Sunlight Seeker
Look up national or state donors or check where your Congresspeople are getting their money.
Media Campaign Tools
The Democratic Agenda
*Tips & Talking Points for Letters to Editors
Email The Media
*Email Iowa and national media, five at a time
Framing The Message
*UC Berkeley professor George Lakoff tells how conservatives use language to dominate politics
Simple Framing
*A step-by-step guide on how to frame progressive issues, by George Lakoff
DemSpeak
*Values Inventory, Message Identification and Development, Engagement & Rapport Strategies, Framing and Reframing Language, Strategic Development and Deployment of Frames, Mediaspace Injection Choreography, and Framing/Media Crossfire training of Capitol Hill Legislators, new TV spokespersons for progressives, Talk Radio callers, and Progressive Leaders
| December 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
Sam Garchik - Mon 02 Jun 2008 10:10 AM CDT
atomburke - Fri 23 May 2008 03:49 PM CDT
salman - Fri 23 May 2008 06:28 AM CDT
megelso - Sun 11 May 2008 09:10 AM CDT
no4gman - Tue 29 Apr 2008 01:07 AM CDT
|
Monday, December 27
Call to Action: U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
by
Linda Thieman
on Mon 27 Dec 2004 12:59 PM CST
 Call to Action: U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency
True Majority
It is disheartening at this time when the spirit of the holiday season is in the air that we open the newspaper to find: "U.S. Cutting Food Aid Aimed at Self-Sufficiency."
While the number of the world's people who go hungry is rising
for the first time in years, the Bush administration can find no better
way to reduce spending than to cut $600 million from global food aid
programs aimed at helping millions of people climb out of poverty.
That
belt-tightening of $600 million doesn't make much of a dent in a
federal discretionary budget of $965 BILLION (it's 0.0001 percent), but
in the developing world, it's emergency food to prevent the starvation
of millions, and long-term agricultural development to help people feed
even more people themselves.
Or put
another way, it's 1/60th of the $35 BILLION that remains in the budget
to maintain America's Cold War nuclear weapons equivalent to 150,000 of
the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima.
This is
so outrageous that there's now a BIPARTISAN effort in Congress led by
Rep. Jo Ann Emerson (R-Missouri) to convince the administration that
global food aid should not be cut.
Let's
make our voices really count this holiday season and give the most important
gift we can, the gift of life for millions of our hungry brothers and
sisters around the world.
And we
can make it happen. Flood
your members of Congress with faxes. Click here to send a message.
Be sure to select the "fax" button, as sending a fax always gets
through to members of Congress. Emails are too often
deleted. This is a free service. No fax machine required.
Thursday, December 16
Food Supply Vulnerable to Contamination by Drugs and Plastics from Gene-Altered Crops
by
Linda Thieman
on Thu 16 Dec 2004 03:37 PM CST
 Food Supply Vulnerable to Contamination by Drugs and Plastics from Gene-Altered Crops
Union of Concerned Scientists
WASHINGTON
-- For more than a decade, corn, soybeans, and other food crops
genetically engineered to produce drugs, vaccines, and industrial
chemicals have been grown on American farms. But a new report by six
agricultural experts now warns that the food supply is vulnerable to
contamination by these "pharmaceutical crops" unless substantial
changes are made in the ways and places such crops are grown and
managed.
Based on
the experts' findings, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) [this
week] called on the US Department of Agriculture (USDA) to immediately
ban the field production of corn, soybeans, and other food crops
engineered to produce pharmaceutical and industrial chemicals. UCS
recommends that the USDA spearhead a major campaign to encourage and
fund safer alternatives like non- food crops or growing pharmaceutical
food crops indoors....
UCS
convened the panel of experts to determine whether it is possible to
produce pharmaceuticals in familiar food crops like corn or soybean
(the two plants most often used for pharmaceutical production) without
contaminating human food or animal feed. The panel -- acting
independently of UCS -- analyzed the current system for growing food-
and feed-grade corn and soybeans and identified many points where drugs
and plastics could pass to the food supply if pharmaceutical crops were
grown under the same system. After evaluating various approaches to
blocking contamination at those points, the panel concluded that the
current corn and soybean production system cannot be used for
pharmaceutical corn and soybean in the United States while ensuring
virtually no contamination of the food and feed system.
"It is
sobering that drugs and industrial chemicals could have so many routes
to the food supply," said Dr. David Andow, editor of the technical
report and a professor in the Department of Entomology at the
University of Minnesota. "Pollen can be carried to fields with food
crops by the wind or insects, seeds lodged in the crevices of
harvesting equipment could come loose while harvesting food, and plants
can come up as volunteers in the middle of a food crop. To protect the
food supply, each potential route has to be blocked."
