Buzzflash
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mixx it!
RedditThe most telling Cabinet nomination that Barack Obama will advance once he assumes the presidency on January 20 -- and from a long-term standpoint perhaps the most meaningful one -- will not be his selection for secretary of State, secretary of Defense, Treasury secretary or attorney general. Obama, constrained by circumstance and the demands of official Washington, is set to fill those positions with predictable players from the usual D.C.-insider lists.
The pick that offers the most insight into where Obama will lead the country is his selection the most misunderstood position in the Cabinet: secretary of Agriculture.
The Department of Agriculture is, to be sure, misnamed. Ever since Abraham Lincoln evolved what had been a subdivision of the Patent Office and then a section of the Department of the Interior into an independent federal agency that the 16th president referred to as "the people's department," the department has been about much more than just farming. And that is only more so today, as the agency deals with everything from food safety and the spread of organic farming to buy-local food initiatives, rural development, food and nutrition programs in urban areas, and overseas aid.
The USDA is a key player when it comes to energy policy, both because of the rise of biofuels and because of the increasingly adventurous grant-making by its Renewable Energy Systems and Energy Efficiency Improvements Program.
The USDA's Forest Service administers almost 300,000 square miles of national forests and grasslands.
The secretary of Agriculture is, as well, often a definitional player in trade debates -- as the question of how the United States supports farmers remains an essential one when it comes to forging trade agreements and engagement with the World Trade Organization.
With a $97 billion annual budget and roughly 110,000 employees -- more than the departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, and Energy combined -- it is one of the largest non-defense agencies in the federal government. And its hand is everywhere, with thousands of county extension offices spread across every state.
Bill Clinton and George Bush made what might best be described as "hack" appointments to the Department of Agriculture, naming political pals with limited real-world experience in contemporary farm and food debates. In Bush's administration, in particular, the job of the secretary of Agriculture has been to promote the agenda of corporate agribusiness with regard to trade policy and the lowering of food safety standards. As such, there is a lot of repair work to be done.
The question for weeks after the election was whether Obama would nominate someone who was ready to do the work.
Now, that question has been answered.
Unfortunately, the answer is not a bold one.
Obama plans to nominate former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, who was briefly a contender for the 2008 Democratic presidential nod before dropping out to back first Hillary Clinton and, finally, Obama.
Vilsack is a capable administrator with the right partisan credentials.
But he only moved to the top of the list of Agriculture secretary prospects because he is a prominent Democrat who comes from what Washington insiders know as a "farm state." As governor of Iowa, Vilsack had to engage with farm issues. But that embrace was anything but inspired. Family farm activists, fair-trade campaigners and advocates for organic foods were regularly disappointed by the stands he took. The Organic Consumers Association was blunt, declaring: "Vilsack has a glowing reputation as being a schill for agribusiness biotech giants like Monsanto."
Early on, reviews like that one seemed to lead Obama's transition team, and Vilsack himself, to recognize that the Iowan was not the best choice. But as the timeline for filling Cabinet chairs accelerated, Vilsack moved back into contention.
Obama could have done better, much better.
Some activists suggested a radical break with recent Agriculture Department appointments. They wanted to see Obama select a genuine change agent: writer Michael Pollan, whose books -- "In Defense of Food: An Eater's Manifesto" and "The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals" -- have reframed the debate about food production, food safety and eating. Pollan would have been a bold choice, somewhat like Franklin Roosevelt's selection of Henry Wallace as his Depression-era secretary of Agriculture. But the author admitted he was an unlikely pick.
More competitive -- and still quite appealing -- was Tom Buis, the president of the National Farmers Union, who was an early and wise counselor for the president-elect. Buis, an Indiana farmer who has also served as an aide to top Democrats in the Senate, has over the past several years been in the thick of every major debate about farm and food policy. He knows the issues and, for the most part, he has been on the right side of them, although critics of ethanol initiatives will find fault with his advocacy on that front.
Unlike the Farm Bureau, a conservative grouping that has historically aligned with corporate agribusiness interests and Wall Street, the Farmers Union has for a century represented working farmers and Main Street. In recent years, Buis and the NFU have emerged as key players in advancing fresh thinking about farm and food issues: supporting the development of organic farming, backing the development of farmers' markets and local food programs, promoting country-of-origin labeling and other food safety initiatives, and battling the commodities speculators that have driven up global food prices.
Emblematic of the broader view taken by Buis and the NFU is the group's embrace of fair-trade thinking; some years ago the NFU broke with other major farm groups to recognize that free-trade agreements such as NAFTA have failed working farmers in both the United States and the rest of the world.
