I mentioned yesterday that former angry-vegan turned docile philosopher-vegan Moby was going to be in DC attempting to make you think twice about going for that bacon double-cheeseburger. Maybe he mellowed out after deciding to listen to his own music? Who knows. Regardless, I doubt Uncle Ted showed up for the presentation.
The reason why I’m posting this is because a comment this blog received the other day by a “music and movie theorist” suggested I wasn’t too
bright for suggesting that Jesus of Suburban Hot Topic Shoppers takes himself seriously (you know…the same guy who’s going on Bill Maher’s show April 9th). Likewise, I suppose Moby doesn’t take himself seriously either? And every other band that goes out of their way to make appeals for liberal public policy advancement through Rock Against Bush albums just did so because they were bored on a Saturday and needed something to do, right?
I don’t want to go too rough on Moby, who at this point doesn’t annoy me like actors Matt Damon or Sean “I hope you get rectal cancer if you disagree with me” Penn. However, I can’t help but take note of the following:
“I mean it does seem bizarre, if you look at it objectively, that our tax dollars … are subsidizing an industry that destroys animals, destroys communities, destroys workers and seriously, negatively impacts the health of the people who eat the food that’s subsidized.”
Really, Moby? I actually find it more bizarre that we subsidize failure. And I find it bizarre how on one hand someone so interested in the economics at play within the agricultural industry can be so ignorant. As The Heritage Foundation points out:
“…farm subsidy eligibility is restricted to growers of only a few crops. Second, once a farmer’s eligibility is established, subsidies increase with the size of the farm. These make farm subsidies just another narrowly targeted corporate welfare program.
On the first point, producers of just five crops — wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice — receive nearly all farm subsidies. In fact, only one-third of the $240 billion in annual farm production is targeted for subsidies. All other farmers — including growers of fruits, vegetables, livestock and poultry — receive nearly nothing.
This raises the question: If farm subsidies are necessary to produce an adequate food supply with stable prices and thriving farmers, why haven’t the growers of nonsubsidized crops experienced these problems?
Walk into any supermarket and you will quickly find yourself surrounded by farm products, from apples to oranges, beef to chicken, that are produced and distributed without farm subsidies. Yet their prices and supplies are relatively stable, and the farmers’ incomes are just as high as those of subsidized farmers. The free market works for all other farm production, and it can surely work for producers of wheat, cotton, corn, soybeans and rice.
Oh Moby, if things were perfect we’d live in a world where the government didn’t pick winners and losers. Sadly, we do, and it does. And worse, there are liberals like you who are all about third-party elitist bureaucrats in DC playing king-maker until it infringes on one of your pet projects (or was that plant-projects?). Luckily for guys like me, there are some promising young conservatives on the horizon who understand a thing or two about the Constitution, our Founding Fathers, and the principles that turned the experiment known as America into the greatest, freest country the world has ever known. Or, as you might call them, stars.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have an appointment with some meat-eaters on the Southside.