John Salazar for USDA Secretary?

do you suppose... (4.00 / 3)

"they" have been letting us stew ourselves into hysterics over Stenholm & Wolff (?), just so Salazar "won't be so bad", by comparison???

I'd expect it of the Repubs... no, they'd just come right out with it.

---

by: chimene @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 00:37:57 AM UTC

yeah, actually (4.00 / 2)

that's kind of what I was thinking. This was good bargaining. Dangle the worst in front of us so that simply bad looks just fine.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 02:09:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Salazar (4.00 / 3)

I am opposed to Salazar, who is my representative from Western Colorado, becoming the USDA chief.

From what I can tell, Salazar was a "real farmer" only in the agribusiness, production agriculture sense of the word, which basically means he knew how to use big heavy machinery to plant, spray, spray and harvest potatoes. Most (if not all) conventional potatoes in the San Luis Valley, where Salazar is from, are grown using conventional pesticides to control for pests. I have no idea how Salazar grew his potatoes, but if he was not organic, it seems likely he was engaging in chemical-heavy production agriculture and that will be his mindset as secretary of agriculture.

It doesn't seem as if being for COOL or for fresh fruits and vegetables in schools are really difficult positions to take -- being for these things does not signal much about him. After all, who, in fact, is opposed to giving school kids veggies and fruits? These positions don't up his credentials in terms of supporting or even being open to the need for significant change in our system.

And speaking of "diversity" credentials -- Salazar's family goes back to the early Spanish settlement of Colorado and the Southwest, I believe, and the Salazar family has long been a powerful landholding family in their part of Colorado.

I would find it difficult to believe that Salazar's life experience mirrors in many ways the life experiences of many of the diverse minorities in this country who have had to overcome socioeconomic difficulties and/or discrimination to become who they are. I believe one of the reasons we value diversity in this country is because we believe diverse life experiences help more adequately represent who we are and what are needs are as a whole. I do not see that Salazar's life experience is really all that much different than that of any other male citizen from the traditionally "landed" class. Although, of course, I do not know him personally.

I do not have a problem with John Salazar as my representative -- I believe he is pretty good on a lot of conservation issues, but I also think that he, like many who grew up in the "production agriculture" mentality, actually has a blind spot when it comes to how production agriculture in its current system is the antithesis of a healthy food system, a healthy citizenry and a healthy environment. I don't know if he is much better than the other alternatives, except perhaps he will be more inclined to listen than, say, someone like Stenholm.

---

by: Stephanie @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 04:36:33 AM UTC

very well stated (4.00 / 2)

I hope you've sent this comment in to Change.gov as well.

"I can understand someone from Iowa promoting corn and soy, but we are not feeding the world, we are feeding animals and soft drink companies." - Jim Goodman

---

by: Jill Richardson @ Mon Dec 08, 2008 at 08:53:55 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Humane Society opposes Salazar at Interior (4.00 / 3)

Some of these concerns seem even more substantial if it's Agriculture:

I oppose Representative John Salazar for this appointment, as he has been hostile to a wide range of animal protection policies, including efforts to halt the trophy hunting of polar bears and to protect wild horses from slaughter. Salazar was even aligned with former Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo in an attempt to weaken the Endangered Species Act.

---

by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf @ Sun Dec 07, 2008 at 14:25:54 PM UTC

i'm not quite sure (4.00 / 1)

where to put this.
i saw you were having some GMenthusiasts trying to do battle over at orange.

i usually don't answer those type people but, well.. in your 'crying wolff' essay there i did. but it was late & probably no one saw.

http://www.dailykos.com/commen...

& i wanted to make sure you saw it because there are studies done about the nutrients in organics, etc. i wanted you to be able use this as/when necessary to back those people off you.

and thank you.
for all the work you do in this most important field....
dropping little seeds of truth & knowledge into (sometimes)fertile minds.
because of you & those you've inspired the real food movement is growing.
thank you.
♥~

come firefly-dreaming with me....

---

by: RiaD @ Tue Dec 09, 2008 at 02:54:47 AM UTC

More on Ag Sec & biotech (0.00 / 0)

Glad to see a little debate happening... Schumacher seems ok, as does Sebelius. I think Stephanie may be right about Salazar's mindset. Sebelius recently stopped coal electric development, good sign for what has to happen with ag. We gotta get off all the chemical and transgenic biotech stuff, will take a steel spine.

What about Brian Schweitzer, who is, unless I'm mistaken, an organic rancher? (and a great character)

You mention change.gov as a place to put comments. I did that once, don't know what happened with it, haven't been able to do it since (am I being censored?;).

I've seen lots of "closed" discussions. How does one find the live space there?

And whatever happened to the biotech thread? Any thoughts on cisgenic methods?  

---

by: salemguy @ Sun Dec 14, 2008 at 23:49:45 PM UTC