No "Change" at USDA as Obama Picks Monsanto Shill Vilsack for Ag Secretary

[Orwellian_Ghost]

Obama picks Vilsack as agriculture secretary
Tue Dec 16, 2008 6:54pm EST

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President-elect Barack Obama, a backer of tighter farm subsidy rules and new-generation biofuels, selected Tom Vilsack from the major U.S. farm state of Iowa to be agriculture secretary, said a Democratic official on Tuesday.

Obama plans to announce the nomination on Wednesday, along with his selection for Interior secretary, Colorado Sen. Ken Salazar.

Vilsack, 58, who was a popular two-term governor of Iowa, was the first Democrat to enter the race for president won by Obama, but dropped out of the contest in February 2007. He was not immediately available for comment.

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4BF7K820081216

Six Reasons Why Obama Appointing Monsanto's Buddy, Former Iowa Governor Vilsack, for USDA Head Would be a Terrible Idea

Nov. 12, 2008

* Former Iowa Governor Tom Vilsack's support of genetically engineered pharmaceutical crops, especially pharmaceutical corn:
http://www.gene.ch/genet/2002/Oct/msg00057.html
http://www.organicconsumers.org/gefood/drugsincorn102302.cfm

* The biggest biotechnology industry group, the Biotechnology Industry Organization, named Vilsack Governor of the Year. He was also the founder and former chair of the Governor's Biotechnology Partnership.

http://www.bio.org/news/pressreleases/newsitem.asp?id=200...

* When Vilsack created the Iowa Values Fund, his first poster child of economic development potential was Trans Ova and their pursuit of cloning dairy cows.

* Vilsack was the origin of the seed pre-emption bill in 2005, which many people here in Iowa fought because it took away local government's possibility of ever having a regulation on seeds- where GE would be grown, having GE-free buffers, banning pharma corn locally, etc.

Representative Sandy Greiner, the Republican sponsor of the bill, bragged on the House Floor that Vilsack put her up to it right after his state of the state address.

* Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto.

Sustainable ag advocated across the country were spreading the word of Vilsack's history as he was attempting to appeal to voters in his presidential bid. An activist from the west coast even made this youtube animation about Vilsack
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hmoc4Qgcm4s
The airplane in this animation is a referral to the controversy that Vilsack often traveled in Monsanto's jet.

*Vilsack is an ardent support of corn and soy based biofuels, which use as much or more fossil energy to produce them as they generate, while driving up world food prices and literally starving the poor.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_15573.cfm

[OwnedByFerrets]

1. S H I T

[MadHound]

2. Nice to see Monsanto and Big Ag have a seat at the table

Joining the chair announced yesterday, Corporate Education.

But wait, we're not supposed to criticize his picks, after all, we don't know how Obama will govern. He might actually turn out to be some sort of blazing leftist, fooling us all.:eyes:

And the corporatist control of this country continues unabated. Well, good thing that I've already altered how I get my food, since it appears that I won't want to be going to the grocery store anytime soon.

[uponit7771]

27. I think people are looking for anything right now, his picks mostly have been pragmatic. If this is

...really a bad one then I trust him more than most people to correct himself.

[bvar22]

76. We're with you.

We started making plans after Election/Campaign 2004.
We now grow and preserve over 1/2 of our own food, and will be increasing that percentage this year.
While we are still members of the Democratic Party, all donations are sent to specific Progressive representatives. Our major focus has become local Community/Humanitarian/Green issues, and methods of denying support for CorpoAmerica and their "bought" politicians.


The ONLY way to know for sure....grow your own from heirloom seeds.

[Peace Patriot]

3. This is very bad news, indeed! nt

[Thrill]

4. THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!OH NOESSSS

[acmavm]

5. Again, I tried to tell you guys during the primaries, this is the kind

of person Obama WILL appoint. Did you really think he was gonna buck corporate Amurika?

[MadHound]

6. Originally being a Kucinich supporter, I knew where Obama's politics were

I was just hoping that he would prove me wrong. Sadly, it doesn't look like he will.

[acmavm]

20. No, he most certainly won't. But what the hell, when it dawns on

all the people who thought he was gonna be our liberal saviour that he's not what they deluded themselves into believing I hope they don't feel too foolish.

[uponit7771]

22. Yeah, Obama = Hitler dammit!! :rolleyes:@FolkWhoOverReact

...

[acmavm]

36. Oh bite me. You can't even get your smilies right. N/T

[LaurenG]

82. Who were you hoping was elected?

:shrug: There were no pure progressives in the mix in my opinion except for Kucinich and he dropped early.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

40. I was too

I knew who Obama was but I was holding out hope that it wasn't so. It looks like I was right, but still I am willing to give him a chance.

[truedelphi]

74. Same sad story here. n/t

[truedelphi]

73. I hate facing the reality of these Corporate Picks.

Geithner and Rubin are as scummy as Madoff, and now this.

Oh well. Like Vonnegut used to say,
"And so it goes..."

[NYC_SKP]

7. It could be trouble, or it could be Brilliant!

Nobody in their right mind likes Monsanto and their practices, or agribusinesses and their evil ways.

But if one puts their concern aside long enough to consider this move, one might see a stroke of potential genius:

Bring this well connected planet-fucker in as secretary, then make him toe the sustainable people-friendly line.

If he doesn't step up to the task, expose and then bury him, then get a suitable replacement. While in that position, make him work from inside the evil cabal to reform it.

I'll give Obama the benefit of the doubt on this, I doubt that he supports "terminator seeds" and the other technologies that are deeply and negatively impacting developing countries.

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/news/suicide-seeds

[MadHound]

8. Not trying to be insulting, but that's really some convoluted rationalization there

There are plenty of people out there who would be qualified for the job and who don't shill for Monsanto and Big Ag. If was Obama's purpose to prune Big Ag and encourage small farmers and sustainable agriculture, why waste the energy and time of bringing in Villsak:shrug: That makes no sense.

