WASHINGTON, Sept. 26 (UPI) -- The UPI think tank wrap-up is a daily digest covering opinion pieces, reactions to recent news events and position statements released by various think tanks. This is the first of two wrap-ups for September 26.
The Hoover Institution
STANFORD, Calif. -- The United States-European Union Split
By Arnold Beichman
Old habits die hard. The West European democracies have a history of tossing the weak off the speeding sled in hopes of appeasing the wolves.
Czechoslovakia was tossed off the Anglo-French sled in 1938 to satisfy a ravening Hitler. When the Soviet satellites rose in rebellion in 1953, 1956, and 1968 against the Kremlin tyrants, the bordering West European democracies did nothing. Their behavior then as now is reminiscent of Benjamin Disraeli's judgment of English statesman Sir Robert Peel: "His judgment was faultless provided he had not to deal with the future."
That the Soviet Union finally fell has little to do with Western Europe and everything to do with President Ronald Reagan. Had it been up to continental Europe in the 1980s there would still be a Bolshevik Russia.
The United States is now the victim that the European Union would like to toss off the sled. Fortunately, we are not in the EU sled, nor, despite the pressing invitations, do we intend to get on. The EU is building up the United States as the rogue elephant superpower whom it is trying to cage. What an amnesiac EU forgets is that it is not the United States alone that is the Islamist target but Western civilization itself.
Czechoslovakia was to be Hitler's last target; he even signed a piece of paper to that effect. Neville Chamberlain (England) and Edouard Daladier (France) scoffed at the notion that Hitler's real target was the West European democracies. And today? I'm not sure whom the EU regards as the greater threat to world peace: America or Saddam Hussein. Perhaps French president Jacques Chirac really believes that the terrorist wing among the Islamist migrants who live in high-rise slums outside of Paris is dreaming of the day when they become part of the French haute bourgeoisie.
A recent episode demonstrates the EU finger-in-the-eye attitude toward America. In May 2001 the New York Times reported what in effect was a victory for Europe over the United States: "In a move that reflected a growing frustration with America's attitude toward international organizations and treaties, the United States was voted off the United Nations Commission on Human Rights today for the first time since the panel's founding under American leadership in 1947 ... The unexpected move, which came in a secret vote, was apparently supported even by some friends of the United States ... Friends of the United States in Europe and elsewhere have grown increasingly impatient, disappointed and annoyed with actions by Washington."
So to get even with the United States, they elected these undeviating violators of human rights: China, Cuba, Syria, Libya, and, unbelievably, slaveholding Sudan. And even more unbelievable, the CHR has just elected Libya as its chair!
Western Europe has made its choice: keep Saddam Hussein in power. President Bush says no. We are virtually alone in our determination to go to war against the Iraqi dictatorship.
So was Britain in 1940 when Winston Churchill took over the reins of a tottering nation. The difference today is that the United States is not tottering.
(Arnold Beichman, an expert in international relations, is a political scientist, writer, and former journalist and has been a visiting scholar and research fellow at the Hoover Institution since 1982.)
The Reason Foundation
LOS ANGELES -- I don't care where my food comes from -- and neither should you.
By Ronald Bailey
"People should know where their food comes from," an organic farmer from Montana declared at a conference on agriculture and the environment I attended this past weekend, sponsored by the Political Economy Research Center. This notion is increasingly popular among political environmentalists. It is usually a shorthand way to express opposition to genetically enhanced crops and to convey approval for their organic equivalents.
From a nutritional and ecological point of view, the idea is bunk.
First, a bit of background. It is not at all surprising that most Americans think that chickens come plastic-wrapped without bones, that milk pours from gallon jugs, or that fresh fruit can be picked year around. After all, less than two percent of the country lives on farms today.
But when I was growing up in the 1960s I knew exactly where at least 90 percent of the food I ate came from: my family's crops. Every tomato, bean, squash, cucumber, pea, potato, ear of corn, turnip, mustard green, carrot, and cabbage I ate came from our huge garden. We picked wild blackberries and grew gallons of strawberries. We had cherry, apple, peach, walnut, and European chestnut trees. We canned nearly everything and had a root cellar. Our honey came from more than 20 beehives.
