Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Making 'Duck Soup' Out of 2009
As 2008 ends and this New Year begins, with all its fledgling promise despite turmoil and crisis, it's also that time when the media offers its lists of ten best or worst this and that of the previous year, an exercise that simultaneously entertains and infuriates.
Forced at knifepoint to make such lists, at least ours would be a little different. One would be favorite headlines of the year from The Onion, the hilarious weekly that doesn't bill itself as "America's finest news source" for nothing. If you can read it without laughing, you probably have been paying too much attention to your 401K.
Some of those we liked best:
$700 BILLION BAILOUT CELEBRATED WITH LAVISH $800 BILLION EXECUTIVE PARTY
GM COVERED WITH GIANT TARP UNTIL IT HAS MONEY TO WORK ON CARS AGAIN
AMERICAN AIRLINES NOW CHARGING FEES TO NON-PASSENGERS
CHINA RECALLS EVERYTHING
HOUSING CRISIS VINDICATES GUY WHO STILL LIVES WITH PARENTS
FACTUAL ERROR FOUND ON INTERNET.
Of course, the problem The Onion's editors have is that reality too often resembles parody. Take the story of Chip Saltsman, the guy campaigning to be chairman of the Republican National Committee by promoting himself with a CD featuring a song called, "Barack, the Magic Negro." That ditty, you'll recall, was made famous on Rush Limbaugh's minstrel show, as sung by an Al Sharpton impersonator. Even The Onion couldn't come up with that one.
Or the claim by Governor Rod Blagojevich that those wiretaps actually reveal how hard he's been working for the people of Illinois. And the circus that ensued when he tried to appoint Roland Burris, a veteran Illinois politician, to Barack Obama's Senate seat -- the one the governor allegedly was ready to sell just weeks ago to the highest bidder -- and Senate Democrats said, "No."
No? From members of Congress for whom pay-for-play is as casual a game as Tic-Tac-Toe? Look at New York's Senator Charles Schumer, chair of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. According to The New York Times, the week after he attended a breakfast of financial high rollers and promised them that Democrats would make sure their $700 billion bailout got through Congress, those same fat cats sent $135,000 in campaign contributions.
Or New York Congressman Charlie Rangel, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, who reversed himself on a tax break for a business called Nabors Industries the same month that company donated $100,000 to a City College school for public service named after -- all together now, class -- Charlie Rangel.
Life imitates satire -- and vice versa. Which brings us to our other unusual list. The best movies of... 1933.
Naturally, the original King Kong is on our list. So are The Invisible Man and 42nd Street. But our number one choice: The Marx Brothers' Duck Soup.
Why? Because as we enter this final month of the Bush years, the parallels are remarkable. Sometimes it feels as if we live not only in the United States but also in the sidesplitting state of Freedonia, the imaginary country in which Duck Soup takes place. In 1933, a time much like now of calamity, fraud and peril, the Great Depression gripped America. Franklin D. Roosevelt had just become President and declared a New Deal, while in Germany, Adolph Hitler was named chancellor, the beginning of the Third Reich.
As all of this was taking place, the Marx Brothers -- there were four of them then; Groucho, Chico, Harpo and Zeppo -- shot Duck Soup, a comedy that almost inadvertently transcended slapstick, becoming a trenchant send-up of power and vanity and the disastrous consequences of both.
Freedonia is bankrupt and asking for a bailout -- sound familiar? The wealthy Mrs. Teasdale, played by the redoubtable Margaret Dumont, says the only way she'll come up with the money is if the country appoints as its new leader Rufus T. Firefly -- played by Groucho, as only a true clown can play a charlatan. He sings, "The last man nearly ruined this place, he didn't know what to do with it. If you think this country's bad off now, just wait 'til I get through with it."
Cabinet meetings are run with a decorum worthy of contemporary Washington. (Finance Minister: "Here is the Treasury Department's report, sir. I hope you'll find it clear." Groucho: "Why a four-year-old child could understand this report. Run out and find me a four-year-old child, I can't make head or tail of it.")