There were, to be sure, other prospects for secretary of Agriculture.
The president-elect could have picked a sharp state official with a record of leading on agriculture issues, such as Wisconsin Secretary of Agriculture Rod Nilsestuen or North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Roger Johnson. Even more impressive would have been former North Dakota Commissioner of Agriculture Sarah Vogel, an always-ahead-of-the-curve advocate for food safety and fair trade. The same can be said for Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a former policy analyst in Minnesota's Department of Agriculture who co-founded and for many years led the Minneapolis-based Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy.
Vogel, Ritchie and Buis are different players with different strengths. But each had a record of commitment to approaching farm and food issues from the perspective of those who grow and eat this nation's bounty -- as opposed to the agribusiness conglomerates and speculators that profiteer off America's and the world's fields of plenty. As such, each would have been "change" choice.
Vilsack is, at best, a cautious pick.
We can only hope that the new secretary of agriculture will break with some of his old friends in agribusiness -- and that, as he fills powerful posts withing the department that he will consider the likes of Vogel, Ritchie and Buis.
He will need the help.
As Buis noted in a gracious statement recognizing Obama's pick, "Rural America is facing many challenges - the farm and rural economy have changed dramatically for the worst over the last few months as a result of the worldwide economic recession, the rules for the 2008 Farm Bill have not been finalized nor implemented, more people are seeking food assistance, and commodity prices have fallen dramatically while farmer input costs remain high."
Translation: America is going to need more than an old-fashioned Department of Agriculture to meet the challenges of the 21st century. Vilsack must recreate the department as a smart, activist farm and food agency. And he should surround himself with those who have gotten farm and food issues right in recent years -- not the hangers-on who have so frequently been on the wrong side of the fence.
Share this article
John Nichols
Breaking news and analysis on political, social, economic and cultural activism that mainstream media commonly ignore.
- Atrios
- Arts and Letters Daily
- The Caucus
- Campus Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- The Daily Gotham
- Daily Kos
- Echidne of the Snakes
- Ezra Klein
- FAIR
- Feministe
- Feministing
- Firedoglake
- Glenn Greenwald
- Gothamist
- In these Times
- Hendrik Hertzberg
- Huffington Post
- Hullabaloo
- Matthew Yglesias
- Media Matters
- Mother Jones
- My DD
- New York Review of Books
- Openleft
- Pam's House Blend
- Pandagon
- Political Wire
- The Progressive
- RaceWire
- Real Clear Politics
- Roberto Lovato
- Romenesko
- Swing State Project
- Talking Points Memo
- Ta-Nehisi Coates
- Tapped
- Tech President
- Tompaine
- The Washington Note
- Utne Reader
- Wonkette
- ZNet
RSS
i hope the new administration takes a serious approach to implementing high tech sustainability in all areas, including agriculture.
check out this website for where i'm going, here...one of my favorite pipe dreams that one day will be a massive reality...
http://www.verticalfarm.com/
a big mistake we have made in many areas is to leave public direction and investment in high technology largely to the defense department. i often wonder what today would be like if we had followed jimmy carter's lead in the 1970's in terms of developing and implementing high tech solutions to the energy conumdrum rather than dropping such projects and mindset as soon as iraq and iran started undercutting each other on oil prices as a result of their war. ah, the good old days when the conflict in the middle east involved primarily middle eastern powers.
the concept of vertical agriculture contains the possibility of supplying our food supply with LESS land under cultivation. this allows more land to revert to forest, which is great for the environment. furthermore the perfection of this array of technology is just one example of how green high tech manufacturing and expertise in implementation can make our country money by exporting the same and "save the world".
agricultural towers gracing the skylines of the world's major cities, powered by green, renewable systems (like their own biomass "waste"), providing as much food as hundreds of times their acreage...allowing over farmed countryside to revert to its natural, atmosphere filtering and renewing state...
what a wonderful world! really...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 08:32am
advantages of vertical farming (VF)...
*Year-round crop production; 1 indoor acre is equivalent to 4-6 outdoor acres or more, depending upon the crop (e.g., strawberries: 1 indoor acre = 30 outdoor acres)
*No weather-related crop failures due to droughts, floods, pests
*All VF food is grown organically: no herbicides, pesticides, or fertilizers
*VF virtually eliminates agricultural runoff by recycling black water
*VF returns farmland to nature, restoring ecosystem functions and services
*VF greatly reduces the incidence of many infectious diseases that are acquired at the agricultural interface
*VF converts black and gray water into potable water by collecting the water of evapotranspiration
*VF adds energy back to the grid via methane generation from composting non-edible parts of plants and animals
*VF dramatically reduces fossil fuel use (no tractors, plows, shipping.)