This is simply one more indication that corporatist American will continue their control of our country, only with a kinder, gentler face in the White House.

[NYC_SKP]

11. It must be my experience working with Juvenile Hall kids.

When there's a bully in the room, an asshole, and idiot, a hater, there is more than one way to handle it.

You can banish them, or ignore them, or you can recruit them in your efforts.

Villsak obviously has connections and power that will remain no matter where he is.

If he is a member of Obama's cabinet, those connections and that power effectively become Obama's, or at least they are more likely to be influenced in some positive fashion.

If Obama excludes these types from participation, they'll still be there and would work even harder against him.

That's my hope, that's what I'd like to see happen.

Seriously, I don't think Obama is going to stand by silently as agribusiness carries on as it has in the past, killing off small farmers here and abroad, disrupting traditional agricultural practices abroad (to the point of farmers in India committing suicide by the dozens) and generally poisoning the planet.

Maybe I'm overoptimistic. I figured I'll wait and see and raise hell later if Obama is Cheney in disguise.

[Two Americas]

77. why not appoint Republicans?

If appointing people is a way to neuter them, a way to defeat them, then why not name Republicans to the cabinet? Then we could defeat all of them.

Rather than banish them, or ignore them, we could recruit them in our efforts.

The power and the connections the Republicans have would then "effectively become Obama's, or at least they are more likely to be influenced in some positive fashion."

If Obama excludes Republicans from participation, wouldn't they "still be there and would work even harder against him?"

[bvar22]

78. Republicans are loving Obama's appointments:

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.


"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ..."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist


"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.


"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."



"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.



"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.



"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain


"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal


Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.



Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager



"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_republicans_and_war_criminals_rave_about_obama%27s_%27team_of_rivals%27/

[Runcible Spoon]

87. that post just made me shiver

fucking scary!

[earth mom]

98. The rethuglicans approve. Does anyone need any more proof that there is not gonna be any change?

:grr:

[NYC_SKP]

94. He will. What you wrote makes sense, read it again. eom

[pocoloco]

15. Need ice for your Kool Aide?

[NYC_SKP]

29. Typical over the top progressive response: my way or else he's Stalin.

"Barack Obama is dead to me" :sarcasm:

:shrug:

That bastard Obama hasn't done anything right as president, I'm sooooo disappointed.

There's still room over at hillaryclinton.com and capitalhillforum and freerepublic....

Or, TeamSarah!

:rofl:

[uponit7771]

25. I will too, if Obama was stock his cabinet with 95% DLC'ers or RWingers I'd be concerned but he's...

...been pretty much in the middle of the road.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

56. It's trouble

There is absolutely zero chance of what you hope. There are some people who agree with and represent Monsanto and agribusiness. Some have made careers off of such a repugnant position. Vilsack is one of them. This appointment is atrocious but as some point out no surprise. If hope has become wishful thinking based on nothing more than illusions it spells trouble and will lead to disempowerment.

Obama may choose Monsanto's GE-nightmare over an organic human vision
By Linn Cohen-Cole

The Obama people ask us all to express our "vision" at http://www.change.gov/page/s/yourvision.

Meanwhile Obama is putting together a literal nightmare for the American people by considering appointing Tom Vilsack to head the USDA. Vilsack is Monsanto's guy.

http://www.crocodyl.org/wiki/monsanto


Watch agriculture - it's where your lives are being undone ... and in such banal ways, GE-seed by GE-seed, state law by state law, economic rights by constitutional rights by human rights.

A non-nightmarish vision begins with getting rid of the horror of genetic engineering.

Genetic Engineering causes:

FARMERS BONDAGE TO BIOTECH CORPORATIONS turning farmers into tenant farmers on their own land. 


LOSS OF HUMAN CONTROL OF SEEDS (life itself) to multinational corporations. 


*Ten companies now control more than two-thirds of global proprietary seed sales. 


*Ten companies now control almost 90% of agrochemical sales worldwide. 


*Ten companies now account for three-quarters of industry revenues.

DANGER TO HUMAN HEALTH 
 GE-crops already linked to diabetes, allergies, infertility.

http://www.opednews.com/maxwrite/print_friendly.php?p=Obama-may-choose-Monsanto-by-Linn-Cohen-Cole-081120-490.html

[nosmokes]

93. word OG. Agriculture is one area that Obama

could have started making a big difference with spending less but spending it in different places. Continuing to support a dysfunctional corporate food system that is failing us makes no sense. It certainly isn't change and it doesn't represent any vision for the future I heard a whole lotta talk about in the last two years.

[Peacetrain]

9. Vilsack was the head of the DLC..and a huge Clinton supporter..

But let me give him this much credit.. (putting on helmet to protect myself from the incoming brick bats).. He was the first Democratic governor in Iowa in 30 years and did help move the state blue, which in turn gave us(yes Iowan here) the majority to launch Barack Obama.

[wyldwolf]

10. great pick! Thanks for posting

[MadHound]

12. Nice to see that you support Monsanto and Big Ag over small farmer and the ordinary person

Good job:thumbsup::eyes:

[wyldwolf]

13. Apparently Obama and Harkin do, too!

:)

[MadHound]

14. So any pick that Obama makes is good with you?

Hell, then why don't we just keep Bush's cabinet in place, it would save time and the trouble of transition:shrug:

[wyldwolf]

16. so far

[MadHound]

18. So like I said, since you stated that you support Obama

Why not just keep Bush's cabinet? I noticed that you dodged that one.

[wyldwolf]

19. No dodge because "keeping Bush's cabinet" is completely irrelevant

:shrug:

Comparing Obama's picks to Bush's cabinet is silly.