Freedonia's Axis of Evil includes neighboring nation Sylvania, and Groucho/Rufus Firefly handles diplomacy with all the tact of a neo-conservative. In anticipation of a meeting with his rival's ambassador, he says he will offer his hand in friendship. But suppose the ambassador doesn't do the same? "A fine thing that will be," says Firefly. "I hold out my hand and he refuses to accept it. That will add a lot to my prestige, won't it? Me the head of a country, snubbed by a foreign ambassador! Who does he think he is? ...Why the cheap ball-pushing swine, he'll never get away with it, I tell you! He'll never get away with it!"
Before you know it, the two countries are at war for no good reason, the rabble-roused, flag-waving public buying in as if taking directions from cable news.
Duck Soup is now seen as one of the great antiwar comedies of all time, right up there with Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator and Stanley Kubrick's Dr. Strangelove (written with Terry Southern and Peter George).
Back in 1933, the world situation was grave and it was hard to hear the laughter over the sounds of civilization collapsing. Our chuckles today compete with the sound of renewed violence in the Middle East, melting glaciers sliding into the sea and champagne glasses shattering on the gold bricks of Wall Street.
Our situation may not be as desperate as the one that faced the first audiences of Duck Soup, who found in darkened theaters some relief from the grim world outside. Our current woes, nonetheless, are real, which maybe is why a little humor is the best antidote. As Beaumarchais, that 18th century playwright who doubled as a politician said, "I quickly laugh at everything for fear of having to cry." This, from a man who managed to survive the French Revolution. So Happy New Year -- but keep your fingers crossed.
- Posted in
27 Comments so far
Show All!Vive La Sebolla!
Novus Onion Seclorum.
Thank you, Bill Moyers. You are one voice of sanity in a world gone crazy!
(I must try to see "Duck Soup," since I never saw it.)
rosie2731
The Glue That Holds Chaos Together
I find THE ONION to be more factual than FOX NEWS, who is already eager to glorify the recent Israeli bombings, http://www.foxnews.com:80/specials/
I would have liked a mention concerning Cynthia McKinney getting rammed by the Israelis, and a reminder of the attack on the Liberty. Can someone tell me why we are not at war with Israel?
"Our situation may not be as desperate as the one that faced the first audiences of Duck Soup ..."
Actually, with the possible (repeat "possible") exception of the economic dimension, the situation which faces incoming President Obama is in all respects significantly worse than the one which faced incoming President Roosevelt.
(BTW, I was in favor of Obama choosing Moyers for a running mate. Any spots left at the Cabinet table? Sure would like to think there was a liberal tail-kicker in the mix.)
Ah, sweet validation and gratification!
I'm a fan of "The Onion", but before I knew of its existence I was a fan of the Marx Brothers-- luckily, I was exposed to their movies because my big brother was in college during the late '60s, when the Marx Brothers, W.C. Fields, etc. enjoyed a campus-based revival.
I've always appreciated the political satire of "Duck Soup", however swathed in slapstick and vaudeville-skit comedy. And there are many other vignettes from Marx Brothers movies that speak to the profound absurdities embedded in modern technobarbaric culture.
I didn't think I was alone in recognizing the enduring genius of the Marx Brothers (and "The Onion"), but it's nice to be in such distinguished company.
· Yr Obd't Servant
You still can't beat that prescient, prescient onion headline from 2000 - "Bush: Our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over".
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28784
It's funny because it's true!
· Yr Obd't Servant
I hope Obama can actually change things for the better. He still has the same old Congress and the Courts to deal with.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Ok, "fledgling promise," "ten best or worst," "Congress for whom pay-for-play is as casual a game as Tic-Tac-Toe."
For decades (repeat, for decades) we real farmer activists have been struggling to build toward major urban support among progressives against agribusiness injustices. As the late Al Krebs* emphasized for exactly this purpose through the 1980s and 1990s, it's a "food" issue, not just a "farm" issue.
And yet this remains a "fledgling promise," as urban progressives have evolved a false paradigm that is simpler than reality.
Who's on my list of two of the "ten ... worst" examples of the false progressive paradigm for 2008?
