This was pretty good, I think on OG's Monsanto thread.

Djinn has contacted me and I see she posted on that thread. We might want to invite her over.


Using "Monsanto" is bad tactically. A surprisingly large percentage of the general population is aware of these campaigns - the campaigns against Monsanto have been about as effective as any propaganda campaign could be. But ask them what they heard - did they hear that we have a serious problem of privatization of our food supply, that speculators and investors are placing public health at risk? No, what they heard was "Monsanto is supposed to be this evil company, and aspartame causes brain tumors or something."

The campaigns against Monsanto do nothing to educate the public about the problem, do not threaten the corporations dominating our food supply in the least, and do not even hurt Monsanto. They accomplish four things: they distract people from the real problem, they are very effective for fund-raising for various liberal organizations, they are very useful for the extreme right wing anti-regulation agenda, and they get a certain number of people to "hate" Monsanto.

"Hating them all" is of no value. Were someone to rob you at gunpoint, break into your home, steal your car, or murder a loved one, would "hating" them be an appropriate response? Would you go to the police and tell them that you "hate them?" Would you tell your neighbors that? The police, and your neighbors, might well think that you had some sort of vendetta going against someone. "Oh he hates that person, so that is why he is claiming they stole his car." Your charges would have less credibility, not more. If you said "I hate them all" people might think you were some sort of nutcase.

You may as well hate the rain when your roof leaks. Would you call the roofer and say "I hate rain?"

Yet this is what many people are doing - "I hate Republicans" for example. Hating the rain does not fix the roof - in fact, it let's the roofer who botched the job off the hook. Hating Republicans and corporations does not accomplish anything, either. We should be looking at us, and at those who claim to be our allies in the fight against the right wingers. Let's talk about the victims who sit around hating the criminals rather than doing anything, the police who do not respond to the crimes, the people sitting in wet houses and not fixing the roof, and not demanding that those they hire to fix the roof actually do the job they were hired to do. That would be us, the liberals and the Democrats.

When we go to the public and say "I hate Monsanto" they then think "well good for you. You hate Monsanto. I hate that I haven't had a raise in ten years, that I can't afford to go to the doctor, and that I can't pay my utility bills." Now, liberal activists flatter themselves that they are more sophisticated, more political, more aware, and more strongly in opposition to the right wing than the everyday person is with their supposedly mundane concerns. But that is not true. The opposite is true. That everyday person understands the problems better than the activists do, and is much closer to an analysis that would actually lead to fighting back against the right wing than the activists are. But the activists can't hear what the everyday person is saying, cannot translate it into a political context, because they are so busy cultivating their self-image as a political activist or politically aware person, with the proper feelings and attitudes and opinions.

What we hate and what we love has nothing to do with politics. The cultivation of personal stances and personal beliefs mitigates against, blocks and prevents powerful political education, organization and action. It is a self-indulgent replacement for political action, a self-serving illusion for the few, a safe place to hide, and a stalking horse for the promotion of reactionary and conservative politics.

We have people who "hate Monsanto," who "hated Chimpy," and who now "love Obama." Nothing could be weaker politically. Nothing could block progress more effectively. Nothing we could possibly do or say gives more aid and comfort to the extreme right wing and to those enjoying entrenched wealth and power. What the public hears is this - "oh those liberals hate Monsanto for some reason" followed by an eye-roll and then nothing else we might say will be heard. Nor should people listen to what we have to say. It is of no value.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x5326729

Hey Mike, kinda related here, sounds horrible to me, your take?:

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/03/27-0

Published on Friday, March 27, 2009 by The Memphis Daily News
Farmers Worry About Proposed Legislation

by Tom Wilemon

Some Mid-South farmers who sell their products directly to consumers worry that a food safety bill in Congress could put them out of business if enacted into law.

[(photo by pioneerpeststl used under Creative Commons)](photo by pioneerpeststl used under Creative Commons)
U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has introduced legislation that would divide the responsibilities of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and put food under the purview of the Department of Health and Human Services, which would have more stringent guidelines. The legislation is HR 875 or the Food Safety Modernization Act of 2009.

Keith Forrester, the owner of Whitton Flowers and Produce Farms, which is about 40 miles from Memphis in East Arkansas, got worried when he read a summary of the bill. He is concerned the regulations would make it financially cumbersome to sell his products at the Memphis Farmers Market and other venues.

"It will wipe out the direct market aspect," Forrester said. "It's going to put more of the burden of responsibility on so many levels of the government that it's going to make it basically impossible to directly market food, is what it's going to do. You're going to have to be a corporate farm, man. You're going to have to be a corporate farm to make it work. We're not."

The legislation would establish the Food Safety Administration within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The new agency would administer a national food safety program, ensure people in the food chain prevent or minimize food safety hazards and require food establishments to adopt preventive process controls. It also would enforce performance standards for food safety, establish an inspection program, expand foodborne illness surveillance systems, require imported food to meet the same standards as U.S. food and establish a national traceability system for food.

"It's going to make it financially impossible for small farmers to operate because of all the regulations that are going to go along with it," Forrester said.

He calls the 10-acre operation that he and his wife, Jill Forrester, have a sustainable farm. They sell sunflowers and produce at the Memphis Farmers Market. He said he plans to have radishes, turnips, mushrooms, lettuce and other early crops at his booth when the market opens April 18.