*VF converts abandoned urban properties into food production centers
*VF creates sustainable environments for urban centers
*VF creates new employment opportunities We cannot go to the moon, Mars, or beyond without first learning to farm indoors on earth
*VF may prove to be useful for integrating into refugee camps
*VF offers the promise of measurable economic improvement for tropical and subtropical LDCs. If this should prove to be the case, then VF may be a catalyst in helping to reduce or even reverse the population growth of LDCs as they adopt urban agriculture as a strategy for sustainable food production.
*VF could reduce the incidence of armed conflict over natural resources, such as water and land for agriculture
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 08:36am
Boy, can you imagine if RUSS FEINGOLD came out for VERTICAL FARMING...
ibb and Mr Nichols would swoon!...heheh
BTW, given that this IS a Mr Nichols' article....it probably WON'T be Vogel, Ritchie, OR Buis!
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 08:46am
ibb and Mr Nichols would swoon!...heheh
BTW, given that this IS a Mr Nichols' article....it probably WON'T be Vogel, Ritchie, OR Buis!
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 08:46am | ignore this person | warn this person
if ANYONE showed such vision i would swoon!!!
so, MASK, entering the "post bush" contest here at TN?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 09:40am
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 09:40am
Hey IBB, how's it going?
Um, what will they use to pollenate the crops with? I know man is not capable of doing what the least among us can do.
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 12:09pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 09:40am
Didn't notice...what is it?
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 12:48pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 1:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats cool...almost makes me want to go visit disney again...
i DO think technology will be our (worldly) savior, but needs some pushing and long term patience.
----------------------------------------- Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats a good question.
---------------------------------------- Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 12:48pm | ignore this person | warn this person
its gone now. either they got a buttload of responses or thought the better of it.
you had to write a small blurb about what W is going to do after he leaves office. the cartoon artist guy will draw a pic to go with it.
i said W would get into growing medical marijuana in a business with cheech and chong. the punch line was tommy chong saying he and cheech would "smoke them out" when the bushes arrived. or something like that.
but...looks like its gone now...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:19pm
----------------------------------------- Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 12:09pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thats a good question.
oh - i'm ok - u? lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 1:22pm | ignore this person | warn this person
i love the illustrations at the site.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:32pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:19pm
Bush, post-Presidency, will be almost pitiable (except it's him, and few, except his devoted 28% Club, would pity him).
He'll make speeches in "safe" venues (Oil Company stockholder meetings, Halliburton Christmas party in Dubai, a Limbaugh birthday tribute)....but eventually those will dry up as few Republicans will want to be seen with the "21st Century Herbert Hoover".
The GOP will NEVER call on him to speak at a Convention again...and no candidate (even in areas like Utah or Mississippi) will ask him in for a photo op, much less a joint appearance.
He's relatively young, so unlike LBJ, he won't die a few years after leaving office in disgrace...so the years will drag on and on....his name will become iconic-
"Do you want to go back to the DUBYA days?!?!??!" replacing Jimmy Carter in younger people's minds.
But, unlike Cheney in a few years, they probably won't have to post guards around his gravesite in 20-25 years, to prevent desecration,...most people just won't care.
That is a much more karmic justice than HSUB's impeachment or some "The Hague trial" fantasy.
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 1:50pm
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 1:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person
yeah...that sounds like a pretty likely scenario. at least he's a trust fund wonder, so no worries about the bling.
he should try to get a tv show on cable. that would be funny.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:57pm
The GOP will NEVER call on him to speak at a Convention again...and no candidate (even in areas like Utah or Mississippi) will ask him in for a photo op, much less a joint appearance.
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 1:50pm
You wish! You libs said the same thing about Nixon and Reagan and it didn't happend. Only in the minds of the left do they think they're the ones entitled to have public redemption. Even with the Vietnam war, LBJ wasn't tarred and feathered after the left office.
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 2:26pm
Even with the Vietnam war, LBJ wasn't tarred and feathered after the left office.
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 2:26pm | ignore this person | warn this person
he croaked...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 2:36pm
he croaked...lol...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 2:36pm
He sure did, didn't he!?....lol
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 2:45pm
"that was cool, huh huh,
when we killed that frog, huh huh
he won't croak again"
butthead's haiku from "beavis and butthead"...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 3:03pm
oh - i'm ok - u? lol
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/16/2008 @ 1:24pm
I'm doing fine. Taking the day off to relax. Hubby and I were supposed to start packing for our trip to Spain, but we decided to move our travel plans to next year. Although my husband was looking forward to "celebrating" our 25th anniversary somewhere else, we just couldn't bring ourselves to go, knowing that our son is still in Afghanistan. God forbid something happens to him while we're out of the country.