Sadly, Bill Moyers Journal (http://www dot pbs dot org/moyers/journal/04112008/transcript3 dot html), featuring David Beckmann of Bread for the World (one of my 5 "worst" for 2007). Basically they blame subsidies and large farms getting subsidies (simple false paradigm), rather than the lack of price floors (with supply management, price ceilings, commodity reserves). The correct paradigm shows an impact on market prices far beyond the -3% to +4% shown for subsidies (on subsidies see p. 21 of http://ase dot tufts dot edu/gdae/Pubs/wp/04-02AgSubsidies dot pdf). No mention is made by Moyers of the much bigger beneficiaries in the more complex, reality-based paradigm: the domestic and foreign non farm agribusiness output complex that buys the commodities.
As to congressional "pay-for-play" Moyers falsely claims that "commodity growers" are the dominant lobby. "...They spent eighty million dollars last year lobbying Congress to defend those subsidies to affluent people. Commodity growers, the corn growers, the cotton growers." False! The source for the 80m is the Center for Responsive Politics (see Moyers WSJ link), but their data prove I'm correct and Moyers is clearly wrong. Most of the money clearly came from the unmentioned groups who do NOT get farm subsidies, the output complex (ie. Cargill, ADM, Tyson, Smithfield, Kelloggs). They really don't care if there are farm subsidies or not, because, of course, they make little difference to these Mega beneficiaries. Except, of course, they make a great diversionary smokescreen (ie. for the farm bill debate and at WTO, misleading the whole world on dumping). A Food First guy once expressed amazement at George Naylors call to "make THEM pay" in the farm bill? Who? Moyers didn't cover this? Bread for the World's Hunger 2007 on the farm bill didn't mention them at all. Nor Oxfam's "Fairness in the fields?" Nor did the EWG and their mainstream editorials (almost always). No farm subsidies received by the dominant lobby for cheap corn syrup, ethanol, soy oil, amazing. No, they get much larger below cost gains. (ie on some multibillion dollar gains, these compete AGAINST "commodity growers," see http://www dot ase.tufts dot edu/gdae/Pubs/rp/CompanyFeedSvgsFeb07 dot pdf)
Environmental Working Group is my second choice: featuring "352 Editorials Call For Farm Bill Reform" (February 11 2008 (common dreams), now up to "477" editorials in which mainstream media carries the progressive message. WOW! We're winning? No, it's that false progressive paradigm. EWG's "two main themes" that "emerge from these editorials" are both false. Farm subsidies are compensations for losses, needed, except they aren't the cause of problems progressives have claimed, as subsidies don't affect market price except by a few percent indirectly. Price floors or currently the lack thereof are doing that (by large percentages), along with the lack of supply management. And second, Bush opposes correcting both, so he's not at all progressive either.
(I resolve to finish reading the 352 and 477 EWG editorials early in 2009, and report my statistical results.)
(*Krebs: researcher on Jim Hightower's "Eat Your Heart Out: How Food Profiteers Victimize the Consumer" (1974); author of "The Corporate Reapers: The Book of Agribusiness," (1992) which had as an early subtitle "From Seedling to Supermarket;" Corporate Agribusiness Research Project (http://www.thecalamityhowler.com/); and didn't he help create "Hamburger USA," (slide show, 1979)? Look him up. Hey, this food stuff isn't new. Farm activists have been at it for decades.
Happy new year! May our paradigms be reconciled and renewed such that the mega scoundrels are no longer let off the hook!
WHAT??!!?? (get me a 4 year old so I can understand this.)
"Knowing ignorance is strength;
Ignoring knowledge is sickness. Lao Tzu
i think he's saying that the standard "liberal" analysis of US farm policy - "Too many subsidies to rich agribiz" - is simplistic and flawed, and that the actual subsidies in the Farm Bill are not really the problem. Not quite clear on what the actual problem is, but he mentions post-production corporations like Archer Daniels Midland as being the true beneficiaries of the distortions in US ag policy. He assails Moyers in particular for following the standard "liberal" analysis, and also the Environmental Working Group.
It would be great if Brad could give a clear simple outline of his analysis that is not so dense and hard to understand...
Sorry. Webwalk's simple clarity is helpful. I'll try to get better.
Yes, I'm saying that "Too many subsidies to rich agribiz" is very easy to follow, and widely shared, but basically false for a number of reasons that can be proven, I believe. I agree with most of the standard bad impacts of the farm bill, but not the alleged causes of them, or in many cases the history and politics behind them. So I'm basically saying that progressives (and mainstream media via EWG) are hammering on a very important problem, but not calling for changes that would really make a difference, because they don't know what the real causes of the problem are, as in the examples I've cited above.