(Click here to read the complete article.)
Sunday, December 12
Asthma Danger To Rural Children
by
Molly Regan
on Sun 12 Dec 2004 03:17 PM CST
 Asthma Danger To Rural Children
IOWA Public Radio
December 12, 2004
Children living close to large factory hog farms have a higher than
normal incidence of ASTHMA than children who do not live in such
areas. Those children living close to factory farms that use
antibiotics on the swine incur the highest rate of ASTHMA.
This information was reported on IOWA Public Radio Friday, December
10th and is from a study in part by Dr. James A. Merchant. Dr.
Merchant is Dean of the University of IOWA College of Public Health in
IOWA City. The College of Public Health at the U of I teaches and
publishes research on causes of rural illness and prevention as well as
environmental health policy. They also have published information
on "Cancer In IOWA", the "IOWA Birth Defects Registry Annual Report"
and "Environmental Health Science Research".
Connections between use of pesticides and prostate cancer are
laid out in their 2004 College of Public Health Research
Publication. On page 16 entitled "All in a Day's Work" it
states: "In IOWA individual farm holders have 27% increased
risk of prostate cancer, while commercial pesticide applicators have a
41% increased risk."
(See: www.public-health.uiowa.edu/news/pubs)
(Also see: www.ehsrc.org and www.aghealth.org)
Wednesday, December 8
Meet the New [USDA] Boss
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 08 Dec 2004 11:48 AM CST
 Meet the New [USDA] Boss
Last Friday's American Progress Report gives us a summary of some of the policies pursued by Mike Johanns,an Iowa
native and current Nebraska governor who was nominated as the new U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, replacing outgoing Ann Veneman.
In
a victory for corporate agribusiness and a defeat for family farmers,
Bush nominated Nebraska Gov Mike Johanns to become the next
Secretary of Agriculture. Announcing Johanns's nomination
yesterday, Bush
called the governor "a faithful
friend of America's farmers and ranchers". But as governor,
Johanns worked persistently to undermine a law passed by a citizen
initiative in 1982 that protects family farmers in Nebraska by banning
most corporate agriculture. Johanns used $300,000 from the Bush administration to fund a biased study of
the law – called I-300 – produced by a Texas consulting
firm. Predictably, the study recommended making it "easier for
agribusiness to gobble up traditional family farm agriculture" in
Nebraska. Johanns's study also suggested "more taxpayer financed
corporate welfare by 'incenting' the outside corporations that would be
gobbling up individual owned farm and rural businesses". As his
next step in
undermining the law, Johanns pushed a bill in the Nebraska legislature
which would "establish a 20-member task force to lookat the pros and
cons of I-300" (Johanns was to appoint 18 of the 20 members). The
legislature understood the purpose of the task force was "to weaken the state's anti-corporate farm law" and, thankfully, it was defeated.
But if Johanns is put in control of federal agriculture policy, his
corporate agenda will be much more difficult for the nation's small
farmers to overcome.
JOHANNS PROPOSES SCHOOL FUNDING CUTS TO PRESERVE CORPORATE WELFARE:
In the face of a multi-million dollar budget shortfall, Johanns
adamantly defended Nebraska's massive corporate welfare program The
state has given away $13 billion on the program since 1988 for giant
corporations like IBP, ConAgra and Union Pacific Corporations profited
to the tune of $148 million in 2001 alone. Each year, Nebraska spends three times as much on corporate welfare as on the entire University of Nebraska school system. Instead of trimming back corporate giveaways, Johanns "called for 10 percent cuts to higher education and K-12 school aid" JOHANNS FAVORS LOWER WAGES FOR WORKERS AT SUBSIDIZED COMPANIES:
A bill was introduced in the Nebraska legislature that would require
workers at companies receiving subsidies from Nebraska to be "paid at
least $870 per hour if they have health insurance, and $957 for those
without". Johanns supported an alternative proposal that would pay
workers at taxpayer subsidized corporations lower wages, with no increase if the company didn't provide health care. JOHANNS FAVORS WITHHOLDING MAD COW INFORMATION FROM THE PUBLIC: With Johanns in charge,you'll likely know a lot less about the safety of the food you eat. As governor,Johanns has expressed opposition to the Department of Agriculture's policy of informing the public when the nation's beef supply may be contaminated.
Johanns asked the Department of Agriculture to reconsider their policy
of announcing when initial tests of cattle show they may be infected
with Mad Cow disease, also known as BSE. Johanns's position runs counter
to the conclusions of the USDA inspector general, which found the agency
isn't doing enough to protect the public from Mad Cow contamination.