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 3:27pm
The advantages for Mark Ritchie, Sarah Vogel, and Tom Buis is that they understand the importance of price floors with supply management to put an end to farm export dumping, and also price ceilings with strategic grain reserves to address the food crisis.
This is a key distinction that was missed by another progressive article on Secretary of Agriculture, (mentioned by Nichols,) that didn't mention trade or commodity title, the mega, multi-billion (or multi-trillion dollar, historically,) issues of the farm program.
Buis, however, represents a group that abandoned anti-dumping policy positions when Iowa Senator Harkin became Senate Ag Chair and Democrats followed Harkin in switching over to a sort of green dumping line of policy (green subsidies with no price floors), a greened up version of the 1996 Republican Freedom to Farm Act. He would be accepted by Democrats and would not threaten the corporate agribusiness output complex (ie. grain buyers) as his recent positions have not challenged their huge, hidden below-cost gains. Most progressives also have switched over to green-dumping/green-subsidies in their 2007-8 policy proposals.
The key question is whether or not Democrats will have the courage to return to the price floors and other policies of the New Deal, perhaps updated with international agreements for supply management and more. (See the National Family Farm Coalition's Food from Family Farms Act on these matters, and Ritchie's 1980s booklet, Crisis by Design, not online.)
Obama knows that this issue exists. He may not know that it was an effective economic stimulus as part of the Steagall Amendment of 1941. We had no farm depression post WWII like we did post WWI. We had parity prices (living wage, fair trade).
Export at a profit? Yes!
Posted by BradWilson at 12/16/2008 @ 3:40pm
Sorry, I had a typo. In fact, Mark Ritchie's Crisis by Design is "now online:" http://www.iatp.org/iatp/publications.cfm?accountID=258&refID=48644
Wendell Berry had an excellent critique of the original vertical farming idea. The idea was featured in a 1960s (I think) USDA yearbook and in a 1970 issue of National Geographic. See Berry's chapter on the future in The Unsettling of America.
I see vertical farming as utopian, in the bad sense. It's trying to do the work of nature so nature doesn't do it with less than mechanical perfection. It's Lewis Mumford's book "The Myth of the Machine." See Mumford on utopia in volume II , "The Pentagon of Power," and in his book, "Interpretations and Forecasts."
Agribusiness is doing great selling nitrogen to farmers, since they don't get it free from the air so much anymore (having taken alfalfa and clover, hay and pastures, out of crop rotations, with the utopia of indoor livestock hotels. Photosynthesis is still a burden though. Farmers are getting free carbon from green plants. It's all NPK (Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Potassium,) with no purchased C at all! But indoors! A potential market for selling carbon to farmers could be the wave of the future.
Oh, 30 plus years later, about 2003, National Geographic did a follow up piece on food, showing perhaps the same utopian Colorado feedlot (air shot). But this time, (with Mumford,) it was an expose on kaktopia. As Mumford quoted a leading utopian fiction writer, "Against his will, against all his hopeful conscious beliefs, [he] kept on saying under his breath: No good can come of it."
But see the great, clean, glass-domed pictures of the mechanical utopia, then or now!
Posted by BradWilson at 12/16/2008 @ 4:00pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/16/2008 @ 3:09pm
Feel free....you really think with a stock market tanking, rising unemployment, and Iraq now a pro-Iranian "democracy" where many of the people hate their "liberator"...
that Dubya's reputation will be resurrected? All the King's Rushs and all the King's Fox...won't put Humpty W together again.
Posted by Mask at 12/16/2008 @ 4:13pm
Vilsack has been named, it seems.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/16/2008 @ 7:56pm
Whomever on here noted something about Reagan being wanted to speak...uh, not really. The Republicans largely ran from him. When you ask people about policies, he turns out to be the most unpopular president, although the current one will surely make a run for it. And Reagan simply as Reagan, aside from the bump via death that quickly came back to earth, is not well-liked either. The current economic problems are only solidifying his place as an anti-American piece of crap.
Posted by onthehelm at 12/16/2008 @ 10:08pm
Posted by onthehelm at 12/16/2008 @ 10:08pm
Like I said, only in the minds of you libs. In spite of what YOU THINK, Reagan was well-liked.
And as far as the economic problems are concerned, you got your boys' Carter and Clinton to thank for that.