(There are, of course many qualifications in all of this, which I'll leave out here for now to try to be simple and clear. There's a complicated history of why subsidies go with the land and not the farmer, and why they're figured as they are, and how they're related to the New Deal farm programs which were reduced 1953-1995 and then ended in 1996. Ooops. Skip that.)
Ok, the basic problem is low, below cost market prices, which are part of the cheap high fructose corn syrup and soy oil, below cost feeds subsidizing giant CAFOs (feedlots and animal factories), and below cost exports (dumping) which hurts LDC farmers and countries, which are 73% rural (2005, UN). The CAFOs cost more jobs than they create (John Ikerd, add 1 job, lose 3 independent farmers), and hurt community social factors and ecology as well, so they hurt rural development. They hurt family(sized/structured, etc.)/sustainable/organic livestock farming, as they compete unfairly with below cost grain. (Besides low prices, most research money, and varous other laws also contribute, [ie. nuisance lawsuit protection].)
Low prices are NOT caused by subsidies (except indirectly, in a very low percent). Below cost prices are caused by a more complicated series of factors: 1. a lack of "price responsiveness" on both supply and demand sides, so market conditions mean we usually but not always have them. 2 #1 (and occasional high price spikes) nevertheless can be remedied by adequate price floors with supply management, (and price ceilings with commodity reserves on the top side), as advocated by nffc.net. as in the New Deal, and as in the Harkin-Gephardt farm bill proposal of the 1980s and 1990s. So the lack of these policies is called the cause of the problem.
So historially, prices fell as price floors were lowered and supply management was weakened. At first there were no subsidies (1953-1960) so there was no question of subsidies "causing" low prices. Subsidies were added to make further reductions (1961-1995) and full elimination (1996-) politically more palatable. Major farm groups (NFO, NFU, AAM, NFFC), weak politically, opposed these policies for decades. Farmers were forced to accept commodity subsidies instead of (decent or even low) price floors. Mainly, (ie. 1981-2006 and again now) farmers lost money massively in the marketplace, and then got compensated with subsidies, but usually (with the best evindence availible I believe) they were not compensated up to full costs and living wage/fair trade price levels. So subsidies are almost always a wash (or less) for farmers, not a gain.
The beneficiaries of below cost grains and cotton, in contrast, have no requirement to have losses before getting their gains. They're pure gains. Thus animal factories (buying below cost grains instead of themselves paying farmers a profit) have thrived and on-farm livestock has shrunk. The only real beneficiaries, the agribiz output complex (below cost buyers of commodiities, the largest getting multibillion dollar gains) get no government commodity subsidies (but sometimes have also received export, EQIP, and other subsidies). Large farms getting a million dollars in government commodity subsidies also, (using average cost figures) lose about a million dollars.
All of this is generally not mentioned by progressives who are nevertheless alarmed by the enormous negative impacts.
Subsidy caps, green commodity subsidies, proposals like Grassley Dorgan and Kind Flake, farm bills of 1996/2002/2008, 2007-8 proposals on almost all sides (exception, NFFC), only deal with the false issue of subsidies. They leave all these bad impacts (and enormous agribusiness hidden below cost, "subsidization") intact, (though some advocate other fringe measures to partially ameliorate some impacts). So most progressives didn't advocate for ANY farm bill proposals 2007-2008 that would have had any significant impact on the core problem (hidden, de facto agribusiness subsidization).
WTO adds to the confusion. Countries are allowed to bring cases about subsidies, as if they cause dumping. And yes, the subsidies are tremendously unfair. To be fair, our farmers should go broke as fast as farmers in countries that can't afford subsidies. But if they did, it still wouldn't raise prices. It wouldn't have an impact on dumping or the other negative impacts. We saw that 1952-1960, and if you have eyes to see through the subsidy illusion, 1961-1995 and 1996-2006, and in the Great Depression. The main econometric studies on this also agree on this. To WTO, the lack of price floors is the free market, not bad, but good.