[MadHound]

43. Not irrelevant at all

You stated that you supported Obama in manner that left no doubt that such support was unequivocal. Therefore it is a logical conclusion that you would be OK with Obama keeping Bush's cabinet, with much the same justification as we're hearing concerning such picks as Villsak, Summers, Gates, etc.

So, would you still support Obama if he kept Bush's cabinet?

[wyldwolf]

45. to compare Obama's picks to keeping Bush's cabinet is not only irrelevant

...it's also incredibly dumb.

[MadHound]

65. So then, I'm left to assume that your support for Obama isn't unequivocal

That indeed, if he chose to retain Bush's cabinet in its entirety, you wouldn't support Obama on that.

If this is the case, then why blast those of us who find Obama's pick of Villsak and Duncan objectionable. It's not that we don't support Obama, it is simply that, much like you, our support isn't unequivocal.

These center, center right, corporatist picks for Obama's cabinet truly have many of us concerned for the direction that his administration will take, much like Bushco's cabinet picks gave us concern. However you and those like you around here have equated that concern with not supporting Obama. That's not the case, hell, most of us worked hard to get Obama elected. We just don't want to see this administration that promised CHANGE degenerate into another Clinton like administration that continued with the same ol', same ol' corporatist control of our country.

[wyldwolf]

67. that would be a fair assumption, however, he hasn't come close to disappointing me

[bvar22]

79. Obama hasn't disappointed a lot of people.

You are in good company:

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.


"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ..."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist


"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.


"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."



"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.



"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.



"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.


"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain


"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.


Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal


Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.



Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager



"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State


http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/neocons%2C_republicans_and_war_criminals_rave_about_obama%27s_%27team_of_rivals%27/

[wyldwolf]

91. damn right I'm in good company. Seems the fringe left is in the minority... again.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- A new national poll suggests that Americans think President-elect Barack Obama's getting it right when it comes to his Cabinet picks...

... Seventy-five percent of those questioned in a CNN/Opinion Research Corp. survey approve of Obama's Cabinet choices, with 22 percent disapproving.

That's 16 points higher than those in favor of then President-elect Bush's Cabinet picks eight years ago.

The poll indicates that 71 percent approve of Obama picking Sen. Hillary Clinton for secretary of state. Democrats overwhelmingly approve of the choice, with two-thirds of independents agreeing and Republicans evenly split on the pick.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/03/poll.obama.cabinet/index.html

[Two Americas]

95. not relevant my friend

You are in the minority sometimes, too. That in and of itself does not invalidate your views. Politics is always driven by small minorities, since it will always be a minority of the population informed, passionate and committed. Each of these small groups compete with one another for the attention and support of the public.

In surveys on issues of economics and power, when partisan indicators ate not included, the general public supports the left wing point of view on do0zens of issues by as much as a 70% majority. Those positions are not favorable to the wealthy and powerful players in the country, who have a disproportionate amount control over the national political discussion, but that does not mean that the majority of people do not support left wing positions. Many intellectuals - pundits, writers, thinkers, speakers and leaders - in the liberal organizations and the party take a more centrist view, because they tend to be better of, from the upper 10% income brackets. Bit even there, the left wingers are in the majority, as is reflected here in poll after poll. As a long time activist in the party IRL, I do not agree that "DU is not representative." The same battle that go on here go on in every local p-arty organization, and have been for 40 years, in my first hand experience.

The general public is insufficiently informed to make an intelligent judgment about the cabinet choices. I think those results reflect a general support for the new administration, and that is a good thing. The exact direction of the new administration is yet to be known, and will to a large degree depend upon the ingoing national discussion.

People with whom you disagree have every right to advocate for their views in the hopes of influencing the discussion, and thereby influence the elected representatives.

Continually ridiculing and smearing the left is not helpful or productive. Argue your point of view on its own merits, and let the readers decide. Calling people fringe and the like, in an attempt to get the readers to discount or dismiss the opinions of your opponents out of hand, is suppressive and unfair. You object when it is done to you. I would request that you refrain from doing this.

[wyldwolf]

99. completely relevant - these aren't Republican quotes, this is a vast majority of people

"Good company" - as the previous poster said.

The general public is insufficiently informed to make an intelligent judgment about the cabinet choices.

Continually ridiculing and smearing the American people is not helpful or productive.

[Two Americas]

115. ah, come on

I thought we were doing better than that. I respect your view. Can you promote it without attacking and ridiculing others?

Saying that the general public is insufficiently informed to make an intelligent judgment about the cabinet choices is not "continually ridiculing and smearing the American people," it is a commentary on the deplorable state of the media and journalism, as well as acknowledging that most people do not have the time to be up to speed on all of this.

[MadHound]

17. Nice quick edit there

What, don't want the world to know that you blindly support Obama in anything he does?

From your unedited post "I support Obama"

[wyldwolf]

21. why do leftists always believe edits are nefarious? lol. I elaborated on my point. lol!

And my edit was a better response to your previous post.

[wyldwolf]

23. edited to correct a typo

[wyldwolf]

24. damn it! ANOTHER typo.. edited again!

[Dragonfli]

85. He does that - He thinks it's clever and only you will notice

It has been my experience that it is best to ignore him. He never expresses an opinion that doesn't glorify the DLC. He also likes to play the circular logic game. If that doesn't work he evades. Mr Irrelevant is only fun the first time around, after that it is like trying to discuss an issue with a freeper on AOL. A waste of time.

[wyldwolf]

92. lol! It is so clever to use a function built into DU...

^
|
|

OH NO!

[Moochy]

26. This pro-corporate stance brought to you by

Wyldwolf-brand Obeisance (tm)
Only the Finest Supine prostrations to corporate power since 1963

[wyldwolf]

28. Obama and Harkin! Woo hoo... moocher moocher moocher!

[Moochy]

30. Go team DLC!

Score one for team evil!