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
Since it was Carter and Clinton's faults for the economic crisis, what the hell were W. and Reagan around for? I mean their names were on the door right? Why didn't they fix it?
The worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and the worst attack on U.S. soil occur during Bush's Presidency and somehow he has nothing to do with it.
Katrina causes needless suffering and lasting destruction and the lack of response is certainly not Bush's fault. It must have been LBJ or Carter. No, it was Clinton.
There certainly are a lot of Reagan fetishists. But, I think there will be more of a movement to whitewash W's Presidency, probably because his record is so terrible.
Posted by koroviev at 12/17/2008 @ 01:11am
"I see vertical farming as utopian, in the bad sense. It's trying to do the work of nature so nature doesn't do it with less than mechanical perfection."
Posted by BradWilson at 12/16/2008 @ 4:00pm | ignore this person | warn this person
thoughtful post, but...
utopian? not so sure about that. i suppose all human desires to solve problems could be thought of as utopian in a sense, but i think thats a bit of a stretch for the term.
i think of vertical farming and other high tech solutions as more "anti dystopian".
look at the world population growth and compare this to food production and the processes needed to produce more food (clearing of forests and such) and one indeed reaches a scary malthusian dystopic conclusion. past prognosticators of such nightmares have generally overstated the problem, but eventually a crisis WILL develop, not only in our ability to supply food, but in the environmental consequences of putting more and more forest land under cultivation...
if you look at the proposals for VF, you will see that not only is such intended to provide more food in considerably less space, but it is to do so with FAR less waste and pollution.
look...even if somewhere down the line we see clean, green, agricultural towers dotting the skylines of our cities, there will still be traditional farming for quite some time, even if such is sort of a specialty industry catering to quaint nostalgia-sheik retailoers.
the main point is that we need to start thinking about alternative, long term solutions to our problems that could have a very positive effect on our future.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 09:00am
utopian? sure, why not?
realistic striving for utopia is exactly what we need. notice i said "realistic" as opposed to "we can solve all the problems and create a perfect world" utopianism.
but i would say that in order for us shaved apes to survive we MUST adopt a will to perfect ourselves, our societies, and our economies. we as a democratic society NEED a lofty, long term goal and vision for which to strive, to dream, lest we wallow in the mud of shortsighted, petty, short term patchwork solutions and excessive-greed driven goals that either ignore the needs of the future or actually work counter to such needs.
i sincerely hope that the president elect can, through his charisma and talent, lead the american people to appreciate and work toward such long term goals, to adjust our ideas of what is needed for a secure, profitable, and happy future...or even to adjust our definition of "success" for that matter.
back to the specific...
i'm not saying that VA, or any other specific technology or innovation or policy initiative alone is the solution to all the problems...but thats not the point.
we and the entire developed world need to address global population growth and a myriad of other issues. personally, i predict a horrible dystopia in africa and other parts of the developing world in the near future that will require most of the wealthy world to severely curtail movement of people and force us into more economic autarky while at the same time forcing us to address the problems that will cause such a dystopia.
but the time for initiating action is NOW. science, bolstered by some wisdom and resources, holds the key for our earthly salvation indeed. the world will never be perfect, but i have to think we can do better in our planning.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 09:12am
the first thing we need to do, and i think mr. obama understands this well, is get our own house in order.
according to joseph tainter there are three models for societal collapse. the one that most closely mirrors our society is the "runaway train" model...
"Runaway Train: An example would be a society that only functions when growth is present. Societies based almost exclusively on acquisition, including pillage or exploitation, cannot be sustained indefinitely. The societies of the Assyrians and the Mongols, for example, both fractured and collapsed when no new conquests were forthcoming. Tainter argues that Capitalism can be seen as an example of the Runaway Train model as it requires whole economies, individual sectors, and companies to constantly grow on a three month basis. Current methods of resource extraction and food production may be unsustainable, however, the philosophy of consumerism and planned obsolescence encourage the purchase of an ever increasing number of goods and services to sustain the economy."
i'm not indicting capialism here, by the way, just our "runaway train" model of directionless, inertia driven capitalism.
our inability to plan for the future in any way other than military preparation is perilous, for although we will indeed need a strong, effective military (not necesarily a HUGE military, though), our greatest threats come not from violence, but from the results of our non-military choices and patterns of behavior, from our inability or lack of will to plan and prepare for a future beyond the next election cycle or the next quarterly report.
i would personally love to see a department of science and technology to coordinate the efforts of our government to address present and future issues before the explode.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 09:42am
Posted by ACook at 12/16/2008 @ 11:17pm
ACOOK, I STILL can't seem to get an answeer to this question...