There are other factors. The US has had huge export shares of some commodities (corn & soybeans 50-90%), so our Commodity Title can hugely impact the world. But these policies can also be implemented beyond the US farm bill (Africa Group wants supply management, a huge factor, EU wanted it in the 1980s, now many are beginning to call for reserves to stop price spikes and speculation (ie food crisis, 2007-8). So especially politically), we wouldn't have to do all of the supply management (make all the sacrifices).
The US never gains from losing money on farm exports, and especially now.
I second webwalk's request with the following clarification for your consideration.
I get it that you are a devoted policy wonk on this issue and appreciate the depth and breadth of your interest though I do not share the extent of either your knowledge or interest.
However, it would help me if you had or would make two or (at most) three suggestions for how things ought to change to encourage more farmers to raise better food. At least think about it anyway.
Poet
Ok, I could state this in simpler terms, but I've found so many progressive groups on the other side with footnoted documents explaining their positions (some groups and documents identified above and below) that I wanted to present a strong enough case to be taken seriously and help change the paradigm and the movement against these other claims.
To do:
1. "First do no wrong" on the biggest or core farm bill issue, the Commodity Title: Don't endorse any farm bill proposals that fail to reinstate price floors/supply management (price ceilings/reserves) to address the low price (and price spikes issue) to be proactive against CAFOs, high fructose corn syrup, soy oil, ethanol, LDC dumping, etc. Naturally, work to get your progressive group to do the same.
Soooo, oppose signing on to positions like those of major progressive coalitions/campaigns 2007-2008. Refuse to join/sign with, and challenge the wonks of: Bread for the World's "Left-Right" coalition (with CATO, Taxpayers for Common sense, etc. and as discussed on Moyers show); Food and Farm Policy Project; National Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture; Sustainable Agriculture Coalition; Religious Working Group on the Farm Bill; Church World Service, California Coalition for Food and Farming, etc.
Be positive in saying no: "you have many excellent positions on issues outside of the core, but our group cannot in good conscience sign on to something that is shown not to address the biggest issues we're fighting against" (ie. price impacts on (mega money and power): dumping, ethanol, corn syrup, soy oil, CAFOs). We see that you make claims to the contrary, but our evidence doesn't support them. We welcome any attempt you wish to make to prove otherwise and encourage you to look into this. We must unite the progressive movement this time around, instead of being divided on this, the biggest issue.
Soooo, get the Agriculture Committees in Congress to do the same, especially Harkin and other longtime farm Democrats. Obama/Vilsack won't oppose them. They were once leaders in this. Force Congress to enact policies where the US makes a fair trade/living wage profit on farm exports.
2. Second, positively and proactively on this core issue, support the alternative: Support the Food from Family Farms Act of the National Family Farms Coalition, nffc.net, and get your group/coalition/campaign to do the same for the future, and support similar positions on trade issues.
3. Learn the basics of the issue, etc.
See post BELOW for SIMPLE response to Poet, 2 or 3 things to do. This here merely illustrates that simple point #2 below, on the positive, proactive, "yes" side, here are the kinds of sign-ons, groups, campaigns and documents I'm suggesting that progressives support and endorse. I connect through Iowa CCI-NFFC-Via Campesina.
(I added this here later for those who don't know that I'm only saying what a whole LOT of other progressives have been saying.) (OK, I admit I'm a hatchet man on this. These groups below are too nice to strongly, publicly advocate boycotting the well meaning sign-ons of church groups, Moyers, (whom I otherwise greatly like and admire) and others. (These groups agreeing with me also failed to unite the movement on this issue 2007-2008) They are not responsible for what I write.
GROUPS/DOCUMENTs:
Short, simple:
Federation of Southern Land Coops: Land Assistance Proj. (black farmers): "Ensure that farmers receive a fair living wage" (http://lists dot iatp dot org/listarchive/archive dot cfm?id=121152) (my favorite)
Daryl E. Ray Policy Columns (try a few of these #s): 92, 103, 162, 248, 262, 263, 264, 268, 325, etc. (http://agpolicy dot org/articles05 dot html & search other years) (usually 1 page)
Longer, footnotes:
National Family Farm Coalition: "Food from Family Farms Act." (http://www dot nffc dot net/Learn/page-learn dot htm)
Food and Water Watch: "The Farm Bill: Food Policy in an Era of Corporate Power" (http://www dot foodandwaterwatch dot org/food/pubs/reports/farm-bill) (I like a lot)
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy: "Fair Farm Bill ..." series of 8, (10-12 pp each) (http://www dot agobservatory dot org/issue_farmbill dot cfm) Also shorter pieces linked here.