[wyldwolf]

31. Thank you, PRESIDENT Barack Obama!

[Moochy]

32. Go Monsanto!

[wyldwolf]

33. Thank you, PRESIDENT Barack Obama!

[Moochy]

34. OT: Were you raised in a puppy mill?

(You are showing signs of distemper.)

[wyldwolf]

37. You always go off topic and attack ... I quess that's a sign of ADD

[Moochy]

39. GO TEAM OBAMA!

GO DLC!

(back on your so-called "topic")

[wyldwolf]

42. YES!

[FLAprogressive]

100. of course wylddlc likes another corporate shill in the cabinet. Hooray triangulation! nt

[wyldwolf]

129. what I love is watching the heads explode

[Peacetrain]

35. Let me add this, I like Obama, and most of his picks..

There is no way in this world or the next is he going to pick everyone that I personally like or think should be in there. He said from the get go, he wants different opinions in there..he wants to hear all sides, and then he will make his decisions. So my guess, and it seems to be proving out, that he is true to his word, and he is stocking his cabinet with a variety of people who hold different views.

[uponit7771]

51. +1, I'd like it to be a buncha leftist Marxist but o well...

[ieoeja]

38. That fucking Obama once again selecting science over faith.

The six complaints:

1. "genetically engineered crops"

2. "Biotechnology"

3. "Cloning"

4. "GE crops" again

5. "biotech" company connections

6. "biofuels"

Bet he also supports teaching "evolution" to our children. Stone the heretic!

[Peacetrain]

41. The selection of Chu was awesome.. finally back to science!

[MadHound]

44. Let's take a look at the science

GM corn crops were shown to kill off monarch butterfly larva, and other insect larva indiscriminately. This was published almost ten years ago in Nature. Over that period of time, monarch butterflies have been disappearing rapidly.
Nature, Vol 399, No 6733, p 214, May 1999

A more recent study commissioned by the Austrian Agency for Health and Food Safety, managed by the Austrian Federal Ministry of Health, Family and Youth, and carried out by Veterinary University Vienna, has found that consumption of GM corn radically effects the reproductive capability of mice.
<http://www.ages.at/ages/ueber-uns/presse/pressemeldungen/klarstellung-zu-neuen-erkenntnissen-zur-fuetterung-mit-gvo-mais/>

At Kansas State University it was found that GM soybeans actually produced less than their conventional equivalents.
<http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/exposed-the-great-gm-crops-myth-812179.html>

Oh, and it looks like GM crops are actually using more herbicides rather than less. Hmm, less pesticide use, wasn't that one of the promises of GM crops? Guess that's out the window.
<http://ipm.osu.edu/trans/113_251.htm>

This is just the tip of the scientific iceberg. It's looking increasingly as though GM crops aren't the panacea that they were touted to be. In fact they're looking more and more like their original nickname, frankenfoods.

[EFerrari]

47. That's pretty much what Monsanto says. Science!

Who We Are

Monsanto is an agricultural company. When farmers succeed, we succeed. Using the tools of modern biology, we help farmers grow more yield sustainably so they can produce more and conserve more. Afterall, it is the world’s farmers that truly feed, clothe and fuel our growing world.

"The Dying Fields" / PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/wideangle/episodes/the-dying-fields/introduction/967/

[gravity]

48. Isn't that a good thing?

[EFerrari]

50. Watch the video and see what you think.

:)

[Two Americas]

89. yes and no

While I agree with you that much activism is off base and anti-science, regrettably, I don't think that is the burning issue in agriculture. I, too, support science-based agriculture.

At issue is who controls farm land and food production. Few people bother to read the ag positions of the various candidates, and if they do read them cannot understand them. If they did and they could, they would see that there are two different schools of thought on this.

Some Democrats support "rural development," which is a code phrase for the encouragement of corporate interests and Wall Street to gain control over and exploit farm land. This is supposed to "trickle down" to rural farming communities somehow, but many of us see this as the greatest threat ever faced by farmers. Kerry was an advocate of this approach, as are all Republicans and most Democrats.

By way of contrast, Clark, Edwards and Kucinich supported re-building rural farming communities along traditional lines, rather than giving incentives to corporations to move in on rural communities. This means strengthening of the USDA, increased research funding for agriculture, protections from globalization, subsidies to family farmers and "specialty crops" - fruits and vegetables as opposed to "row crops" - corn, wheat soy, investment in public education and heath care in rural communities, and training and incentive programs for farm workers and beginning farmers. They also supported restrictions and regulations on CAFO operations, and restrictions on vertical integration.

Wall Street, the energy corporations, the pharmaceutical corporations, the bio-tech industry, developers, speculators are all trying to get their foot in the door and break down family farming, the better to exploit the resources. That is where the battle lines are.

I wish that I could get people to stop the fear campaigns because they are off base and are actually helping the corporations. In the absence of any class analysis, which cripples the left, people focus on the "foodie" issues. The corporations can easily accommodate those and co-opt them, as we see so dramatically in the "organic" food industry. The demand for organic has weakened public support for inspection and regulation, and led to food that is less safe while harming our own progressive family farmers. If the promotion of organic continues, it will result on more uninspected and questionable produce being imported from countries where the officials are more than willing to slap an "organic" label on any old thing in order to fleece naive American consumers.

That being said, there are legitimate concerns about GMO crops that should not be dismissed. But the main threat is corporate domination of farm land, and the destruction of the traditional public agriculture infrastructure.

I think Vilsack is a disappointing choice, but not for the reasons the people are giving here. His appointment that has little to do with agriculture - he is not serious voice in agriculture that I have even seen, and has little experience, knowledge, education or training - and everything to do with the energy industry and globalization and Wall Street.

I don't agree with the notion that merely being a governor of Iowa makes one an expert of agriculture, nor do I think the needs and desires of the corn and hog producers in Iowa are representative of the needs of farmers in general nor the best interests of the public in the long run.

Sprawl, development, globalization, and corporatization are all threats to farming.