if our present economic woes are due to "Carter and Clinton"...
why didn't BUSH and the GOP-CONTROLLED CONGRESS (2003-2006)....fix the problems and not let them happen?!????!?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 09:54am
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 09:54am | ignore this person | warn this person
the runaway train economic philosophy has been a staple of republican ideology for some time, though i'm not saying the clinton administration stood against it in any real way, itself.
clinton shored up the economic dikes to a large extent, but championed many of the policies that have led to our current problem.
but we have been holding back the flood for some time now, economically. depending on ever increasing consumer spending without commensurate increases in consumer income was bound to crash at some point, regardless - sans a true understanding of this reality and will to deal with it in a positive manner.
unfortunately i have a hard time seeing how the pre W general public "jay walking" crowd of trivia and shopping befuddled marching morons COULD have even elected someone or some folks who then convinced them a change was needed BEFORE the whole house of cards came crashing down.
oh well...here we are, right here, right now and this is what we have to deal with.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 10:23am
How can a campaign that seemed so inspired be so tepid in its picks for the the people who will be helping make the decisions that will effect our country for at least a decade? These are the people that would fit very nicely into the last four administrations, and look at the crap we are into. We will end up with a seamless transition into the same mud puddle we are into now.
Posted by julien38 at 12/17/2008 @ 10:31am
why didn't BUSH and the GOP-CONTROLLED CONGRESS (2003-2006)....fix the problems and not let them happen?!????!?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 09:54am
We tried. Remember, it was Alan Greenspan who warned Congress to act back in 2005. The Senate Banking Committee introduced a bill that would have given regulators the power to crack down. The regulators would have required companies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to eliminate their investments in risky assets. But the bill didn't become law, for a simple reason: Democrats opposed it on a party-line vote in the committee, signaling that this would be a partisan issue. Republicans couldn't even get the Senate to vote on the matter. Among those who didn't support an economic fix were: John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, and President Elect Barack Obama.
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 10:40am
Posted by julien38 at 12/17/2008 @ 10:31am
Oh well, that's change for ya!
Uh Oh, break time is over! Gotta run!
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 10:43am
Posted by julien38 at 12/17/2008 @ 10:31am | ignore this person | warn this person
good question, but i would venture to say that we don't really know what many of these folks' personal ideas and philosophies are, especially now. honestly its kind of hard to say what mr. clinton wanted to do as prez, since the witch hunt tied his hands and forced him to spend gobs of political capital on defending himself.
regardless, these appointees do have experience in what they do and given a set of instructions from and effective leader, i believe they will work at least as hard and effectively to implement the decisions and policies of that leader as any other.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 10:48am
lefties relax!
the reign of the uber-right is over! as more and more marching morons awaken from their satano-aynrando induced, consumerist, fantasy world, pop cultural sleepy time lullaby, the definitions of "right", "center", and "left" begin to return to a saner, more legitimate, understanding of the nature of political ideology.
the age of "center-right" popular opinion is ending, to be replaced with a more center-center, or even center left paradigm, and so will we see a leftward drift in all but the most dyed in the wool ideologues.
those outwardly centrist dems who drifted rightward in an effort to survive will come back to the center, and the centrists who were always leftists at heart will feel much freer to drift publicly leftward in speech and policy.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 11:02am
We tried.---Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 10:40am
But they found enough time to pull Bush back from vacation to try to deal with...
Terri Schiavo?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 11:58am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 11:13am
So at what point in the future do you think people are going to say "Boy...I sure wish we could go back to the Golden Years of George W. Bush"?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 12:04pm
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/17/2008 @ 11:13am | ignore this person | warn this person
perhaps, but the pendulum is swinging leftward.
the economic paradigm that just collapsed is gone for a while at least. people who once viewed activist, big government with extreme suspicion are now questioning their former faith in big business and deregulation...and returning to awareness of, involvement in, and trust in the political process and the possibilities of positive government action.
eventually we will reform ourselves and get out of this hole and who knows what will happen then, but for the short term i have a hard time seeing our political tendencies veering anywhere but at least a little leftward...
not predicting massive socialism or anything, but thinking we may see a similar political phenomenon to that the country experienced from FDR to LBJ.
but we shall see, eh?
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:22pm
I think we should stop looking at what has happen in the past. I mean we have a great leader who can make a differance in america and is willing to sarcrifice everything.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:37pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:37pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol - posted by a "friend"...though i second the thought...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:59pm
I do not understand why anyone continues to believe Mr. Obama is going to "change" anything.
Posted by syfriendly at 12/17/2008 @ 1:20pm
Oh my God! Did you see that idiot Sheer? He titles his piece, "Final verdict".
