Question about shellac solvent

Page 5 of 7  
"George E. Cawthon" wrote: ...

No, it has <not> passed away as an institution in the historic farming areas...they family farm has certainly evolved,but it is every bit as much a way of life as ever.

That is true although other than the last sentence doesn't fit with the other two...

There may be some of those, but there certainly have been a large number of long term farm families that have not been able to make it over the last 20 years. Much of this is certainly exacerbated by inconsistent government policies to be polite. Remember the Carter grain embargoes and the (1st) Bush crackdown to lower the high bread prices? Both of those came after pleas to produce more for the export market which these policies immediately killed...the resulting collapse of the grain markets <did> force many failures. That's a <very> brief synopsis of a complex issue but certainly that part of it played a significant role.

I'm going to insult you, but I don't mean it...obtw, please continue to keep my food costs cheaper than anywhere else in the world... :(
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

I'm not going to intersperse my comments, it just gets too hard to read. The family farm IS over as an institution. that happened when people moved to the city. Sure there are farms and sure their are family farms, but the numbers are a fraction of what they once were. Just like there are damn view hunter-gathers clans anymore. Very few people are farmers relative to the number of people in the U.S. I think the percentage at one time was close to 50 percent.
Farming is a business, period. People that have some illusive dream about farming, go broke.
Ah yes, the farmer-government relationship. Farmers say they want no government intervention, then do everything they can to climb aboard the hand outs. Government screws up almost every time they intervene whether it is about grain, dairies, potatoes, sugar beets or whatever. Of course, farmer coops/product promoter groups also screw up.
You didn't insult me. And now the food production thing. Hell the earth was suppose to run out of food by now, but your cheap food is still coming. Markets go up and markets go down, the successful farmer has to pay attention and hedge his bets even if that means getting into stock market futures. Like I said, business, one part is making the crop, the other is management. The guy I know that are successful do both well. And if you have no idea of economics, you WILL fail.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George E. Cawthon responds:

Craft guilds killed 'em. That's when the big influx to the cities started.

Oh, I love the farmers around here. Almost all strong conservatives (whatever that means in today's confused grouping). Strongly against welfare and msot similar government programs. But suggest taking away their tobacco allotments and price supports and whoooooweeeeeee!
Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

That doesn't mean it's <over>, just a smaller absolute number...
Regarding farm policy...
One can't generalize entirely...as in any other area of public policy, there are individuals in both the public and private sectors holding opinions across the entire spectrum. The major problem now is quite similar to other economic areas, there is no simple answer that will solve all the problems w/o creating others. Part is public policy, part is US self-reliance, part is present position and how to change that w/o total disruption of a sizable segment of the overall economy, part is the role in the continued balance of trade ...
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
George E. Cawthon wrote:

The other weird thing about these rural North Carolina farming towns is you drive in, and are greeted by a big sign that says "Bienvenido a Sometown, NC. Poblaciσn 1280." Then every other building has a Western Union billboard on it, also in Spanish, and most of the downtown stores have names like "El Mariachi Gordo" and such.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

large poultry and/or hog production facilities everywhere they exist. National Beef (packing) is the largest employer in the county here by far and in-town population here is also now majority non-Caucasian. National started out in the 60's w/ SE Asian refugees, now is more Mexican. While there are some problems, <I> don't want the job(s) they're doing, and I'd say most are doing their best to make a place for themselves and their families. I'll also give National credit for not being a major violator of green card reg's, etc. The first-generation Vietnamese, Laotions, etc., for the most part sent their kids off to school and they either became local tradespeople, etc., or left the area for other types of employment as do a majority of Caucasians young people because there aren't sufficient other opportunites, unfortunately. The Mexican traditions aren't so strong in that regard so a major task is to get them to begin to become assimilated. I'm on board of local Community College Foundation and various other ways we are beginning to make such changes visible--enrollment is up, ESL classes are <very> popular, many small businesses are becoming quite successful and these individuals are becoming more involved in C of C, civic clubs, etc.
<But>, these workers are <not> farmers and <not> representative of thegeneral actual farm-resident population. I don't know of a single one who has gone into farming/ranching in the county on his own. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the high initial cost and the limited availability of sufficient land -- the entrance for a non-farm Caucasian would be almost as stiff a hurdle.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth wrote:

Cotton too. Or hell, tobacco, apples, strawberries, basically everything. Not peaches that I've noticed. I wonder why?

Yeah, that's a bit of a sticky thing there. They do jobs nobody wants, for less money than anybody else would work for. It's almost a slave culture. On the one hand, we can't exactly put them all in college and turn them into the next generation of CEOs, but OTOH it's really not fair to keep an entire population stuck doing scut work, and living in abject poverty in grossly overcrowded conditions forever. It's really an ugly thing no matter how you look at it.
Hard workers though. Damn hard workers. I find that they're generally good and decent people just trying to make a living any way they can, who have come here to escape abject poverty and perpetual unemployment. So that's why it really sucks that they're stuck perpetually doing scut work. But then, OTOH, the alternative is pretty scary too. Next they'll want to do *my* job for 1/3 or less what I make.
I don't know what to do about it. I don't want to be seen as offering an opinion one way or the other. I am merely making observations about how I see the situation.