[Raineyb]

52. You forget to mention that Monsanto is against letting the consumer have a choice

You remember the consumer, the one who votes with their dollars?

People have made it known that they don't want the genetically engineered crops in their food. Consumers have said they don't want to buy meat obtained from clones or milk from cows that have been treated with Monsanto's bovine hormone. (I'm blanking on the name at the moment. Sorry.) Monsanto wants to put these out with no labeling to keep the consumer from knowing what they're buying because they know when given a choice that people won't buy anything tainted with their product. That's not free market and anyone who thinks that deliberately keeping the consumer in the dark in order to allow a chemical company to continue to profit on seeds that would eventually be a money loser as farmers stop buying them when they can't sell the resulting crops because no one wants it is unconscionable. Such a person has no business being in the FDA or the USDA.

I hope that this is just an ugly rumor because the last thing either agency needs is someone whoring for Monsanto. (My apologies to sex workers for the analogy)

Regards

[Two Americas]

119. consumer choice

Consumer choice is a poor model to rely on for agricultural policy.

All people should have the same access to the same nutritious and safe food. That means public infrastructure and regulation.

Choice suggests that some will be making the wrong choices, and that always mean poor people who really have no choice.

"Tainted products" should not be on the shelf at all. Period. They should never be "a choice."

[Raineyb]

133. Of course. Unfortunately the USDA hasn't really been interested in public good or food safety.

However, using their rather limited argument they're still screwing the public. They always talk about consumer choice and how if companies were killing their customers that the company in question wouldn't be in business. So they allow practices that are at best (if you stretch it) questionable despite the public's opposition. Then when their own free market would dictate that the consumer choice ought to rule they deliberately keep the consumer from being able to make the choice by not labeling in the first place.

You are absolutely right that these products ought not be on the shelf at all that goes without saying. At least it should go without saying. However, I suspect that, rather unfortunately, that genie is already out of the bottle. These items should be labeled until such time as they can be completely eradicated from the market, assuming that removing these products is at all possible.

Regards

[Two Americas]

134. that is just not true

In recent years, the Republicans have been destroying all of the federal agencies that protect the public, infiltrating them with hacks from industry, de-funding them, politicizing them and corrupting them and crippling them.

The right wingers want you to hate government, want you to think that government intervention to protect the public will not work. Please don't fall for that.

Educate yourself on the history of the USDA, its purpose, the accomplishments over the years.

The USDA, and our public agricultural infrastructure in general, represents one of the most successful, efficient and effective government programs in history. The right wingers desperately want to eliminate it, because it is an obstacle to their corporate clients, it is in the way of the total privatization of our food supply system.

[Raineyb]

135. That was my point. The USDA of late hasn't been concerned with the public good or

food safety. We're not disagreeing here. But there's no way to argue that the USDA of today is living up to its history.

Regards

[Two Americas]

136. much of the work

Much of the work goes on as always, out of the view of the general public. The FDA is far more corrupted. The USDA may be the "cleanest" bureaucracy of any of them today.

The criticisms should cite "Republicans" not the USDA. Much of liberal activism has been co-opted into the libertarian way of thinking - anti-government, anti-regulation, and anti-science.

[Raineyb]

142. I'm not sure I could only blame Republicans for this

rBST was approved for use during the Clinton administration. Better to say corporatist but many people don't recognize a corporatist if they have a D after their name. The USDA is a reflection of who is running things. I think it's appropriate to point at them as well as the President who appointed the head person.

Regards

[Two Americas]

144. true

Many Democrats have been co-opted into the Republican agenda. Good point, thanks.

[bvar22]

80. My complaint is not the above issues you attempt to marginalize.

My complaint is the support of Agri-Business (Huge Corporations, Factory Farms, and mono-cultivation) over small farms, genetic diversity, and de-centralization of our food sources.

[Alter Ego]

46. Plus his name sounds like "Aflac"

[Clio the Leo]

49. *

[Mass]

53. Not too surprising, unfortunately. This country still thinks the agrobusiness industry is more

important than the consumer. The choice of Salazar is as disappointing.

[Hanse]

54. LOL

What's next? A head of the FAA who buy's the government's explanation for 9-11?

[OnionPatch]

55. This is one of my pet issues, so bad news for me.

:( I hoped that this administration might bring some regulations to protect consumers, small farmers and the environment from corporate greed and power. This appointment disappoints me, but does not surprise me. I never believed a very progressive liberal could be elected president and I was never under the impression that, if elected, Obama was going to do everything on my wish list. Yet I supported him and still do because under Republican rule, NO good change was/is possible. I remain ecstatic that we have a Democratic president because change is possible now. Not automatic--possible. So this will be an area where there is still much work to do. Maybe this is where I will focus my efforts in the future now that the election is over.

[Hippo_Tron]

57. Breaking the corporate agriculture firewall is towards the bottom of Obama's to-do list

And understandably so. While it is a problem there are other matters that need to be dealt with immediately. For those who say that I'm making light of this problem I would say what Obama said during the second debate and that is that you have to prioritize. The economy and energy have to come first and then health care. Iraq and other foreign policy issues are also obviously going to come first but that is in its own sphere since little of it requires congressional approval.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

58. How many picks

does it take to notice a trend?

[Hippo_Tron]

60. What is the trend in your opinion?

[EFerrari]

62. Your question makes me think of this flag as a Bingo! card:

[Hippo_Tron]

64. You mean that his cabinet picks are influenced by corporations?

Of course they are. Corporations make pretty much everything around us.

[EFerrari]

69. Oh, exactly. It's just a matter of which ones.

And so, bingo.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

70. See flag below

[gravity]

66. It was never on his list

because it was never a problem.

I am glad Obama is appointing some sane reasonable people in his cabinet. That is the real change.