Daryl E. Ray, et al, APAC, U of Tenn., "Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide," (http://agpolicy dot org/pub03 dot html) (see short summary #s above, ie. 263, 264)
Some major SIGN-ONs on this other progressive side of the issue:
National Family Farm Coalition (members)
“Principles of Unity on Trade with Central America,” (http://www dot nffc dot net/resources/statements/unity dot htm)
“Building Sustainable Futures for Farmers Globally: A Call to Action” http://www dot federationsoutherncoop dot com/sustain7 dot htm
La Via Campesina, members, (http://www dot viacampesina dot org/main_en/index dot php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=60); "Peoples’ Food Sovereignty - WTO Out Of Agriculture" (http://www.viacampesina.org/main_en/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=416&Itemid=27)
Citizens’ Trade Campaign "Family Farmer Response to Doha Suspension" (http://www dot globalexchange dot org/campaigns/wto/4083 dot html)
Africa Group (at WTO): see "ON THE RIGHT PATH TO DEVELOPMENT: African Countries Pave the Way" (http://www dot tradeobservatory dot org/genevaupdate dot cfm?messageID=120055) and the actual proposal, (http://www dot tradeobservatory dot org/library dot cfm?refid=88066).
So there are plenty of progressives on my side of these questions, focusing on the core issue of market prices.
Obviously progressives have a lot of commitment to the positions they've advocated for these recent years. No one likes to be told it was wrong headed. I know a lot of progressives worked very hard to learn the 2007-8 farm bill paradigm.
It would sure be nice and a lot easier if the farm bill were simpler. Basically competing forces battled for what they could win, and over decades, Congress cooked up ways to give the mega lobbyists more and more of a free lunch, (and kept media and activist attention off of it,) while still giving something to the other weaker influences, like farmers and consumers. Result: this history of U.S. farm bills, farm programs, and trade deals since the 1950s.
Just remember, I didn't cook it (their solution) up, nor have I ever support the trend. Hey folks, I'm just the messenger. And I encourage anyone, wonk or otherwise, to prove me wrong. I'm learning new things all the time.
Does Bill Moyers get any credit for having Michael Pollan on his show Thanksgiving weekend?
http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/11282008/profile.html
From the link above:
In October 2008, Pollan wrote to the prospective presidents about just how far food policy reaches into our world — from national security to the rise of diabetes. In his ""An Open Letter to the Farmer in Chief," Pollan gave the next occupant a "heads up" about an issue that hadn't made any noise on the very noisy campaign trail:
"[Y]ou will find yourself confronting the fact — so easy to overlook these past few years — that the health of a nation's food system is a critical issue of national security. Food is about to demand your attention...[Y]ou will need not simply to address food prices but to make the reform of the entire food system one of the highest priorities of your administration: unless you do, you will not be able to make significant progress on the health care crisis, energy independence or climate change. Unlike food, these are issues you did campaign on — but as you try to address them you will quickly discover that the way we currently grow, process and eat food in America goes to the heart of all three problems and will have to change if we hope to solve them."
-- ARG
Moyers, Pollan and the progressive movement deserve credit for good values for fighting injustice, and for identifying a range of problems related to food and farming. A core issue is generally misunderstood, as discussed in my various comments around here. It wouldn't be such a big deal if it wasn't such a big issue (ie. in terms of money and power and impact many of the main issues raised by progressives (ie high fructose corn oil, transfats, ethanol, CAFOs, dumping on LDCs). So the key solution to it that most progressives support (subsidy caps or elimination or green subsidies) would not have the intended effect, but instead would have almost no effect.
These are not matters that only policy wonks know about, as some have suggested to me. Rather most progressive wonks misunderstand them. (I've sat in on very little "policy development" work myself, but have done some training on commodity programs) Farmers who are older and who have been fighting on these issues for a long time understand this issue, however. These include NFO, NFU, AAM, AFA, US Farmers Assn, WORC, NFFC (and it's member groups).