The
American Progress Report gave us an idea of what types of experience
Mr. Johanns has in agricultural policy. Columnist Alan Guebert
gives us an idea of what issues Mr. Johanns will have to face in the
next four years:
LETTER FROM AMERICA:
NEW USDA BOSS FACES TROUBLE
WITH CONGRESS AND FARMERS
ALAN GUEBERT, AG COMM:
To hear George W. Bush tell it, Michael Johanns, Bush's
nominee to succeed U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman, is an
accomplished trade negotiator, ardent defender of American farmers,
ranchers and biofuels and a proven leader with "executive skill."
Moreover,
explained Bush December 2, Johanns, governor of the nation's fourth
largest farm state, Nebraska, and now in line to lead nation's fourth
largest government agency, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, "grew up
close to the land."
Right,
as U.S. farmers are fond of reminding politicians who boast they grew
up on a farm, "So did every mule and hog in America."
Truth
is, nothing in Johanns' background has prepared him for the challenges
he now faces in what he somewhat romantically calls his "dream job,"
running the $82 billion, 113,000-employee USDA.
After
a rapid and certain confirmation by the U.S. Senate in January, nothing
about leading USDA will be romantic. Johanns' will face domestic and
foreign farm fires immediately --- if not sooner.
First,
America's ballooning federal debt, an all-time record $413 billion in
2004, guarantees USDA farm programs will go under the knife in Congress
in 2005. Already, rumors suggest the White House has alerted all
federal agencies to expect heavy budget cuts; maybe two to four percent
below 2004 levels.
For
USDA that means the fiscal conservatives in Congress who won sweeping
election victories in the Republican "red" heartland last month could
slice as much as $3 billion from food aid and farm support programs.
That
will be a tough diet because Congress, with Bush's blessing, already
made the easy cuts in 2003 and 2004. For example, in the last two
fiscal years Congress lopped more than $1 billion from 2002 Farm Bill
soil and water conservation programs.
As
such, any new cuts will dismantle many rural development programs,
slice deeper into conservation and begin paring farm price support
programs.
Current
ideas center on cutting annual "base" payments guaranteed grain and
cotton producers under the 2002 Farm Bill as well as lowering Farm
Bill-pegged commodity prices that deliver greater government support as
commodity prices fall.
Johanns'
job in the budget fight will be two-fold. First must position himself
and [Bush] as a defenders of farmers so rural congressman and
senators have political cover with their constituents when cuts are
made.
The
operative line Johanns must learn is "Congress wanted deeper cuts, but
[Bush] and I limited the damage." It may pinch the truth, but,
hey, this is politics.
The
second job will be far harder --- convincing farmers and ranchers that
less money for American agriculture is good for them and the country.
The
supporting line for that argument is plain: America must reform (read
that cut) most of farm price support programs to complete world trade
talks.
That
script was a better seller before November 22, the day USDA announced
that for the first time in nearly 50 years the U.S. will not run and
farm trade surplus in 2005. The news shocked American farmers who have
long warmed themselves with the thought that "America feeds the world."
Not
anymore. According to USDA's latest estimates, U.S. farm exports in
2005 will be $56 billion, nearly $7 billion under 2004's. More
importantly, 2005 ag imports will be (in a curious coincidence) an
identical $56 billion, $9 billion more than as recently as 2003.
That
means in just four short years White House economic and trade policies
have taken the US farm trade surplus from $13.6 billion in 2001 to zero
in 2005.
Gov.
Johanns will be looked to by farmers to stop that freefall. While Bush
touts Johanns' trade experience, the governor's actual experience is
mostly as a salesman. Over the past six years he has led nearly a dozen
one-and two-day Nebraska trade junkets to the Far East and South
American.
If
that makes Johanns a trade expert, then anyone who has watched a
baseball game at New York's hallowed Yankee Stadium is Babe Ruth.
Johanns'
best links to agriculture came as a politician; he has not farmed since
childhood in Iowa. As Nebraska governor, though, he served as chairman
of the National Governor's Association Biotechnology Partnership with
American business.
Johanns'
ties to agribusiness were tested last January when he led an effort to
undermine a Nebraska law called Initiative-300, the toughest
anti-corporate farming law in America. It was a raw political move to
open the nation's biggest red meat-producing state to corporate
livestock integrator-meatpackers.
The
effort quickly backfired, however, and Johanns was soundly rebuked by
Nebraska farmers and ranchers who cherish their independence almost as
much as their cherish their guns.