I've thought about getting into farming myself many times. It just seems like an honest way to make a living, and it's an important job that most people have gotten too good in their own minds to do. But you can't just go buy a farm and start farming. It takes massive capital reserves. Land is expensive, equipment is expensive, everything is expensive, and there's the inevitable learning curve that guarantees the break-even point will be many years in the future, if ever. It's a difficult proposition all around. It's really hard to get into if it's not a family legacy thing.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 22:20:00 -0500, Silvan

Yeah, but their children tend to do a whole lot better. At least here in Arizona it's the classic immigrant pattern. It's very rare for the immigrants' children to become day laborers and dishwashers.
I think that's one of the major driving forces for the (mostly) Mexican immigrants who have families here: A better life with more opportunity for their children.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rcook5 responds:

I think in most instances that has been a large part of the driving force behind all immigrants to the U.S. since...since the Pilgrims, really, even though they were forced out of Europe for trying to ram their religious ideas down others' throats.
Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That's not even revisionist History, that's plain old bigoted crap!
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

They didn't become the ramees until after they set up in New England.
--RC "Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
rcook5 responds:

Old George, with "bigoted"? Dear me. I'm a bigot.
The Pilgrims broke from the Anglican Church in an attempt to found their own Catholic Church. In the process, they were not exactly polite, and things got a wee bit rough under the British Monarchy (much of the idea the Puritans were trying to get across involved democracy that, though religious, created a stir of fear in the monarchy). They were pushy and none too bright about who they went up against. Thus, onward to Holland in 1608, where they had a hard life because of their oft expressed views, including the view that their way was the only way, sort of a pre-Falwell "my way or hell" deal that tended to irk those who didn't agree with them.
In that sense, they were, as you say, the "ramees." In fact, though, they were insisting their view of Anglican and Catholic theological matters was the only way, and making changes that worried those in power. Of course, viewing "their way" as the only way is a common trait amongst religions, so this doesn't really set them apart, then or now.
We have some slight degree of religious tolerance in this country, though not nearly as great as we pretend. The Pilgrims had none...but weren't powerful enough to enforce their way.
Charlie Self "Political language... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 23 Dec 2004 00:18:53 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.comnotforme (Charlie Self) wrote:

"Catholic?" Not even in the sense of universal.

They were anything but polite. They were the rump extremists in the Puritan movement who would not make peace with the authorities.

They were, dare I say, a Royal pain in the a**?

All true. But they didn't actively try to overthrow the established church or government. They would have been perfectly content to be left alone to do things in their own way -- which included excoriating anyone who didn't agree with them, including their nominal brethren.
Of course the idea of religious toleration was nothing if not novel in early 17th Century England. The country was enmeshed in the religious unrest -- and outright warfare -- which was sweeping Europe and everyone had the horrible examples of Germany, France and Spain before them. In those days you could make a pretty good case that not conforming to the offical religion amounted to treason. Most people in authority viewed it as subversive, at a minimum.

The puritans, including the pilgrims, were, by our lights, pretty unpleasant people. And certainly they became oppressive when they got the chance in the New World. But they weren't, in general, into oppressing anyone in England, for the simple reason they didn't have the power.

Exactly. And that's why your statement strikes me as incorrect.
Also keep in mind that the pilgrims represented only a tiny minority even within the puritan movement. Puritanism was a broad intellectual current in England at the time but only a very small number of those of Puritan sympathies were ever extreme enough to become pilgrims.

--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Substitute "Charlie" for "Pilgrims" and you've got something closer to reality.
Your observations are historically more accurate, but you must realize that anything or any one with which Charlie does not agree, regardless of accuracy, is subject to the most foul attacks. He can't seem to shed his antiestablishment bias even in the face of fact.
I'm sure you're referring, in your "unpleasant" remark, to the "government vs. individual" conflict which is as old as civilization. Only thing that kept people alive in the early years was acting in concert, but this meant the individual had to sacrifice some of themselves to gain the protection of the group. The rules were clearly enunciated, more or less democratically derived, and, by the standards of Europe, where hanging,drawing and quartering were still employed, the consequences were often fairly minor. Yet, as always, when an individual sees no personal gain in following the standards of society -or diminished threat, something we often disregard - he acts selfishly, sometimes attempting to destroy the order and process which protected and protects him.
Do you think the Puritan settlers - for the Pilgrims were much different - were any different than the intolerant elitists who are trying to overturn the US elections? Read Calvinist sermons and then Jesse Jackson, and there's not a lot of difference.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Actually I've found Charlie to be a pretty reasonable person whose posts add a lot to this NG. I haven't seen anything of the behavior your attribute to him.
He's not always right, but which of us is?

Your certaintity is misplaced.
I'm referring to the fact that most of us would have found puritans, and especially the pilgrims, anything from annoying to infuriating to be around.