As for meat, we raised and slaughtered all the beef, pork, chicken, goat, lamb, and turkey we ate. Our milk came from our dairy herd, and we spent many hours churning butter. The domesticated meat was occasionally supplemented with squirrel, groundhog, opossum, and mud turtle. Although I didn't much care for them, our fish consisted of crappies and catfish taken from the farm ponds.
My father's standing orders for butchering the beef was to make as many steaks as possible and turn everything else into hamburger. The meat was wrapped in waxed butcher paper and stored in giant freezer chests. We had a smokehouse in which we salted our own hams. I even knew the names of the cows and pigs we ate. You can't know much more about where your food comes from than that.
It is precisely this personal food history that makes me cherish modern grocery stores and restaurants. American grocers can choose what they offer their customers from among more than 320,000 different packaged foods. As a kid, it was an enormous treat to go to the local Piggly Wiggly to buy tasty exotic prepackaged items like hot dogs, spaghetti, and Velveeta. (Incidentally, it was Piggly Wiggly that invented the novel concept that customers should be allowed to roam a store's aisles and pick out their own groceries.) And the proliferation of fine restaurants in the last two decades has been amazing.
Which brings me back to the absurd assertion that everybody should know where his or her food comes from. I knew where my food came from because it took my family a huge percentage of our time just to do the mind-numbing and back-breaking labor of raising it. Of course, we sold our surplus cows, milk, and wool for money so that we could buy incidentals like clothing, medicines, books, refrigerators, televisions, tractors, trucks, and cars. And no one hectored us about knowing where those items came from.
One of the great glories of modern life is the enormous elaboration of the division of labor and how the efficiencies gained from that division makes people much wealthier than they could otherwise be. Since we all don't have to stitch our own clothes, bake our own bread, compound our own medicines, or even cook our own meals, we are all much better off. This is why as a society we can afford to have economic niches like pet dentists and manufacturers of elastomolds for pastry chefs who specialize in baking madeleines.
And why should they care? Food today is cheap, nutritious, and safe. The last century has seen a vast improvement in food quality and safety. In millennia past, food and water were the chief sources of many deadly diseases. Consider that as recently as 1933-35, a U.S Public Health Service survey found that 5,458 children between the ages of 1 and 15 died from diarrhea and enteritis, most caused by food-borne pathogens.
By contrast, a recent survey by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control found that just 29 Americans died of food-borne illnesses between 1993 and 1997. Meanwhile, stomach cancer rates are down by 75 percent since 1950 because old-fashioned food preservation techniques like salting, pickling, and smoking have been replaced by refrigeration.
That doesn't mean people are or should be prevented from learning about where their food comes from, if that's the way they want to spend their time. Among life's greatest pleasures are fine dining and food connoisseurship. The expanding division of labor and our growing technological prowess is nurturing more and more differentiation among foods, permitting the creation and appreciation of thousands of wines, cheeses, chocolates, coffees, teas, and so forth.
I might prefer parmigiano-reggiano versus your inexplicable fondness for boursin. Or I might think that Rombauer Napa Valley Zinfandel is nectar and sniff at that swill from Australia that you quaff. Today, you can choose "slow food" (though it has some unsavory ideological baggage) over fast food, or choose both when that suits you.
Nor is there anything wrong with waking up on Saturday mornings to rush out to the local farmers market. I, too, cannot resist organic heirloom tomatoes. I buy organic not because such foods are ecologically or nutritionally superior -- they aren't -- but simply because the local lady who grows the Brandywines, Mortgage Lifters, and Yellow Pears I crave chooses that method of production. I'm glad she grows them, not least because that means that I don't have to anymore.
For those who are deluded enough to think that organic foods are nutritionally superior, the market makes the opportunity to buy them widely available, generally at a 30-percent price premium. (Ideologically motivated organic aficionados should keep in mind that organic production typically yields a third less food than other means. That means that more land is being plowed down, leaving less for forests and other wildlands.)
But there is something wrong with the puritanical notion that it's a sin to live in blithe ignorance of the ultimate sources of your nourishment. Life is too short for most people to learn how to fix their computers and cars, and too short for most to learn about food production. And that's just fine. Eating shouldn't be a moral duty; it should be a pleasure.
(Ronald Bailey, Reason's science correspondent, is the editor of "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" and "Earth Report 2000: Revisiting the True State of the Planet.")