Oops! Slips Show 2 Ways

HELLO, FOLKS! I don't like these off the shoulder gowns. It seems that women's styles go from one extreme to the other. Less than ten years ago women were wearing their dresses as high as the law allowed. All of a sudden they went to the sudden extreme and covered the ankles at the same time they started lowering the neckline. Down and down it came until the shoulder points showed. They didn't stop there, they went the limit, and how they hold them up now I don't know. I suppose they got some springy wires along the top and squeeze the torso just above the curves.

I wonder how much lower they can go without getting in dutch with the law?

Now, me! I like the beauty of any kind. I get as much enjoyment out of looking at properly dressed beautiful women as anyone, but I can't quite figure out what the women are up to, going to such extremes.

They don't add to the personality, nor to the character, and they certainly detract from the beauty of the face, without adding to the body, and they are a mighty poor substitute for character and personality.

If the women do it to attract the male population, they certainly aren't attracting the kind they would want to hook up with for life.

Oh, well! Who knows? Some day they may come to their senses and dress a bit more modestly.

If women dress to express themselves it appears some of them don't have much to say.

—o—

What we are is God's gift to us.
What we become is our gift to God.

—o—

No man can move a mountain
Who did not first learn to move small stones.

—0—

The word "parity" is one of the most abused and misused words in the dictionary. "Parity" means "a price that is fair in relation to other prices." There is nothing wrong with the definition of it; what is wrong is how the politicians who farm the farmers and farmers who farm the government, figure it.

The method of figuring parity is so thoroughly out dated that it means nothing. It is figured on 1910 to 1914 basis. It does not take into consideration today's cost of production, modern machinery, and scientific methods. One person will figure it one way, another the other and their figures will vary as high as 50 per cent.

It seems to me that we need a completely new way of computing parity. The method I would use would be like this:

Take from actual farm management records the cost of producing a given crop that can be grown efficiently in an adapted area. Figure into the cost the labor, depreciation etc. In this manner parity could be correctly defined each year and would always be up to date. As costs will vary from year to year it would be wise to use a 5 year record, each year adding the figures just completed and dropping the record that is 6 years old.

In Florida the grapefruit growers can make money with prices at 30 to 40 per cent of the present day way of figuring parity. The wheat growers of the areas best suited for wheat can make money on wheat at 50 per cent of parity. At the same time the cattlemen can scarcely raise cattle at less than full parity under the old formula.

—o—

Another thing we need to get rid of is the cargo preference bill which states that 50 per cent of all exports under Public Law 480 must be shipped in U. S. Ships. It is costing us many millions of dollars annually in sales and addition shipping costs.

Why Plant Fields Now?

Hello Folks — I was brought up in the old fashioned school that believes in hard work. I was taught that the commandment, "By the sweat of thy brow thou shalt earn they bread," was a blessing not a curse.

I have always enjoyed life and have always had to work hard. I tried to be unemployed for a while and I found myself doing the things I always dreamed of doing someday when I had nothing else to do, that I ended up working harder than I probably would have if I had had a regular job.

Times have changed, and the new school of thought is that you are something of a bad name if you work more than 40, or is it now 25, hours a week. Guess it is called moonlighting: Or is it scabbing? Well, anyway, the thought seems to be that if we work more than a certain number of hours we are taking work away from someone else.

I seem to be confused. I want to be patriotic, in fact I want to go the extra mile. If it is right to be patriotic. If it is wrong to work more than 40 hours a week it must be even more right to work less than the 40, or 25.

I have to do a lot of planning in my farming operation to be able to make ends meet. And with all that planning I end up doing so much work that I average closer to 80 hours a week than 40. If that isn't patriotic then I will have to mend my ways and figure means to cut the work load down to size. I am quite sure that if I ... work I should be able to succeed. So here is how my thoughts go.

I got a letter from the ASC saying that for a limited number of acres I can get paid up to about $10 an acre for using good soil building practices.

Now it should be obvious to everyone that such practices are the ones that cause the over production. Along comes another letter from the same office that they will pay me up to $40 an acre if I will lay aside up to 40 per cent of my alloted acres for not planting the crops that can be raised by the better soil.

Now that is a tempting proposition, but my land is very fertile and I might still do my own farming. Therefore I should trade it for a farm that is mostly sand hill and slope, after all I get paid almost the same for not farming that, and the extra money I would use for a vacation being that I am now not going to work much.

I could, of course, invest the money in interest - producing stocks but why do that? I will be getting Social Security in another 20 years and I would not be patriotic if I worked hardly at all then, and beside that I will be looked down upon if I get too much income from interest of my money. No, I think I will just spend it.

Now of course I have to be careful to not get too much money from the government or I will not be eligible to receive surplus food.

That requires a lot of planning too. I have been taught to be thrifty with my food. We don't waste enough food at our house to feed our tiny dog. With the surplus food we will be getting we will have to waste a lot. According to informed sources we couldn't possibly eat it all or if we did we would all be fatties.

It isn't patriotic to send it to others; in fact it is downright criminal. So I guess we will have to get a bunch of pets to eat up the bountiful crumbs that fall from our table that is so generously provided as a result of out being patriotic.

My hog operation presents a problem too. I should be in favor of allowing Uncle Orv to pay me for not producing so many hogs but if I do that it might place me over that cut off point for surplus food, and I wouldn't surely want that, after all we have to get rid of the surpluses.

I'll have to train my sons to be patriotic too. When that come home from the service I will.