It
is a lesson Johanns may endure again as he prepares to battle for Bush
farm policy initiatives--budget cuts and more free trade --- in the
U.S. and abroad. Both will be met with worry and anguish on the farms
and ranches of America.
Bottom
line for Secretary-to-be Johanns? He's Ann Veneman with a firmer
handshake and a quicker smile. The problems he faces, however, are the
not only the same as Veneman's, they are bigger, too.
Mr. Guebert's column is excerpted from A.V. Kreb's Agribusiness Examiner #383.
Alan Guebert is the author of the weekly column Farm and Food File, as
well as this weekly column written for European and Asian newspapers.
Monday, December 6
Where Is The Next Generation of Farmers?
by
Chad Thompson
on Mon 06 Dec 2004 10:49 AM CST
Where Is The Next Generation of Farmers?
Iowa winters typically bring about two things:
1. Packing the gym of the local high school for basketball games and wrestling meets.
2. Reflecting on the farm economy - the fall harvest, and what it means for next year.
By all accounts, this should be a good year at the basketball games and coffee shops. According to Bruce Babcock, director of the Center for Agricultural and Rural Development at Iowa State:
"This year will be the perfect situation for Iowa farmers,"
Babcock said. "They have bin-busting crops and bin-busting government
farm payments."
However, there was another news release last week of the Iowa State Extension's "Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll" which carries the tagline:
More than half of Iowa farmers surveyed would not advise their children to enter the family business
According to the article:
Fifteen-year-old
Chris Pelzer of Tipton is a farmer's son who thinks he has little
choice but to envision his future off the farm.
"The money's a
problem," he said, describing the economic realities that make this 4-H
member lean toward engineering or environmental science.
He's
not alone. The new Iowa Farm and Rural Life Poll from Iowa State
University Extension shows that 57 percent of farmers surveyed would
recommend their children choose a career other than farming.
"Families
are not encouraging their sons and daughters to go into farming. It
really revolves around capital, risk and lack of profits," said Paul
Lasley, an Iowa State sociology professor and co-author of the report.
The
survey's respondents say the top reason for young people not entering
farming is high start-up costs, followed by the high risks, low profits
and lack of available land.
The bottom line: the long-term economic picture remains bleak. Why? According to the survey:
High start-up costs: The
farm policies that were laid out in the 1970s were often summed up in
one phrase: "Get big, or get out". It takes an awful lot of
capital to "start big" - and that's not something that an inspiring
producer can do.
High Risks: In the
current environment of packer ownership of livestock and
government-bolstered commodity prices, a farmer is at enormous risk of
seeing the bottom drop out of a market when either the government
changes farm policy, or corporate owners of a vertically-integrated
supply chain decide to push livestock prices down in order to improve
margins. (Or corporate owners could potentially outsource livestock production altogether or take advantage of government loopholes to boost profit margins at the expense of the average producer.)
Low Profits: Current
government subsidy policy is set up to encourage overproduction -
something that is inherently bad for the producer, but good for the
processor. "Freedom To Farm" has been transformed into the
"Freedom to Go Broke".
Lack of Available Land:
As farms are forced to get bigger, they're forced to put more land into
production. Bigger farmers have access to capital that drives
land prices out of the reach of smaller producers.
With the reasons given in the survey, it's easy to see that the
competitive field is biased toward large "corporate" farms and
multi-national agribusinesses - squeezing the smaller farmers out of
existance. Sound familiar? It should - this is the
"Wal-Martization" of agriculture, happening right before our eyes.
With all of this happening, you would think that organizations that
have been set up to support and represent farmers would be fighting
tooth-and-nail to protect the very people they represent, right?
Well.... maybe not:
While start-up costs and a lack of available land certainly played a
role in the poll’s outcome, Putze said the ever-increasing regulatory
environment and activist presence in the state certainly haven’t helped.
“Calling farmers terrorists and child abusers - as some activist groups
have done - and defining a factory farmer as anyone who needs a permit
to operate doesn’t go far in welcoming the next generation onto the
farm,” Putze said. Iowa's
producers are going to have to realize that their economic and social
fabric is being destroyed by the growing demands of corporate
profiteers - not by the activists that are speaking up for the quality
- and continuation - of the rural lifestyle.
The groups that purport to "support" Iowa's farmers do them no such
favor by embracing the pro-corporate agenda that has been decimating
the economic and social fabric of rural Iowa.
If you're interested in really supporting Iowa's farmers, the
Iowa Farmers Union would be happy to hear from you - and so would we.
What do you think is causing farmers to tell their children to leave the farm?
|
DFIA Events Calendar
Add Your Event Here
|