Only if you're philsophically tone-deaf.
I don't know what your problem is, but you obviously have one. I am not going to get into this with you, so feel free to read me out of your particular Church of Absolute Knowledge.
--RC
"Sometimes history doesn't repeat itself. It just yells 'can't you remember anything I've told you?' and lets fly with a club. -- John W. Cambell Jr.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@TAKEOUTmindspring.com wrote:

Me. I'm always right.
Handed.
--
Michael McIntyre ---- Silvan < snipped-for-privacy@users.sourceforge.net>
Linux fanatic, and certified Geek; registered Linux user #243621
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Silvan wrote:

Some areas are much worse than others...we don't have the transient field workers here that are the prime examples of what you're talking about. While I'll not claim our local packer is lily-white and fully enlightened, they also aren't nearly as manipulative as many I've heard of. While they're demanding in terms of promptness, etc., the wages and benefits are far from poverty level even for those on the kill floor and opportunities to move up within are available...a little more foresight in some areas could probably reduce their turnover significantly, though, so I'm certainly not saying they're anyways close to perfect...

In general, I agree although there are significant numbers here that <are> going to community college and the bulk of the kids are doingpretty well in school...of course, intermediate sized communities can assimilate easier than either very small ones overwhelmed or huge ones who already have similar problems. In this area, they do have a decent wage and the opportunity if they take it to make something better for themselves and their kids. The only thing that really bothers me off is that there are a significant number of illegals who don't go through the system...that is a constant source of conflict within their community, as well...
...

If one were serious about that, there is education that can help with a lot of the experience/knowledge thing. There are opportunities in areas such as here to work for/with existing farmers who have no identified family members to take over. It would be a sacrifice for a while, but I'm aware of a number of these. Of course, there would be a <major> shock in coming to the high plains from back there... :)
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Duane Bozarth responds:

Most farms around here are small, probably under 300 acres, often much smaller. The land is too cut up by forest and hills for them to be otherwise. A large cattle operation might have land scattered over miles, but there will be other farms and houses in the spaces.
Tractors around here tend to hold about what a car or light truck would hold. The midwest monsters are not useful: they'd never get around the obstacles efficiently.
I'd guess most of the more up-to-date operations use diesel.
Farming here consists of truck farms, small cattle operations, and dairy farms. Obviously, some grains are grown, but most of it is corn for silage.
What you describe would make most Virginia farmers quit and for a factory job. In fact, that's how many of them survived. Day job in a factory--or, in the case of those like my father-in-law, the mines (just thinking about that working environment gives me nightmares)--the rest of their time on the farm. FIL did his mining long enough to pay for the acres he wanted, then went to farming full time on less than 200 very hilly acres in western Virginia. His place is in the mountains, so those articulated tractors would spend more time tumbling down the hills than they would doing useful work.
Different strokes for different areas.
Charlie Self "It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric Hoffer
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

<snip>
Those flatland farmers will never understand hill country Charlie. Western NY dairy farm, about 200 acres, rolling hills, milking about 30-35 head. Uncle's first tractor was a Farmall Super A about 1950, later a Super C, biggest tractor he ever owned was a Super H. His son did move up to a Farmall 650, later a mid size Ford diesel, but nothing over 100HP. There were times a little more HP would have been "nice", but not necessary for day to day usage.
--
Nahmie
Those on the cutting edge bleed a lot.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Norm Crow responds:

I lived in south Wisconsin for a few months. Still dairy country, but no more 30-40-50 cows. More on the order of hundreds. Single corn fields were 200+ acres. I rented a farm house and barn on a larger place. The land was leased out to a cattle farmer, who planted God alone knows how many acres in corn over a countywide area. THhir operations in harvesting kept me awake for something like 5 nights. I mean, they went for 24 hours a day, with 10 wheelers hauling the corn to silos in a steady stream.
You don't see that around here, or in upstate NY...or any of New England. The Northereastern fields are simply too cut up, so farm size is about what a field size may be in the midwest flatlands. Rolling lands, really.
I had an uncle--by marriage--whose family had a farm that amounted to two sections, up near Charlottesville. 1300 acres, IIRC. Sheep, cattle, chickens, truck farming. The fields were made too small for huge tractors by dozens of small streams, hills, minor ravines, similar features. Great place for a kid to play if he could sneak away from chores and was smart enough to watch for snakes. Besides, back then no one had huge tractors on today's scale.
I get a little nuttier than usual with too much exposure to flatlands. About all I want for flat is the above area, the Virginia Piedmont. Absolutely gorgeous country, almost as pretty as where I live now, in the foothills of the Blue Ridge, but out of what is formally called "Piedmont".
Lots of woods. Lots of wood at rational prices. I'm going to check on some local QS white oak next week. I'm told white oak, flat sawn, is in the two buck range. I'm hoping the QS variety is not more than four bucks. I'll be really, really happy if it's three bucks, but I doubt it.
Charlie Self "It is when power is wedded to chronic fear that it becomes formidable." Eric Hoffer
Add pictures here
βœ–
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.