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.