (My dad picked up stakes and moved on from a number of churches, traumatically for me.) Later when I lived in my current town and my eldest was 5 and his sister was 2, I found a home in our local Bible Church, which they had also come to attend, and they remembered me from Jr. High. They were then homeschooling their 6 children, and were leaders in the church, he an elder and by then also a successful lawyer. They lived on a large piece of property where his father, a lawyer, had built houses for his kids in lovely wooded and pastured and fish-stocked ponded land with a common swimming pool. They hosted many church events, including the baptism of my son, and later the baptism of George's two eldest sons in that pool, the youngers weren't considered to have reached an accountable age yet. When my ex left, he set me up with a really nice lawyer (as he then had a policy of not representing church members) who protected, or I could say retrieved, but that's a long story, my interests very well. About that time, he also was elected our Republican State Representitive and began commuting to Austin during that season. After George and I were married and immediately sued by his ex, he agreed to represent us, which ended up being for the next 4 years. His respected reputation, keen insight into what she was about, and habit of over-preparing for cases, defended and supported our new family in invaluable and I believe eternal ways.

He's virtually been unchallenged since first elected, but this year there is a much stronger campaign against him, so I think I'll go out and pay him back for his kindness to me and mine.

Abortion and Foreign Policy

I've been avoiding the political scene until Super Tuesday. I am curious what America is thinking and wanting so I'm trying to view things from a distance as I'm in transition mode from being a passionately fundamentalist Republican conservative to I don't know what next. Maybe other conservatives are wondering as well, judging from the low turn-out of Republican votes. Both leading democratic candidates got more votes than the leading Republican one.

So in trying to be practical and realistic instead of idealistic, not that people who support Ron Paul aren't impacting future candidates and the political scene, as I think supporters for Ross Perot did, though I was a realist even then and voted for Bush instead, I have tried to form an opinion about the top three candidates, and don't know whether to seriously consider Ron Paul yet.

I'm afraid of Hillary Clinton and always have been. Her smile and her support for the marginalized scares me to death because she seems to have ulterior motives. That's the Jewish experientialist in me, not the Derridian don't be anti anything. So to Derridify myself I'll say, the marginalized she speaks of deserve attention from an honest, trustworthy person. To not marginalize untrustworthy people I'll say, I don't know her background situation, and if I'd been raised with her parents who I know nothing about, and her genes and her sphere of influence, I'd probably have turned out the same way, or at least had the same struggles but may have made different choices as free will always leaves options open even if we aren't aware or feel empowered enough. So I'll agree with Hillary that empowering is good, but there is just more to her than meets the eye and I can't ignore my gut instinct that the Presidency is not where that needs to be empowered.

John McCain has always confused me, but his confrontational stance to Vladimir Putin bothers me. My ignorant impression is that, though he's a moderate, he still marginalizes and uses dialectical opposition to achieve his goals, worthy though they may be.

The least marginalizing candidate is Barack Obama. He is very Derridian in how he seeks to work from within and find peace with all I can think of. He doesn't seem to be anti-Russian, Muslim, or Christian. That appeals to me. I find his immigration solution of building better fences along the Mexican border confusing though. It sounds anti-Mexican. To me that's a bandaid instead of a cure. The other inconsistency that is very important to me is his non anti-abortion stance. I don't say Pro Abortion because he wants to prevent teen pregnancy. However he says he trusts women to make that very serious decision. This is so contradictory to his saying that teen girls shouldn't have to inform their parents of their abortion because of the "trouble" that may cause. So he trusts teen women and not their adult mothers? His other policies, including promoting stem cell research are all about not letting anyone suffer. I have become sensitive to America's refusal to suffer natural consequences, including a pregnancy. He's totally American in that regard, avoid suffering at all costs, even the cost of an innocent baby. Too bad.

But the issue of the government not preventing women from killing their babies needs to be in the context of the government actively telling a soldier to shoot someone. So foreign policy seems to be one of the top considerations for me in this election instead of Abortion, sad to say. I still don't know who to vote for, but I'll be looking more into foreign policy as promoting peace instead of economic well-being this year.

As far as abortion goes, that issue is more about family dynamics, and we need the Church to inform us about that. I think next I'll write about my weekend.