It made me laugh out loud. Yes, the final verdict of Turman was written when some NYT editor said History's final verdict on Truman was written today based on a temper tantrum. No historian will ever revist Truman's Presidency.
And the glowing accolades for Braniac Woodrow Wilson. He will be judged for the rest of time based on the view of today's editors' opinions. The league of nations will for all time be viewed as a wild success and no one will ever again mention Wilson's vitriolic racism.
And no historian will ever look past the shoe tempertantum ever again. If Iraq becomes a thriving democracy within a decade, Well obviously that is 100% to Obama's credit because some idiot threw a shoe.
Final verdict? The trial doesn't even start for two decades and concludes after at least a century.
I've seen some idiotic propaganda on these pages but this is really spectacular.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 1:31pm
Here in Iowa we know that Tom Vilsack has the same agricultural background and depth of knowledge as Jerry Seinfeld -
Originally from Pennsylvania, he transplanted his family to Iowa to practice law with his wife's father. His political career was launched by hurriedly filling the seat of a murdered mayor in a sleepy little burg in southeast Iowa... and from there on to the governorship.
As pointed out in this article, there are many, many more capable and innovative individuals that could be named to this increasingly important post than Mr. Vilsack. But, haven't we come to expect a parade of the same tired old names being tossed around for positions in the exciting new "Change We Can Believe In" administration?
Posted by lumenpro at 12/17/2008 @ 1:32pm
not predicting massive socialism or anything, but thinking we may see a similar political phenomenon to that the country experienced from FDR to LBJ.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:22pm
What political phenomenon!? What we experienced was total chaos, not to mention dirty, smelly hippies.
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 1:49pm
But they found enough time to pull Bush back from vacation to try to deal with...
Terri Schiavo?
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 11:58am
So what!! It doesn't excuse the fact that your party balked on regulating the finance industry.
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 1:54pm
Maybe I should cut Sheer some slack. His "Final Verdict" assessment is obviously just wishful thinking.
Wouldn't it be great if any time there was a favorable swing in public opinion that you could declare that the final verdict and no historian could ever reconsider the conventional wisdom?
I mean, imagain how embarrassed you'd be if you were Stalin's loudest, wildest cheerleader for over a decade, but then historians revisited the conventional wisdom and said, "You know, I think I've changed my mind. That Stalin guy was a real asshole to starve those 6 six million Ukranians to death."
You'd live in abject fear that someday, Iraq might be a functioning democracy that spreads favorable impression of democracy to Iran, Saudia Arabia, Pakistan. And people start saying, "You know, maybe Bush was right to insist that terrorism was a result of a poverty of political freedom and not a poverty of material goods. Hey, what do you know. The Nation got it wrong again. They are at the forfront of cheerleading trendy, anti-western hatred, but maybe those dead white males weren't so dumb after all.
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 1:55pm
I've been a little cranky lately. Have I been banned yet, or can you still see me?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 1:59pm
I think we should stop looking at what has happen in the past. I mean we have a great leader who can make a differance in america and is willing to sarcrifice everything.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 12:37pm
Obama is willing to scrifice everything, you mean like my freedom? or My paycheck? Or my desire to live 22 miles from work?
Are those the kind of heroic sacrifices Obama is willing to make?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 2:02pm
I should probably be thankful that Obama isn't willing to heroically sacrifice one of my kidneys or testicles. (He's probably make me donate both of those even if he only threw them away so that I'd be more compliant with his sacrifices.)
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 2:04pm
What political phenomenon!? What we experienced was total chaos, not to mention dirty, smelly hippies.
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 1:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person
economically and socially there was a good deal of stability until vietnam and the hippies.
the great society and an asian land war were untenable.
not saying things were perfect, though.
the phenomenon was a period of positive government role in the economy and society of the country.
the hippies had some good ideas...but went way too far, largely bringing about the counter revolution of nixon to W as middle america rightly recoiled from the excesses of the 60's social upheaval and the 70's hedonism, its godchild...
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 2:04pm
Are those the kind of heroic sacrifices Obama is willing to make?
Posted by Darin_the_Big_Fat_Troll at 12/17/2008 @ 2:02pm | ignore this person | warn this person
lol - someone got on my compy and wrote that. apparantly a big obama fan.
Posted by ibbleblibble at 12/17/2008 @ 3:03pm
I'm a bit dissapointed that we get "The Jolly Green Giant" in Vilseck as agriculture secretary. Another corporate schill. And Ken Salazar as Interior Secretary. Two centrists..
