American Elephants


Haying in Umbria by The Elephant's Child
September 28, 2013, 8:32 pm
Filed under: Europe, Freedom, History | Tags: , ,

Here’s how they cut hay in the mountains in Umbria, in Italy. I’ve seen plenty of haying, and various methods of stacking, baling, and storing hay. I don’t know if this is as relatively easy as it looks, but I’m impressed.  In my part of the world, you grow alfalfa on the flat parts and let the hills grow wild and the cows wander.

In many ways this is a reminder of how old Europe is as a well settled place. America grew gradually by waterways. Towns were built here there was a source for transportation: rivers, the confluence of trails, mountain passes, old Indian trails eventually became modern highways. Because land was plentiful, the best level farming land close by a water source was taken up first. Railroads followed the lay of the land and connected the areas that were built up. Europe was more crowded, towns and cities are built in places that in America would remain national parks. Building on a mountain or on an outcropping could protect from invading armies, and in Europe there were always invading armies.

(h/t: Maggie’s Farm)

ADDENDUM: If you are so inclined, it’s fun to go to You Tube, and enter haying in the search function. You can see the Amish method, haying with mules, and all sorts of amazing farm machinery.



Other Voices: by The Elephant's Child

“…it’s worth noting … that there is something fundamentally unpatriotic in the yearning to fundamentally transform your country. I love my wife. Inherent to loving her is loving her for who she is. Gentlemen, turn to your wife and say, “Honey, I love you completely. It’s just that I want to fundamentally transform you into someone else.” See how that plays out. If you want to fundamentally transform the object of your affection so that it conforms to your fantasies, that is not love…” —Jonah Goldberg, National Review

Psychologically (as well as rhetorically), the individual mandate is very important to the left.  Obamacare is all about coercion—about forcing people to do things they don’t freely choose to do—and the individual mandate serves as its coercive core.  It’s what allows Obama to grasp onto the thinnest reed of legitimacy when describing Obamacare as offering “universal coverage,” despite the CBO’s estimate that, even after ten years and $1.8 trillion, Obamacare would cover less than 45 percent of the uninsured (at the whopping cost of $72,000 per newly insured person).  That’s a far cry from “universal coverage.”  But one can think of it—and describe it—as “universal,” so long as one is forcing every American, as a matter of federal law, to do the government’s bidding.  Without the individual mandate, Obamacare would cease to be “universal coverage,” even in the sense of being universally coercive, and would simply become “45 percent coverage.”  That would be demoralizing to the left. Jeffrey H. Anderson, Weekly Standard

…the implication from Democrats that once a bill becomes a law, it is as indelible as the Ten Commandments, etched into rock by the hand of God Himself, is precious when we consider the source. The Democrats, after all, mounted a 10-year campaign against the “Bush tax cuts,” and did so despite defeat after defeat on the issue. Those tax cuts joined a long line of laws that the country later substantially revised or repealed entirely. A partial list includes: the Clinton tax increases, portions of the Reagan tax cuts, the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, portions of the Kennedy tax cuts, the gold standard, portions of the National Labor Relations Act, Prohibition, the direct election of senators, the Sherman Silver Purchase Act, innumerable tariff schedules set during the 19th century, the three-fifths clause, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, the Missouri Compromise, the Second Bank of the United States, the original rules of the Electoral College, the Articles of Confederation, and, of course, the rule of King George III. Jay Cost, Weekly Standard

… it is widely presumed that the president’s wishes should serve as the baseline for the debate. This makes little sense. Yes, the president can veto anything he doesn’t like. But so can the House. Why is it incumbent upon the House to come up with a platform that the president likes and not vice-versa? After all, the House is at the top of the fiscal hierarchy, followed closely by the Senate, and then, last and very much least, by the president, who, remember, is supposed primarily to concern himself with foreign affairs. Sure, Barack Obama may have won election to head up the executive branch. But, this being a constitutional republic not an parliamentary monarchy, that doesn’t give him carte blanche over legislative and fiscal matters. The idea that there is anything wrong with the House demanding fiscal and legislative concessions from the executive branch is absurd. Especially, perhaps, when the point of contention is a deeply unpopular piece of legislation and the matter at hand is fiscal. Charles C.W. Cooke, National Review

…they paled in comparison to the dishonesty of the president’s central claim, which was that the attempt to link defunding to the debt-ceiling fight is illegitimate because Obamacare has “nothing to do with the budget.” I struggle to imagine how the president could have kept a straight face when he said this. This is a law, remember, that was crowbarred through Congress with the questionable use of reconciliation, a parliamentary procedure that is reserved exclusively for budgetary matters; a law that was sold as a deficit-reduction measure; a law that contains a significant spending component, including a 5-10 percent increase in the size of the federal budget; and, alas, a law that boasts a central mandate that was upheld (rewritten) by the Supreme Court as a tax, thus ensuring that any changes to the penalties must be approved by the House. “Nothing to do with the budget”? This is what we call a lie…Charles C.W. Cooke, National Review



Neil Cavuto Speaks Up! Enough is Enough! by The Elephant's Child


%d bloggers like this: