In recent months we have seen and heard much about the upcoming presidential contest. “Who will the next president be?” is the key question that every newsperson and political pundit is asking. All the political analysts are examining poll numbers and demographics. All have opinions and probably only few will be correct.

In the mean time we common folks would like to know what the future holds. We are mesmerized by this whole process and waste countless hours following the progress. Some of us are trying to determine whom we will vote for. Some of us just don’t care. The rest of us have our minds made up already. I must admit I am attracted to the debates and I believe I have made up my mind on this issue. But this is not why I am writing. I am not trying to convince you toward any one candidate. I am going to tell you who will be the next president.

To do this I want to discuss with you the past. I believe historical trends can be good indicators of future political outcomes. The indicator I will focus on is each president’s past employment.

President Previous Job or Post Held

George W. Bush Governor
Bill Clinton Governor
George Bush Vice President
Ronald Reagan Governor
Jimmy Carter Governor
Gerald Ford Vice President
Richard Nixon Vice President, (Ran but not elected as governor.)
Lyndon Johnson Vice President
John F Kennedy Senator, (PT Boat Commander. Almost was VP candidate in 1956.)
Dwight D. Eisenhower General (Supreme Allied Commander)
Harry S. Truman Vice President
Franklin D. Roosevelt Governor
Herbert Hoover Secretary of Commerce under Presidents Harding and Coolidge
Calvin Coolidge Governor
Warren G. Harding Lieutenant Governor
Woodrow Wilson Governor
William Howard Taft Governor (Philippines)/ Secretary of War
Theodore Roosevelt Governor
William McKinley Governor and General
Grover Cleveland President (Re-elected after a term off)
Benjamin Harrison Senator, (Ran for but not elected as governor.) Colonel
Grover Cleveland Governor
Chester A Arthur Vice President
James A. Garfield Congressman, General
Rutherford B. Hates Congressman, General
Ulysses S. Grant General in Chief of Union Forces
Andrew Johnson Vice President/ Military Governor of Tennessee
Abraham Lincoln Illinois state legislator, Captain in the Black Hawk War
James Buchanan Secretary of State/Minister to Great Britain
Franklin Pierce Soldier/Senator
Millard Fillmore Vice President
Zachary Taylor General
James K. Polk Governor and Vice President contender
John Tyler Vice President/Governor
William Henry Harrison Territorial Governor/General
Marten Van Buren Vice President
Andrew Jackson General/Senator
John Qunicy Adams Secretary of State, Senator
James Monroe Minister to France, Senator
James Madison Secretary of State, Constitutional Congress Delegate
Thomas Jefferson Vice President
John Adams Vice President
George Washington General

Summary:

Vice Presidents that went on to become Presidents: 12 or 27.9% of total.

Governors just prior to becoming Presidents: 14 (Includes Garfield twice.) or 32.5% of total.

Lieutenant Governors just prior to becoming Presidents: 1 or 2% of total.

Generals/Military Heroes who went straight, (more or less), from military service to become
presidents: 5 or 11.6% of total.

Generals/War Heroes who became Senators/Congressmen and then presidents: 4 or 9.3% of total.

Cabinet Members only just before becoming presidents: 5 (3 of these were members of the
Continental Congress that later served as cabinet members.) or 11.6% of total.

Presidents that were only senators or congressmen prior to becoming presidents: 1 (Franklin Pierce)

Those that held jobs less than that of a senator or congressmen: 1 (Abraham Lincoln was a State legislator and a Captain in the Black Hawk Wars. His national fame was acquired during the famous Lincoln/Douglas debates.

Total Presidents: 43

Conclusion:

With these statistics who would you predict will become the next president? No former vice-presidents are running. No former Generals/Military Heroes are running. We do have 3 former governors running.

Bill Richards: (democrat), was governor of New Mexico.

Mike Huckabee: (republican), was governor of Arkansas.

Mitt Romney: (republican), was governor of Massachusetts.

Without political bias of any kind, just looking at historical statistics, one of these 3 gentlemen will be the next president. In the absence of a former vice-president running, such as Al Gore, or a military general/hero running, such as Colin Powel, these governors seem to be the odds on favorites. In our entire history, only 2 presidents had only senatorial experience or less prior to being elected. These were Franklin Pierce and Abraham Lincoln.

Both of these men had had active duty military experience. This may match some of the candidates such as John McCain. Most candidates, in both parties, do not measure up to the historical standards of what has been deemed acceptable as a “president”. These lesser candidates will truly be “long shots” and “dark horses”. They all have a chance, but not very good chances.