I also find that urban food advocates don't often cite the work that was done earlier, Jim Hightower's Eat Your Heart Out (1974) and Al Krebs' (who worked on Hightower's book) massive The Corporate Reapers (From Seedling to Supermarket) 1992.
Pollan is an exception to most urban food progressives, in that he understands this issue (as does John Nichols). I discussed it with him, when he was in Iowa City a while back, and he mentions fairly well in a few sentences toward the end of The Omnivore's Dilemma. In his Open letter (posted here at Common Dreams) I thought he was weak on the social studies (historical structural injustice and farm politics) of the issue, as I commented at that time, and particularly strong on a variety of natural science matters.
At Moyers, (your link,) Pollan surely wasn't focused on this as I have been, nor does he likely know Moyers background, as I've discussed it in other comments above. He does realize, he once told me, that most progressives misunderstand the issue.
On Moyers, however, he added more mystification than clarity to the distinctions I raise. Transcripts: Moyers: "You've described a Washington controlled and dominated by the big industrial farms." Actually it's not true. It's the industrial output complex (buyers of commodities, Cargill, ADM, Tyson) and input complex (Monsanto, John Deere, etc.), and it's not so much the larger crop farms getting subsidies, as corporations benefiting from low prices (CAFOs, Tyson), as I emphasized in another comment regarding Moyers earlier show. Pollan mentioned "farm bills that subsidize high fructose corn syrup" and "we are subsidizing cheap sweeteners in our farm bill by subsidizing corn." These statements are false, (unless you put "subsidize" in quotes, and Pollan told me once he knows that, but things keep getting said this way, nevertheless, which is also Moyers' misunderstanding, as I've also commented above. (I've explained all of this above.)
Pollan also commented "five crops we subsidize are corn, wheat, soy, rice, and cotton".... and "our farm policy for many years has been designed to increase production of those crops and keep the prices low." Both statements are true, but it implies that the subsidies "cause" the prices to be low and "cause" production to be high, but that is false. They're associated, "correlated," but not causative, so changing subsidy policies doesn't directly impact any of the problems that Pollan very directly identifies.
I'm sorry that this is what's real. It's more complicated than the subsidy paradigm. But I'm just the messenger.
On subsidies not impacting price and supply, (to explain it) see Daryl E. Ray. He has a number of PowerPoint presentations (ie. 36 slides) that sum up some of the data and other evidence, and he has a footnoted document to go with them, featuring key findings from his econometric studies and some from IFPRI's study, as well as real world experiences of several countries. Follow the link http://www dot agpolicy dot org/blueprint dot html for a key example of a PPT and a matching footnoted document (that can also be skimmed), "Rethinking U.S. Agricultural Policy: Changing Course to Secure Farmer Livelihoods Worldwide." For some 1-2 page summaries see, for example, policy columns #162 (2003) and #s 262-264, 268, etc. at http://agpolicy dot org/articles05 dot html. (But note that in Ray's study, he arbitrarily chose to set the price floor level just about high enough to make up for and eliminate current subsidies, not to shoot for "living wage," "fair trade" prices like we had 1942-1952 as an economic stimulus. And yes, it would have been a wonderful improvement over what we've had. And more winnable than full justice.
Moyers should have Daryl Ray on his program. Now there's an excellent idea. Ray isn't an ideologue, but he sticks to the issue the way a farmer would. Sometimes people like me are labeled "doctrinaire." Really we don't accept substitutes to, for example, the U.S. making a profit on farm exports. No matter how many arguments others throw out about how we must lose money per bushel on farm exports, (ie. it's not "competitive," not winnable, not "market oriented," old fashioned "horse and buggy" to make these profits), we put on our boots and stick to our guns.
So that's my answer.
Thank God the new hybrid clean coal technology was in use at TVA. According to TVA, the fish froze to death and just because they are testing the water it doesn't mean the water is toxic. http://www.wisecountyissues.com Bush is a TOXIC TERRORIST to America's landscape. Appalachia is a third world environment with third world standards of health care.
And then there is always NSPD 51.
We must repeal UNGA 181 to save ourselves.
theinitiate
Hey, wait a minute. I think we are in a bigger mess than 1933. They just had to deal with a financial crisis. But us, we're truly looking at duck soup. The oceans are moving in on shore.