[Hippo_Tron]

68. I wouldn't go so far as to say its not a problem

Particularly in the realm of our subsidies and how taxpayer dollars go to ADM, Cargill, etc. But Agriculture is a HUGE pork-barrel issue for members of congress that represent rural districts and thus it is a political firewall. We had virtually 6 years of "small government" ideologues running congress and they couldn't even come close to changing agriculture subsidies.

[bvar22]

81. "Iraq and other foreign policy issues are also obviously going to come first "

"There is not a single, solid anti-war voice in the upper echelons of the Obama foreign policy apparatus. And this is the point: Obama is not going to fundamentally change US foreign policy. He is a status quo Democrat. And that is why the mono-partisan Washington insiders are gushing over Obama's new team." ----Scahill

[Hippo_Tron]

110. Define anti-war

[JoseGaspar]

96. I have some bad news to go with the rest.

His picks on the economy weren't that great either. It was essentially a bunch of bankers, private and Federal Reserve, and none of them are exactly famous for their sympathy for poor or working people. What is worse is that in this segment, Obama has made his post-inauguration plans known. It is for a $600 billion to $1 trillion stimulus package for each of the next two years. The problem is that it will go out as "public works" on projects that are "ready to go". Think about that for a minute and compare it to the alphabet soup of new organizations that Roosevelt created to manage the distribution of much less money. Roosevelt thought that the existing bureaucracy was incapable of absorbing or distributing that much money without opening a chasm of corruption. More, he thought that the existing infrastructure for dispersals wasn't fair, wasn't oriented toward those who were suffering the greatest, wasn't efficient from the standpoint of the greatest jobs impacts that they would create, and wasn't likely to target the highest priorities.

No problem though... Obama is much better looking than Roosevelt (and thinner, younger, cooler).

[Hippo_Tron]

106. Roosevelt had a Republican Treasury Secretary...

And campaigned on eliminating the deficit. I'm far less concerned about Obama's picks on the economy than with the fact that desperate times will call for desperate measures.

[anaxarchos]

108. Exactly what...

...does that have to do with anything? The poster was very clear and you might as well have said, "a stitch in time saves nine".

[Hippo_Tron]

109. His complaint seems to be that the economic team are centrists

And my point is that so was Roosevelt's economic team. But the fact that they were centrists during the 1910's and 1920's didn't make a dime's worth of difference in the 1930's because everything was different. Democrats have leaned toward the center for the past 28 years because the country bought into Reagan's bullshit and the center was the politically expedient way to go. 2008, as I see it, was a referendum on the past 28 years.

What everybody seems to assume is that because Obama picked Geithner to be his Treasury Secretary that it's going to be Clinton all over again. I'm not living under that assumption. Not because I think Obama is extremely liberal or anything. I am not living under that assumption because it's 2008, not 1998, and not 1988 and the writing on the wall is clearly there that the status quo cannot continue. Obama has seen that writing and he has made that much clear. Just because he opts not to elevate the left to the highest positions of power doesn't mean that he isn't serious about change.

[anaxarchos]

114. Calling them "centrists" sanitizes the issue.

They are bankers and strictly conventional ones at that. They will apply pain on the way down and they will do it again on the way up, when they have to destroy the stinking ball of cash that they themselves let out. But, that really misses the poster's point.

While we are at it, yes William H. Woodin was a Republican and an industrialist but he was also a long time Roosevelt backer and one of his biggest campaign contributors. He was sick for most of his term and Treasury was actually run By Dean Acheson. But, that's not really the point either.

The poster's point was that stimulus is not enough. The question is not just stimulus but, "stimulus for who?" There is no indication here that the "program" is anything but a giant barrel of pork for politicians and contractors alike. FDR's program was tentative... this one is a giant step backward.

Two point five million "jobs" for $2 trillion dollars... you calculate it. Ain't no "change" here, either.

[Hippo_Tron]

118. Acheson resigned at the end of 1933

But as you said that's beside the point.

I'm not convinced that the stimulus is merely a gimmick as you state it is. Moreover there is going to be new regulation of the financial industry no matter how many bankers Obama has at Treasury. There is simply too much popular sentiment against the banks for serious regulatory changes not to happen.

[anaxarchos]

128. Acheson resigned at the end of 1933...

...having designed a good deal of the New Deal. He resigned over de-metalization. Woodin resigned a few months later and was replaced by Henry Morgenthau. Morgenthau had been an FDR loyalist since before WWI and had been appointed by Roosevelt to various NY State posts. Revisionist economic historians like to blame Morganthau for the balanced budget fiasco (he was an anti-Keynesian as well) but Morganthau was also a staunch supporter of the double budgets and of the Wagner Act, an architect of the Works Progress Administration, the Public Works Administration and the Civilian Conservation Corps, and the principle responsible for Social Security. All of the New Deal types, including FDR, were mixed bags... but to compare any of them to the Obama stiffs is simply wrong.

I did not say that the stimulus was a "gimmick". It is an attempt to prop up "effective demand" and to achieve a "soft landing". It is also a lifeless, soulless, and heartless attempt that cares nothing for targeting those who will be hurt the most through no fault of their own, cares nothing about the unemployment numbers, and mainly pulls up a gravey train for the people that are stealing money now. It is exactly what you would expect from Obama's team, thus explaining in this and other cases why who he appoints matters, even though "he hasn't even been inaugerated yet"....

"Regulation" doesn't matter at all at the moment and won't until the next "bubble" comes. For now, what is needed is a new "New Deal". Instead, we get the "Same ol' Deal", telegenic and safe, post-partisan and puerile, full of "New Ideas" but devoid of any relief whatever.

Good luck if your home or job is at risk.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

59. This would be the one choice I would have to take Obama to the woodshed on

[biermeister]

61. get "the world according to monsanto" on DVD-

I just watched it last night. You'll be happy you did but unhappy about a bunch of new stuff

[WorseBeforeBetter]

140. "The Future of Food" was depressing enough.

http://www.thefutureoffood.com/

[biermeister]

141. thanks for the info- I'll check it out

[WorseBeforeBetter]

143. You're welcome.

I'll check out your recommendation as well -- when I'm in the mood to be ticked off.