But, historical trends can be thwarted. At some point a women, such as Hilary Clinton will be elected president. At some point an African American will be elected president. These occurrences may come surprisingly from out of the blue. But, I believe this will only happen after these folks have been generals, vice presidents, war heroes, or high-ranking cabinet members first.

Even having said what I have, history will be made if any one of these three men is elected.

Bill Richards would be the first Hispanic president.

Mike Huckabee would be the first Baptist preacher elected to the presidency.

Mitt Romney would be the first Mormon president.

Who will it be? Time will certainly tell. Let us all pray for the best person to lead this nation through these uncertain times.

By Craig Bradley
www.adventagriculture@juno.com

Organic gardening is a relatively recent phenomenon. This is not to say that for the vast majority of the Earth’s history organic gardening hasn’t occurred. It has. In fact, until our modern age, man was forced to raise crops and live out his or her life eating organically produced vegetables. They didn’t think of it as organic. It was just the way the world was back then. The term “organic gardening” would best be thought of as a new label for a very old activity. It is just thought of as “new” when compared to modern farming technology.

Organic garden is “organic” because it is different than the way food is being mass-produced today. The term “organic” has been equated with “better” or “superior”. Modern common sense seems to prove that organic food is better for us and thus worth the extra we must pay for it. But let us slow down a bit in our assumptions. Maybe even back up and look at this whole notion a bit differently.

The term “organic produce” refers to edible food items that have been grown without the use of commercially prepared pesticides and artificially prepared fertilizers. To be labeled as “organic” a producer of some food item must be inspected by the appropriate agencies, and pass a certain set federal standards. When the inspection is passed, the producer may legally sell the products as “organic”. As of late, this certification process has become very precise and regulated.

Here are some of my observations and opinions concerning this matter.

First, the background of those who are the real movers and shakers of this movement is suspicious. The regular rank and file folks who desire organic produce are mostly nice, sincere, but misguided people. It is the leaders I am referring to here. Those in charge of the movement. Trust me, this is a movement and there are leaders. Allow me to illustrate this point.

Not long ago I moved into a new area and was taken to a local store that specialized in selling many supposed health improvement items such as herbs and natural vitamins. They also sold organic produce. The friend I was with introduced me to the manager of the store as being interested in growing organic produce. This introduction was not exactly accurate. I am not an organic gardener. Never have been. Never will be. I was just looking at any possible contacts in the community. You know, networking.

Any way, the store manager, upon hearing this introduction, said, “Great!” “We need to raise more organic produce and stick it to those &$@#*&^&^ big oil companies!”

Big oil companies? His tone was revolutionary. Defiant. Then I noticed something else about him. He was a bit older than I, which put him up into his late 50s. His hair was a bit longer than is norm right now. He had a beard that was graying some. I thought, “An old hippy.” And it made sense. He had probably gone through Vietnam like many of my generation. He had probably gone through the college “scene” of the 60s. I could even see him participating in sit-ins, and anti-war protests and marches. He was obviously anti “Big Oil” and viewed it as “The Man” that must be fought against. Real anti-establishment. One small way of protesting is via promoting organic produce.

I didn’t talk to him for long, with my part being that of a polite listener. I try not to argue with strangers or fools and in this case I was dealing with both. I save my real arguing for close friends and family members. This encounter did open up a whole new way for me to look at this issue. Until then I thought organic advocates were just health nuts. This guy changed that point of view. He was political.

As a Seventh-day Adventist educator, I am around the Adventist health message a lot. When an SDA gets into organic gardening, it is almost completely for health reasons. I know of no Adventist that is involved in organics that does it for purely political reason. They want to reduce and even eliminate all of the perceived “bad stuff” from coming into their bodies. They want to keep their bodies a “temple” and don’t want the “bad stuff” in their body temples.

It should be remembered that politics do play an important role in the organic movement’s leadership and motivation. It is a way that they can exert power and influence over forces that they could not otherwise affect. They have lobbyists, agendas, and movers and shakers.

I will go even a step further. Organic gardening is an important element of the religion of many people. The folks that I am referring to are those described by Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, and Sean Hannity. Organic leaders are liberals who have made a religion out of their anti-war, global warming, save the whales, raise taxes, pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage, anti Nativity Scene, Big Brother political philosophies. They are indeed the “Godless”, (big G), as Ann Coulter has described in her book, but do have a god, (little g). “Organic” is part of their health message with which they are trying to influence society toward their way of thinking.

Secondly, I disagree with how organic advocates have categorized the “bad stuff” that they don’t want in their produce. Remember, for a product to be organic it must have been raised without the use of man-made pesticides and fertilizers. Why these two things? Why pesticides and fertilizers?

