Ed Viewed An Emperor

Hello Folks!! I saw the Emperor of Ethiopia (Halie Selassie) in Austin a couple weeks ago. I happened to be in Austin. I noticed a lot of people lining the street so I followed suit. After quite a wait he came from the Hormel plant.

The Parade was headed by a police car with signals flashing and as the procession entered Main Street the siren sounded. I saw his grand-daughter also. She looked pretty much like any other person from the glimpse I got of her. I was rather surprised that Haile Selassie looked as young as he does. Of course from the pitch of his hat brim to his chin there wasn't much distance, but I was less than 10 feet from him.

It is interesting to recall the recent history of Ethiopia. When Mussolini invaded the country Selassie protested to the League of Nations, but the politicians were too busy playing politics to listen to him. Mussolini ended his life in the typical fashion of all tyrants. Today Haile Selassie injoys the privilege of ruling between 10 and 15 million people. It brings to mind what the Savior said, "The meek shall inherit the earth."

—o—

I think giving is the secret of a successful life. And I think we never reach the point of diminishing returns if we give the proper thing and in the proper time and place. However, I do think indiscriminate giving just for the sake of giving can be a terrible liability. For instance at one time our government was giving anything and everything to Russia without a thought of the consequences. The taxpayer was saddled with heavy burdens of taxes and federal debt to do so. Now we are being saddled with even heavier debts and taxes just to pay for our folly. The same way with dozens of other countries. They get the gifts then turn around and despise us for it.

It works the same way with children. While a proper gift at a proper time will help to show our love toward a child, if those gifts are given too often without the child earning them they almost invariably become selfish and fail to develop character. I have almost forgotten the quotation in "The Vision of Sir Launfall" "It's not what you give but what you share, for the gift without the giver is bare." I think when we learn to give properly we will have gone a long ways toward eliminating wars and bitterness.

A bitter tongue can burn up more people than an incendiary bomb. A winner never quits, a quitter never wins.

—o—

The column I wrote two weeks ago sounded awfully hard-hearted when I read it. I imagine it did to you readers also. It was mostly because I left out one adverb. No wonder the editor gave it such a startling title.

—o—

John Nyenhuis and family were heading for California. They were traveling across the hot Mojave Desert. They saw a tiny speck down the road. As they drew closer the discovered it was a man in a bathing suit. John, the ever courteous, stopped the car to see if he could aid the man. "Yes", the man said, "How far is it to the ocean?" "Oh! about 300 or 400 miles," says John. "My! My! It is a wide beach, isn't it?" exclaimed the man.

That's Exactly What He Means

HELLO FOLKS: Rog, Skophammer enhanced the Pied Pipers column by having his wife write in his place. Her stories about the children reminded us about ours. Brent is three, going on four. About six months ago at breakfast time he asked for a soft egg. His mother obliged with a soft fried egg. He didn't want it.
"I want a soft one."
"Well this is soft."
"No, one like this." and he picked out one that was fried hard.
"That is a hard one," his mother informed him.
"Well it is soft to me." and that was that. To this day when he wants a soft egg he means just the opposite.

He has a mind strictly his own. The only way it can be changed is with a pat on the back; low enough and hard enough to be effective. Of course some things are not important enough to warrant that, such is the case with the egg. In fact, it is quite humorous.

—o—

ONE OF THE interesting observations about farm politics and policies is the change in thinking concerning the programs. For several years we heard a lot of talking about 100 per cent of parity. The parties who did most of the talking about it seemed to think they knew what parity was.

Now that their favorite candidates are in office the idea of full parity has been quietly laid to rest after having been given a fatal dose of 'facing facts'. It and talk about the danger of the family farm losing its place have suddenly become unpopular.

Not that full parity shouldn't be our aim and it could be a realized goal if we would just go after it in the right manner. The problem is in getting enough farmers to agree on the means, and getting the politicians out of the 'pudding'.

We have a clear example of how it can be achieved. All we have to do is look at the products that have no government interference. They are generally the most profitable. The only exceptions are the products where the famers under controls can horn in on the others farmer's markets and run them competition.

The politicians would like to have put a floor of $13 or $14 on hogs about seven years ago. Statesmen refused to go along with the plan and the result is hogs have averaged nearly $4 a hundred more than that since then.

One of the surest ways of assuring the farmers a better income is to put the support price low enough that it does not encourage excessive production. How about zero to 70 per cent, as the secretary suggested.

Small State Has Big Name

Hello Folks! — What's in a name? Rhode Island which is the smallest state in the Union has the longest name.

—o—

A small community is one where you chat for a while on the phone even if you got the wrong number.

—o—

In a column written by Drew Pearson a while back, mention was made of the fact that food prices went up two per cent since 1952, while at the same time prices to the farmer dropped 16 per cent. 

In writing his column Mr. Pearson was doing his best to smear the present Administration and blame it for the condition. It is true that that is the way prices have gone until lately; but he fails to put the blame where it belongs.

There are three reasons why farm prices fell. One was because we were coming down off a war time peak, and the demand for the food was not so great. Two, Congress (in its effort on won votes) kept high supports (which were put there to encourage production) in which in effect gave many of our young farmers a false incentive to go into farming when they should have gone into high paying jobs that were begging for good men. Three, the farm efficiency went up almost 25 per cent in that length of time, which was bound to reflect in the market place and give the consumer a better buy. In the meantime the cost of processing went up in the direct proportion to the wage increases, minus the greater efficiency. 

It is true that the big processors made bigger profits. Their business expanded as they were more efficient. At the same time the small businesses lost ground. This is to be regretted unless we realize that it added to our standard of living. It seems that in our social progress there is bound to be growing pains, we can either work with this progress and adjust or fight it and get hurt worse. 

We know that around here the small creameries have faded out and the stronger ones have grown. The same thing happens in a forest as it matures. If it did not do so there would be no tall timbers for lumber. So all in all, while we regret to see the small community enterprises die out, it seems to be all for the best and we learn to adjust to the changes and in a little while we see the advantage in the change.

—o—

Congratulations to Cliff Cairns on his promotion to the position of manager of our Wilson and Co plant. I am sure that it was a good move. I had the pleasure of working with Cliff on the Minnesota Spring Barrow Show and realized then that he had a real gift for following though on a project, along with a sound approach to the problems at hand. No doubt these qualities and the 'spirit of motivation' were the things that qualified him for the position. I am quite sure that I speak for the community when I say "Best wishes and success in your new job, Cliff."

—o—

I see that one long range forecaster is predicting a dry spring and a wet July. I agree with him. In my observation of the weather, I have noticed that we generally get our rains from 90 to 100 days after heavy winds. For instance we generally get our most winds in Feb. and March and our heaviest rainfall in June. This year we got very little wind until the second week of April, and it has not stopped blowing as of this writing. So look out for July.