[PufPuf23]

63. The US Forest Service is part of the USDA and I have not

seen one mention of that aspect of this horrible appointment.

[ClarkUSA]

71. Vilsack will have to take his commands, as Hillary does, from Pres. Barack Obama

Keep your friends close and your enemies closer.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

72. That's not how it works

Take a deeper look into how public policy is written and where the ideas originate and who does the writing of such policy.

[ProSense]

88. That's exactly how it works

Obama: "I expect them to implement that vision once decisions made."

Melody Barnes will head the Domestic Policy Council:

The Domestic Policy Council coordinates the domestic policy-making process in the White House and offers policy advice to the President. The DPC also works to ensure that domestic policy initiatives are coordinated and consistent throughout federal agencies. Finally, the DPC monitors the implementation of domestic policy, and represents the President's priorities to other branches of government.

[JoseGaspar]

97. In that case, there is no problem with lobbyists, either.

If you don't see the contradiction, then you don't want to see it.

[ProSense]

104. No,

Obama's policy on lobbyists is clear. They cannot be involved in current lobbying. No one said the potential for someone to become a rogue isn't there. One of my primary concerns with Hillary's appointment is how disruptive the people around her tend to be. With lobbyists, there is also the concern about avoiding the appearance of impropriety. The fact is that the buck stops at Obama.

[Two Americas]

75. not true

Corporate power over the government is a function of access and connections.

Even if we wanted a dictatorial leader, it would be a major project to get the federal bureaucracies to obey a fearless leader. The Bush administration tried to do just that. Their job was easier, since they sought to cripple the federal bureaucracies, and it is always easier to destroy than to build.

We are starting to hear many contradictory arguments now. The idea that Obama will be giving them their marching orders contradicts the idea that he doesn't want to be surrounded by "yes men," for instance. The idea that he wants "diverse points of view" is contradicted by the exclusion of left wing points of view and the reliance upon "experience" - insiders. The idea that he is going for "pragmatism" contradicts the idea that "he IS change," that he has a transcendent and over-riding idealistic vision.

I am not criticizing Obama here, I am questioning the quality of some of his "support" which I do not think helps him, and I am certain sabotages and undermines all of us as well as the needs and aspirations of the people.

[ClarkUSA]

113. True, because President-Elect Obama said so himself, as ProSense has already ably argued.

It's called being a real hands-on President. Having watched him all election year, I have no doubt as to his ability to command an organization.

[Two Americas]

116. well, there ya go

If President-Elect Obama said so himself, who am I to argue?

I have no doubts as to Obama's abilities. Having a competent captain at the helm is good, but it does not preclude questioning just where it is the ship is going. If merely questioning the destination is somehow interfering with the safe passage of the vessel, that gives me less confidence, not more.

[ClarkUSA]

122. Go ahead, question all YOU want. I am confident in Barack's abilities to lead his team.

Stop tilting at windmills.

[bvar22]

126. Obama also said he would vote AGAINST Immunity for Telecoms, and

he would oppose a Bailout for Wall Street that did not include protections for taxpayers.

Guess how he voted.

[blindpig]

103. So, you must live here:

[ClarkUSA]

112. No, I trust Barack lead and manage his team well, as he did during the entire election.

I have every reason to trust him and none at all to trust any of the naysayers on this nattering thread of handwringers.
If anyone steps out of line, I'm sure he'll be kicked out. Besides, Bush II put a Democrat from CA in the same job
during his first term and I didn't see any progressive transportation policies emanating from Bush II during that time.

[Two Americas]

117. anti-democratic

This level of trust in a strong leader, while dismissing and attacking your fellow citizens who refuse to share that feeling, is a recipe for fascism and tyranny and is contradictory to a democratic society.

[ClarkUSA]

121. LOL! You cast confidence in proven leadership as anti-democratic?

Go complain to someone who cares what you're babbling about. I don't, because you're creating a fight with me that exists only in
your fevered imagination.

[Two Americas]

124. I was a Clark supporter

Did you ever read his agricultural policy positions? I am comparing those to Vilsack's positions. May I do that?

[LaurenG]

83. I don't like that pick at all -

x(

[Milo_Bloom]

84. Should I be surprised?

Obama tipped his hand a long time ago with the selection of Joe Biden as VP.

Everyone keeps wanting to believe he isn't what he is.

Let's just hope he doesn't try and govern from the mythical center. If he does, he is just a bridge between republicans.

[elkston]

86. Has it ever crossed the mind of ANY of you haters that your "favorite" picks ...

may not have passed vetting? Or maybe the just didn't demonstrate they could do the job. Good ideas but could never "execute".

I believe Obama has limits, but he wants capable people that will be effective. Not just rabble-rousers.

[blindpig]

105. Effective at what?

Continuing to sell us down the river?

[Moochy]

131. Yeah Congressman Pinko McRabbleRouser lost his race

So sit down and shut up, haters.
I guess the people have spoken! or something.

:sarcasm:

[Dragonfli]

90. Even worse than I had expected - and I expected corporate shill based on the trend /nt

[bbgrunt]

101. It will take a revolution.....

[nomaco-10]

102. A truly bitter pill to swallow, this one. oh well. n/t

[glitch]

107. Good God. Very disappointing. :( nt

[boppers]

111. Go go GMO!

Nice to see actual science as being more important to this administration than banning dihydrogen monoxide.

[Sebastian Doyle]

120. The invention of the nuclear bomb was science too.

One we would have been much better off without. Just like GMO FrankenCorn and High Fructose Corn Poison.