Other Views on Barak

By chance I happened upon a post by Daniel Larrison on Barak Obama. Grumpy Old Man in the comments brings up an opinion that many probably have about Derrida as well. "Immanentize that eschaton!" I guess I don't know what else to do besides that. Continue in agressive military strategies (McCain), or forgive my perhaps misplaced worries Paul supporters, stick our heads in the sand regarding other nations? Obama seems to diffuse a lot of tension, imo, but is this the Oprah-it of the masses? What would Paul say to Russia, Iran, N. Korea and Israel? "I don't care, do it your way." Perhaps there's a different way than isolationism. I think Obama would have a more direct conversation and try to openly understand and use diplomacy to cool jets. I used to roll my eyes at people pushing diplomacy. "Yeah, like that'll work with Sadam and Arafat." But now with a new generation of world leaders, maybe closer diplomatic relations are possible. I feel that this is a new age we're entering. Forgive my naive optimism.

I've read a lot of opinions on Kosovo and mainly I think that the west is not tuned in to think about the Orthodox at all. Orthodoxy seems to elude those who aren't looking for it. A fellow catechumen at Church was surprised that on his second assignment in a German town he saw an Orthodox Church that he must have driven by many times on his first assignment but never noticed. I never knew about Orthodoxy until I was considering Catholicism only 4 years ago. So I guess I'm not surprised that it passes under most people's radar and consideration, including our politicians. But President Bush has met a lot with Orthodox leaders so I don't know what he's thinking. Also Slobodan Milosevic gave Serbia a bad name so I'm not surprised at the lack of consideration by the uninformed.

Here's what Barak says,

All the people of Kosovo, be they of Albanian, Serb or other origin, must be able to live in a free, tolerant and prosperous society where minority rights and religious sites are fully protected, and the people of Kosovo have a stake in one another’s success.

Serbia and its people have also suffered terribly over the past two decades. Serbs deserve a more peaceful, prosperous, and hopeful future. This month’s re-election of President Boris Tadic was a critical step in moving Serbia closer to the goal of full integration into the democratic West, including membership in Euro-Atlantic institutions that can help bring more stability and prosperity to the people of Serbia. Serbia ultimately belongs in the European Union. The EU and Serbia should rapidly deepen their ties, a move that would help demonstrate to the Serb people that they are indeed genuinely part of the West.

I honor the service of all Americans, military and civilian, who have worked so hard to bring peace to the Balkans. The United States must continue to work with our European allies on behalf of the security and prosperity of the entire region. I am convinced that, with our support, Serbia and Kosovo can emerge as models of democratic and economic growth, and their people can know a bright future. (source)

Would Ron Paul try to protect Orthodox Churches and Monasteries in Kosovo? Anyway, we pray for our Civil Authorities to provide a way for us to practice our faith in peace. I'll pray for the same in Kosovo. National borders are meaning less and less to me other than that.

A Serbian Blog on Candidates

Serbblog endorses Ron Paul, says Clinton and McCain are the worst for Serbia, and says the jury's still out on Obama.

Agrarianism vs. Nomadism

This post is my replicated comment to a topic which migrated from this Wendell Berry post on my Vox blog, to Wordpress's more user friendly comments previously only available in this unrelated post.

I think the truth of the American Indian is in between idyllic romanticism and dehumanizing labels like savage. Is there anything wrong or "less than" in hunting and gathering? It is my understanding that the Indians taught the Pilgrims how to farm corn and other crops. I don't really trust the propaganda that was used to justify their extermination and removal to reservations. I recognize the culture clash, but I feel the Russians and the French dealt with it better, though they still brought devastating diseases to them.

Also, is it being less than human to be nomadic? To not be tied to one location nor consider land as something to be owned? What was so great about America was how wide open, vast, and varied it was. The cowboys enjoyed this quality for a short while before the settlers fenced and railroaded it off. People can be said to be good stewards of the land if they are careful not to leave scars and litter in their wake.

You make a good point about there needing to be tons more land for a nomadic, less possessive ownership of the land way of life. The Indians were also territorial though, the Plains Indians probably less so. I find the nomadic territorial idea interesting. It's more like they were ritualistically seasonal.

Perhaps the Indians influenced the American way of being nomadic. People are pretty quick to pull up stakes when the grass is greener somewhere else. It is my understanding that we travel around more than most people.