I guess this means we won't be seeing all that BLM land and family farms brimming with Hemp production, the ultimate biofuel just behind flax seed. Except that Hemp is like having a friend with benefits. The Earths greatest agri gift. Fuel,Food,Clothing,Multiple Medical uses and a great Mind Tool. The list goes on and on.
Oh well. Nobody ever said humans were paticularly bright..
Posted by chaoszen at 12/17/2008 @ 3:43pm
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 1:54pm
So pretty much no reason to vote for Republicans, is there, ACOOK?
Since they're "powerless" even when they control Both Houses of Congress and the White House to prevent an economic crises that was "so obvious" 8 years ago?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 3:57pm
So pretty much no reason to vote for Republicans, is there, ACOOK?
Since they're "powerless" even when they control Both Houses of Congress and the White House to prevent an economic crises that was "so obvious" 8 years ago?!?!?!??
Posted by Mask at 12/17/2008 @ 3:57pm
Oh no, you got it backwards...I have no reason to vote "Democrat".
Don't gimme that "they controlled both houses and WH crap"! You know as well as I do that unless both parties cooperate, passage of any legislation won't fly.
Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 5:08pm
This past year, I've read and heard a couple references to Congress's gutting of some enviro protections in the current farm bill, first by a last-minute change to allow more land to be brought into production, i.e., convert more prairie and wetlands to wheat and corn fields, and then recently, not fully funding conservation provisions.
Have any of you heard anything about this? I don't know the details, but I don't doubt it. These are farm state Reps and Senators doing this, they're all pro-ethanol, pro-big ag. And it's Dems doing this, they are in charge. They don't need Vilsack to continue to do damage to the rural environment, they'll keep doing it fine on their own. Think Obama will veto anything they put forward, esp. if it means cheap food?
They are aided in this by Americans' great ignorance about agriculture, with very few citizens actually involved in ag as an enviro issue. Just look at his forum, how much has degenerated into off-topic drivel.
Posted by melius1 at 12/17/2008 @ 9:32pm
Don't gimme that "they controlled both houses and WH crap"! You know as well as I do that unless both parties cooperate, passage of any legislation won't fly.--------Posted by ACook at 12/17/2008 @ 5:08pm
Really? You mean like the 1993 tax bill that NO Republicans signed off on, hoping to pin the "recession it would cause" on Dems and Clinton alone?!??!?!?
And where was Bush when "he and everybody knew" that "Dem policies" were "going to cause the housing crises"?
Seems I remember he was spending more time trying to convince us to put our Social Security into the STOCK MARKET back then...not using the bully pulpit in 2003-2004-2005-2006 to rally the American people to "fix Fannie and Freddie"?
ACOOK, do you EVER actually analyze the right-wing spin you're fed and think..."What if this isn't exactly true?" or is it "Fox and Rush and Sean said it...anything contradictiory are liberal lies"?
Posted by Mask at 12/18/2008 @ 12:11pm
What's new about this pick? Everyone of Obama's picks have been "cauctious" to use the polite term.
Posted by Gregory W at 12/18/2008 @ 7:13pm
At the risk of seeming uncharitable during the holidays, I have to say that as an Iowan I think Vilsack is an idiot.
I'm basing that on his track record as governor plus one particular speech I heard in which he was inarticulate, nonsensical, and egregiously demagogic.
In short, idiotic.
-Wexler
Posted by WWWexler at 12/19/2008 @ 06:11am
Posted by lvliberty1 at 12/18/2008 @ 1:59pm
Sure...and I think outside of your partisan blinders, you'll see that I have CONSISTANTLY said I think universal health care is going to be a flop....that "massive defense cuts" will never occur....that Ms vanden Heuvel's "New New Deal" isn't in the cards....and that the reflexively anti-Israel Left is just as bad as you and the "Israel can do no wrong" crowd....
I also have admitted that I voted for Dubya in 2000....but wised up (and apologized) as 70% of the country has.
In your eyes I'm "another leftist"...in B_KOOL's eyes I'm "another corportist DINO". I feel pretty confident in being open-eyed to the spin from BOTH sides.
As to ACOOK, this "The economic crises was caused by Clinton and Carter" is pure spin...and is especially illogical given IF IT WAS TRUE (AND OBVIOUS TO ALL)....the Republican Congress AND Dubya would have pressed hard to fix it sometime between 2003 and 2006....
they didn't. Barely on the radar...they were too busy trying to help a brain-dead woman (autopsy proved it, not Frist's "video diagnosis")...and pushing for putting Social Security into the Stock Market.
Posted by Mask at 12/19/2008 @ 09:53am