[Hanse]

123. That's kind of like a Godwin's Rule for discussions on science.

They're always some joker typing on this computer on an internet message board about the dangers of science, and the nuclear bomb.

[Sebastian Doyle]

125. It's one invention mankind would have been much better off without.

And I'm sure if you could ask Einstein, or Oppenheimer (or any other scientist in anyway connected to the discovery/development of that technology) they would regret bringing such a horror upon the planet.

I wonder if the guy who invented high fructose corn poison feels the same way yet?

[NashVegas]

137. It's Not Science Driving GM / GE Food - Not Unless You're Talking Economic & Marketing Science

[Orwellian_Ghost]

127. Obama Kills Hope for Change Naming Vilsack to USDA

Obama Kills Hope for Change Naming Vilsack to USDA
News Type: Event — Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:14 AM EST
Pamela Drew

The vast majority of USDA subsidies are paid to these crops and form corporate welfare for Monsanto, maker of the gmo seeds that dominate those crops. http://www.ers.usda.gov/Briefing/Biotechnology/chapter1.htm

Monsanto stock is reflected in the gmo crop growth. Once Monsanto dropped their PCB and Agent Orange liabilities and reinvented themselves as a life sciences compan, income straight from USDA subsidies and agribusiness commodities the fleecing of consumers began to pay rich rewards.

For over a decade the world has rejected the patent protected, fee based seeds that tolerate toxic doses of patented herbicides, but denied the right to know what is in our food supply, ignorant Americans have supported these untested ingredients.

Like the policies that allowed subprime ending to create opportunities for a few corporations to benefit at the expense of the public benefit, "biotech policy" has provided the makers of PCB's and Agent Orange the opportunity for unfettered control of the Nations food supply and Vilsack has been among the chief supporters. In fact George Bush's Secretary of Agriculture Mike Johanns and Visack had partnered in early efforts to advance the climate of control for Monsanto.

Vilsack and Johanns were partners heading the biotech efforts to roll supports for a biotech agenda out in the States, expanding gmo legislative efforts, well beyond Federal lobbying.

<snip>

Anyone who believes that party affiliation changes the lure of corporate dollars in the corporate government is sadly mistaken. Bipartisan support for the deep pockets is the overlooked element of the corporate government and Vilsack is more of the same.

<snip>

http://pameladrew.newsvine.com/_news/2008/12/17/2222546-obama-kills-hope-for-change-naming-vilsack-to-usda

[happychatter]

130. Monsanto is Satan BUT, there isn't a Farmer or Ag Pro in this country that doesn't deal with them

if you think you can take THAT industry from where it is to sustainable and organic with the appointment of someone cooler

good luck

I'd like to see it... if I can help you holler... I'm better at busting legs than emailing

[Orwellian_Ghost]

132. Completely false

I know plenty of farmers who don't deal with Monsanto and would never consider such a thing.

Taking American agriculture to a sustainable position would be quite easy but it is precisely the appointment of someone like Vilsack, who embodies the revolving door of corporate agribusiness, which prevents the furthering of a truly people-centered agriculture. Wendell Berry among others writes about this in matter of fact terms.

[Name removed]

138. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

139. The truth hurts eh?

OCA: Vilsack Not "Change We Can Believe In"

* By Ronnie Cummins
Organic Consumers Association, December 17, 2008
Straight to the Source

CLICK HERE TO STOP VILSACK'S CONFIRMATION:
http://salsa.democracyinaction.org/o/642/petition.jsp?petition_KEY=1783

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
December 17, 2008

Organic Consumers Association:

Vilsack Not "Change We Can Believe In"

WASHINGTON, DC – Today's announcement that former Iowa Governor, Tom Vilsack, has been selected as the new Secretary of Agriculture sent a chill through the sustainable food and farming community who have been lobbying for a champion in the new administration.

"Vilsack's nomination sends the message that dangerous, untested, unlabeled genetically engineered crops will be the norm in the Obama Administration,"

said Ronnie Cummins, Executive Director of Organic Consumers Association. "Our nation's future depends on crafting a forward-thinking strategy to promote organic and sustainable food and farming, and address the related crises of climate change, diminishing energy supplies, deteriorating public health, and economic depression.”

The Department of Agriculture during the Bush Administration failed to promote a sustainable vision for food and farming and did not protect consumers from the chemical-intensive toxic practices inherent to industrial agriculture. While factory farms and junk food have been subsidized with billions of tax dollars, the US industrial farm system has released massive amounts of climate-destabilizing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere and increased our dependence on foreign oil.

The Secretary of Agriculture is responsible for directing the U.S. Department of Agriculture and its $97 billion annual budget, including the National Organic Program, food stamp and nutrition programs, agriculture subsidies, and the Forest Service.

While Vilsack has worked to restrain livestock monopolies, his overall record is one of aiding and abetting Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs, also known as factory farms). Vilsack’s support for unsustainable industrial ethanol production has already caused global corn and grain prices to skyrocket, literally taking food off the table for a billion people in the developing world.

<snip>

http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_16156.cfm

Vilsack is the biggest Monsanto tool going. Any questions on that?

I certainly do believe in many things. One is government for and by the people. How 'bout you? Making and/or supporting appointments like this is in direct contradiction to that type of government. Can't have it both ways.

Sounds like you'd rather folks just keep quite and go silently into the night. None for me thanks.

[Tumbulu]

145. I have come to the conclusion that Obama is too young to be bold with these

appointments. He wants experienced people around him, even if they have the wrong experience. And clearly agriculture is out of his league or he would never have picked this guy.

I am going to stop reading about politics for awhile as it is too heartbreaking. I had hoped that Obama would have had the courage at least in agriculture to pick someone who really does represent healthy farming and healthy food.

I am now getting the sense that he is becoming afraid of the country completely imploding and he wants stability more than anything else.

Sad picks. But perhaps in time he will be able to make bolder choices. That is what I will hope for.