They're mixed with oil and so much more.
Our climate is getting oh so warm.
We all should have listened to Mr Gore,
way back when, the time before.
Plus there was Hansen who spoke on the congress floor.
Isn't it odd how those who open the door
to truth early on are ignored,
as if they're just liberal-and a-mor-(al),
dorks?
With all respect,
Any discussion of farm policy without reference to the latent potential in reintroduction of Cannabis agriculture, is neutered and functionally incomplete. Hemp is unique and essential, obviously beyond the rightful jurisdiction of any court. Because of what's well known to be a counter-productive 'marijuana' prohibition, the world's most useful, nutritious, therapeutic, environmentally beneficial, potentially abundant, globally distributed, adaptable, organic agricultural resource has been irrationally forbidden for more than seventy years.
Imagine what Groucho would have to say about that!
"After being named president of Freedonia in Duck Soup (1933), Groucho as Rufus T. Firefly sings,
"You're not allowed to smoke
or tell a dirty joke
And whistling is prohibited
If chewing gum is used
the chewer is pursued
And in the hoosegow hidden
Whatever form of pleasure are exhibited
Report to me and they will be prohibited
It's as I say, so shall it be
This is the land of the free."
http://www.veryimportantpotheads.com/site/groucho.htm
If Mr. Moyers would care to consider
The Fundamental Challenge of Our Time"
http://fundamentalcoot.blogspot.com/
I believe he would agree it's time to exercise "essential civilian demand" for hemp as referenced in Executive Order 12919. I am doing this in 2009, asking the Obama administration for guidance in the proper protocol.
Only a shift in values of this magnitude will devaluate the present toxic, military-industrial, chemical, prison economy to the point that disparity might be replaced by regional agricultural abundance.
"How bad do things have to get before all solutions are considered?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZw3hXkGJo
I also encourage people to consider the Rick Simpson story on You Tube
http://www.youtube.com/chrychek
to understand the real reason why 'marijuana' is prohibited.
Feedback welcome, practical support invited...Best wishes to All,
PvH
California Cannabis Ministry
PS.
Here are some short films on You Tube that may be of interest
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_Tpxf1b1kE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edZw3hXkGJo&feature=channel_page
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44X9fsFr_7c&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdSWEa8TAgY&feature=channel
"Hemp is unique and essential," "the world's most useful, nutritious, therapeutic, environmentally beneficial, potentially abundant, globally distributed, adaptable, ... agricultural resource." Wow!
Yet projectpeace himself/herself, (and virtually all? other hemp posts around here,) provides not one piece of evidence that any of this is true.
There are plenty of references to the unique and essential nutritional value of Cannabis on-line. Google Scholar is the global brain waking up. Educate yourself. Take responsibility for seeking the truth of your own initiative. There is a wealth of information at your fingertips.
A strong case could be made for the view that Mr Bush has done more damage to his country in a few short years than a regiment of Osama bin Ladens could do in a lifetime, and that even Groucho Marx couldn't have done a worse job of guiding the destinies of a great nation. In which context, my dictionary of eponyms entitled "What's Who?", published last December in the UK, includes the following entry under "Marxist Party":
Political party founded in 2007 by the Welsh recluse R. Wilton Jellinek. After watching the Marx Brothers' 1933 film "Duck Soup", Jellinek realised that Freedonian president Rufuus T. Firefly was the only man who could clean up the mess America had got into under the guiding hand of Mr George W. Bush and promptly decided on a new political party whose platform would consist of just two demands: that the United States of America be renamed Freedonia and that Rufus T. Firefly be appointed to run it.
Whether Presdident B. Obama can do a better job than President Firefly remains to be seen. As Bishop Tutu once said, I'm hopeful - but not optimistic.
Groucho and his brothers may have only had elementary school educations but they had PhD's in street smarts.
They were easily as smart as the writers who gave them their lines in Duck Soup or else the whole movie would have fallen flat on its face (which of course it did not).
So maybe instead of an honors graduate of Harvard Law School we need a grade school drop out who is familiar with suffering, acquainted with grief, and has a sense of humor sharp enough to deflate the blimp-like egos that stride the world stages of diplomacy and governance.
Poet