Sounds rather stimulating doesn't it? I have absolute no idea what they were talking about, but I eventually gathered that there was a possibility that if my crop did poorly enough (what crop? Did the satellite photos really show how badly my potatoes did this year? That raises all kinds of questions in my mind!) that apparently I am eligible for loans, grants, etc., apparently to subsidize my poor potato crop.
Then it went though a long list of reasons why I was NOT eligible for these. Toward the bottom of the paper where it gave examples of allowances for the exemptions from the disqualifications of counter-cyclical payments, or average crop revenue election payments. Still quite bewildered, but trying to (probably out of sheer self-loathing) figure out what they are getting at, I finally realize that I don't qualify for any of this stuff.
However at the very bottom of the paper it states that I do qualify "if the farm is owned by either of the following:
- Limited resource farmer or rancher
- Socially disadvantaged farmer or rancher
Being a woman with 50% ownership interest in the land now meets the socially disadvantaged requirement."
Now THAT caught my attention! Sorry to bore everyone to tears with all this bureau-speak excuse for a language, but I was quite disheartened to hear the bad news that I was married to someone (and thereby being implicated as well; as I own half of this farmlet) who is "socially disadvantaged." I was instantly discontent about my relationship with my wife.
You see, the more I got to know the woman who was to be my future wife, the more convinced I was that I was indeed marrying "up." I knew she was full of cultural interests, art, classical music, and was in general one of the most creative people I knew, whereas I pretty much know how to swing a hammer. You see, I thought that I was really getting something special; real grade A, top shelf, quality spousal material here, and then I get this letter saying that my farmlet is demeaned into some sort of a 50-percentile, 2nd-best pariah, just because my poor decision-making process led me to make the poor choice to marry a-a-a- WOMAN! Sooo socially disadvantaged! And for her to drag me and our farm down with it! I am so embarrassed...
You must consider what this has done to my world view. We used to hold hands in public, and walk side by side; but today as we walked across the street today from our office to our bank, I caught myself edging away from her as I noticed people's stares. I admit it is a little intimidating being in public when married to someone on such a list.
I have a dilemma, however. How I can I get myself free of this "being disadvantaged"? I'm sure I'm like everyone else, I just want a level playing field, I don't want anymore disadvantages than the next guy, so what are my options? I guess one option would be a same sex marriage, but I'm pretty sure that would still put me on the same list, even if it were of interest to me and it were a viable option in Kansas. I guess my only option is to break the news to her that she is socially disadvantaged and send her packing.
I guess what I really need to know is the definition of "socially disadvantaged". I am assuming that if being a woman qualifies you, then being any type of minority also qualifies you, even though women make up 154,135,120 out of the 304,059,724 people that inhabit the US, making up nearly 51% majority of our population. Then, if you figure in the fact that there are 242,639,242 of these 304,059,724 that call themselves "white" and that 49% of them are most likely males that leaves 118,893,228. Since there is only 230,117,876 out of the original 304,059,724 that are actually considered adults (just over 75%) we will just guess at there being roughly 89,169,921 adult white males in the US. Then, if I have the good sense to leave my socially disadvantaged wife, so as to not handicap my little farmlet, and noting that 82% of adult men are married (presumably to a socially disadvantaged woman, thereby dooming whatever business they are in) that leaves me in a group of 16,050,585 of single adult white males which would put me in one of the smallest and therefore presumably most socially disadvantaged brackets in the 2008 population estimates, save a few other socially disadvantaged minorities, so I might be back in the same boat, anyway.
Anyway, I hope you haven't been bored out of your gourd listening to all this, but the long and short of it is that I'm really dreading telling my beautiful, creative, and much cultured wife that she is at a real social disadvantage to her lout of a belching, farting, ignorant husband. Somehow I'm not sure she'll be convinced anyway, despite what the USDA tells us. I'm just guessing that she'll just smile and make little affirming sounds to let me know that I did a good job in being able to read the mail...
FYI: all of the actual data came from the US census website, and most of it came from this page:
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/QTTable?_bm=y&-qr_name=PEP_2008_EST_DP1&-geo_id=D&-ds_name=D&-_lang=en
2 comments:
well all I have to say is it's a good thing you dont work for the goverment! things are confusing enough without some one actually trying to explain what is going on! just remember they have the option to change their minds and besides it is probably for your dab of alf. not your patotoes. sorry. mom
Well Dan, I have some encouragement for you. The way I read that section is that the woman met the requirement because she only owned 50% of the property. They were making the assumption that she was married to a belly scratching, dirt n grease under the nails, foul smelling MAN who owned the other 50%. They know how those men farmers are and the Government considers the whole lot of you socially disadvantaged. It is their pity for the woman that caused them to make this allowance. That is my take on it. Hope this makes you feel better so as you can resume holding her hand. Linda
Post a Comment