Also, if the log-cabin, independent, self-reliant, tied to the land, agrarian settler is the epitome of American life, and to some extent I agree, I think we have to take the original ones in context. They moved from a crowded place to a less crowded place, and they took what they practically could, from the city - heirlooms at least. And again, is living in a crowded city a sin of those less than human? I myself live on two acres and a very quiet two-street neighborhood surrounded by cattle and horse ranches. And it's just right for me. Close enough, 6 miles, to Walmart and our unfortunately growing town that has doubled in size in the 17 years I've lived here. I pray that more settlers wont come closer though one of the ranches close to us just sold out to be a new housing development much larger than ours. But our neighborhood was a ranch 10 years ago, so what can I say?

I prefer undeveloped, natural places myself which can only now be found in State and National Parks, thanks to the forsight of Teddy Roosevelt. The prickly pear cactus growing outside of Carlsbad Caverns, btw, is delicious, though definitely prickly, and they have other naturally growing plants labeled according to how the Indians subsisted on them.

The settlers also used modern conveniences of their day. They were not relics of the past. The difference today in people trying to copy them, is that they are rejecting modern technology to a large extent. This is why I view the Amish way of life as more of a museum exhibit than as citizens of their world. I don't know why I think it's important to not be anti-modern. Rejecting our culture seems sort of passive aggressive and too negatively judgmental. Technology won over primitivity and so that's what we have. When I believed in predestination, I thought that it was God's will for it to. But now I don't see God's will so much in how circumstances turn out, but in how we live within them. Not that I'm criticizing monasticism at all. That would be too judgmental, which maybe I'm being to the Amish. Anyway, I'm not seeing circumstances as so much in a good/bad, God's was on the winner's side, way. Though Orthodox can tend more toward the victim, sulking mentality when we are oppressed. To me, anyone can pray, whether in pristine nature (even Elder Zacharias stated matter of factly that the hermit monk is not longer a feasible reality in this present world, and he wasn't sulky about it at all), on a settled, environmental improving farm, or in the city, or even at Walmart. People working in agribusiness can even be enjoying relationships with their co-workers, tithing to the Church, and be excellent parents.

Another thing about the modern agrarian movement that I've observed. Sadly independent farming (or ranching) using traditional methods will not support a family, so I see a pattern of absent dad, homeschool mom and little kids tending the farm all alone. That's not how the original settlers did it. These moms also want the kids to go to college so that they can get a more family supporting job so the kids aren't going to be able to make a living with the family farm either. It's a homeschool project instead.

Additionally there are water issues in the west. Feuds and deaths have occurred because of siphoning water off of the few piddly streams and rivers we have out here (I live in Texas). I hear lake Meade, the dammed up Colorado River that supplies Las Vegas and other cities, will go dry in a little over 12 years. The water supply for Los Angeles is very controversial, and a lot of it is used for people to have their desired green lawns in the middle of the desert. This supports your case for exploitation of land. But before that, ranchers and farmers fought over water rights too.

Kentucky, where Mr. Berry lives is naturally green and fertile. My mother in law has a beautiful garden in Pennsylvania where everything will grow that hits the ground. Fruit trees, nut trees, grapes and vegetables. I gardened in my closer to the town square home with fertile soil and grew large tomatoes and ocra easily. But where I am now the soil is too porous, non-nutritive, and there's a constant southerly strong, hot wind during the growing season. I'd have to deplete our water supply (we have a well and septic tank) to install a sprinkler system, and replace all our dirt, to even have a green lawn, which our new neighbors have done. I guess I should go to the farmer's market, but it is more expensive and out of the way. And like I said, even agribusiness lettuce helps support somebody's family.

I think agribusiness was largely a result of the famine and drought during the Great Depression. Small farms dried up and the settlers had to go work for larger farms whose technology provided more insurance against the fickle elements. It's a sad fact of life that I think is largely due to our declining, end-times age. The earth is aging and suffering the result of a lot of our non-environmental friendly, and unavoidably growing population. But more people are taking notice of this since we've run out of greener grass on the western horizon. There is more awareness and effort to make more environmentally friendly, "green" decisions by people at large. People typically have to run out of what they want before they'll alter their destructive path, me included.