I can sort of half understand the desire for the elimination of the pesticides. Pesticides kill things like insects, fungus, and weeds. They are a poison to some living organism so maybe they might adversely affect human health. Maybe, just maybe, this is true. I am not sure this is a real valid concern, especially with the modern regulation of agricultural chemicals. DDT is long gone as are a number of other older and powerful pesticides. What they have been replaced with are much different. Their sale and use is tightly controlled and monitored.

To illustrate this point, there was a time back in history when medicine was bad. Medicines were basically poisons. Hospitals were unsanitary. Then science came along and things got better. Medicines were tested and regulated. The germ theory and antiseptics and antibiotics revolutionized modern life. Modern agriculture compared to even just back in the 50s and 60s is like comparing modern medicine to that of the Civil War era. Things have changed and are better now.

I personally believe these new agri chemicals are many times better than the old generation chemicals. I believe the world’s food supply is perfectly safe with their proper use. I do submit that an argument could be made that pesticides might be problematic. But I do not understand the organic movement’s hatred of commercially prepared fertilizer. I see the fertilizer issue as completely separate.

You see, when a plant encounters a nutrient in the soil, it cares not if it came from a sack purchased at Walmart or was shoveled there from the chicken coup. A plant takes up what it needs and does not ask questions. I am a big believer in given a plant what it needs; especially the micronutrients. This balance can best be accomplished with the use of commercially prepared fertilizer.

I think that the fertilizer aspect of the organic movement is really part of the political agenda. It has nothing to do with the health of the plant nor the health of the person eating the produce. As such I believe that it should be excluded as a standard of the produce being organic or not.

Thirdly, is everything that is put on an organic garden really organic? I was recently looking through a catalog of organic supplies. I must admit that there is an impressive list of products one can purchase and they are all considered “organic”. But they are not all natural. Most must be filtered, crushed, mixed, heated, blended or in some other way altered by man. An example is insecticidal soap.

Insecticidal soap is a soapy substance that when sprayed on an insect, plugs up the breathing openings and suffocates the pest. I believe this is a safe product to use and probably somewhat effective on some insects. I have used it. It most likely does not hurt the environment. But it is not a naturally occurring substance. It does not grow on trees. You can’t dig it up from the ground. Nowhere in nature does it naturally kill harmful insects. It is man-made, and artificial, but is for some reason generally accepted as organic. A ladybug eating an aphid is natural. Insecticidal soap? Not natural. Apparently, what are included in the organic agri-chemicals are those that make us feel safe and comfortable using. Soap we understand. Malathion we don’t understand and so doesn’t make the average person “feel” very safe.

Lastly, organic agriculture is just not practical on a large scale. If you want to raise one tomato plant totally organic, so that you have what some consider a perfectly healthy tomato, you can tend to it in such as way as to not need pesticides and maybe not need commercial fertilizers. You can lavish it with your time and love and money and be rewarded. It is quite another thing to raise a 100 acres of tomatoes or a thousand acres in the same way. It could be done, maybe, but at a tremendous cost. But what about all the tomatoes in the USA? Or all the tomatoes in whole world? I speculate that it would be impossible and that is just one crop. Now include, all the grapes in the world, all the cabbage, all the rice, all the corn, etc. The task would be mind-bogglingly impossible and extremely expensive. The reality is that even if it could be done, starvation would most likely kill millions that currently are well feed, but whom could not afford such expensive food. In short, organic is a luxury that is affordable only by the more affluent humans in the more affluent countries.

I guess the mind is confused by a pseudo-science like organic gardening that for thousands of years basically failed mankind. It was not until modern agriculture, with the help of commercially prepared pesticides and fertilizers, started producing incredible amounts of food, that people lived longer and were healthier and modern countries developed. I don’t think that in this instance the past was better than the present.

Summary

I believe that organic foods are impractical on a large-scale basis. An individual might be successful growing organic produce for his or her personal use, but this would be on a very same scale. The individual would need to spend more time and money and then harvest less usable produce. They would however “feel” safe and protected.

I believe that the regulations for “organic” should not include the source of the fertilizer. Bag or compost; it doesn’t matter where it comes from, as long as the plant is provided all the needed nutrients.

I believe that this whole organic movement is directly linked to the political agenda of the liberal elites that are so disapproving of almost everything good that modern man has accomplished.

It should be remembered that just because something is labeled as “organic”, this does not mean that it more natural, more healthy, or more environmentally friendly. “Organic” just means that some very arbitrary and unscientific set of production standards have been met and that those standards were set in accordance with a philosophy that is suspect at best.

Finally, modern agriculture has evolved from a history of organically producing food to what it is today. Today modern agriculture keeps more people healthy and happy than every in the history of mankind. To deny this achievement would be a step back to less food of a lower quality.