Maryanne Lessley, the manager of the Memphis Farmers Market, said the food sold there is safe and monitored by the state agriculture departments in Arkansas, Mississippi and Tennessee.

"The Tennessee Department of Agriculture and its counterparts in Mississippi and Arkansas are regulators for us for what is sold at the market," Lessley said. "We don't allow anyone to sell anything that isn't permitted or inspected."

She said food safety is a concern for everyone, but declined to comment specifically about the proposed legislation.

A spokesman for U.S. Rep. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn., said small family farms are an important part of the state's economy and culture and need protection.

"We are certainly against this legislation for a variety of reasons," said Claude Chafin, press secretary for Blackburn. "It duplicates the Food and Drug Administration with the Department of Health and Human Services without any apparent improved efficiencies or improved effectiveness."

The bill has been referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Agriculture.
Copyright 1995 - 2009 by The Daily News Publishing Co. Inc.

All right wing lies, Mary.

This does not represent a departure from the existing regimen of inspection and regulation that small farmers are already under. It is the first attempt at restoring regulation and inspection, after decades of the right wingers dismantling the public infrastructure and de-regulating food production.

Libertarian and right wing extremists are fanning the flames of this "controversy" and naive liberals are helping them. They are opposed to all government regulation, opposed to inspection and safety standards to protect public health.

By the way, 10 acres is not a farm - it is a garden. 2-300 acres is standard for small family farmers. It is a lie that the only alternative to a 10 acre hobby plot is "corporate" farming. It is just not true. There are 9,000 family owned fruit farms still surviving, and none of them are corporate and none of them would call themselves farmers if they were only working 10 acres.

Why should weekenders, or hobbyists, be exempt from the inspection and regulation that real family farmers need to comply with? If people want to sell food to the public, they need to adhere to the safety and health standards that everyone else has to obey.

Why would we oppose inspection and regulation, funding for research, rebuilding the public infrastructure that protects public health?

I saw this from the inside, Mary. Ron Paul is a player on this movement. It is packed with the most extreme right wingers and libertarians, and they are well-financed and well-organized. They feed propaganda tracts into the liberal organizations, mostly through the Internet, on a conscious attempt to hijack the organic movement and steer it to support libertarian anti-government and anti-regulation positions.

I sat on on discussions where plans were made to dupe liberals - by throwing in the word "Monsanto" liberally, by talking about organic farms, by talking about cute farm animals. It is all a cynical and deceptive hustle, and liberals are falling all over themselves to spread and promote these libertarian ideas.

Thanks Mike, thats why I asked! I don't know enough to judge whether the spin was a spin or not. Good to be aware of, and I always refer to you regarding farm stuff and send it to you for your info, :)

( ps: it wasn't from my usual source for farming stuff, btw!)

You can always dig up 10 or 15 "farmers" - usually well capitalized suburban refugees getting back to the land and playing at farming on 5-10 acres - to claim to speak for "small farmers." Most city folk are vulnerable to this, because 5 acres doesn't mean anything to them, and they aren't around real farmers enough to know who knows what they are talking about and who does not. People do not understand that these are nor "farmers" except in their own imaginations, and that there are a thousand small family farmers farming a couple hundred acres for every one of these wannabes.

The small farmers are already under all sorts of regulation and inspections. Of course. That is the way it should be. No farmer, no person with even the least but of familiarity with farming, would look at the legislation being considered and think "OMG!!! They are going to inspect and regulate us!!!" as though that were something new or draconian. Amateurs would, libertarians would.

People can garden any way they like, have whatever sort of "philosophy" about farming they like, and grow anything they want to grow anyway they like. But if they are going to sell food to the public, they must get on the program - period.

Many of these back to the land people need to decide whether they are going to farm or not. Of not, they have mo business selling food to the public. If they are going to farm, then they need to get on the same program that all of the rest of the farmers are on.

Let me ask you this Mary - if someone with no training, no background, and inadequate facilities decides tomorrow morning that they are a teacher, should they get the same government support that public school teachers get and be exempt from the rules and regulations that you have to follow? Should public school students be sent to them? Should they be exempt from standards? What if they went to the media and claimed to be speaking for all teachers? What if they promoted privatization and an end to government involvement on education?

You can always dig up 10 or 15 "farmers" - usually well capitalized suburban refugees getting back to the land and playing at farming on 5-10 acres - to claim to speak for "small farmers." Most city folk are vulnerable to this, because 5 acres doesn't mean anything to them, and they aren't around real farmers enough to know who knows what they are talking about and who does not. People do not understand that these are nor "farmers" except in their own imaginations, and that there are a thousand small family farmers farming a couple hundred acres for every one of these wannabes.

The small farmers are already under all sorts of regulation and inspections. Of course. That is the way it should be. No farmer, no person with even the least but of familiarity with farming, would look at the legislation being considered and think "OMG!!! They are going to inspect and regulate us!!!" as though that were something new or draconian. Amateurs would, libertarians would.

People can garden any way they like, have whatever sort of "philosophy" about farming they like, and grow anything they want to grow anyway they like. But if they are going to sell food to the public, they must get on the program - period.

Many of these back to the land people need to decide whether they are going to farm or not. Of not, they have mo business selling food to the public. If they are going to farm, then they need to get on the same program that all of the rest of the farmers are on.

Let me ask you this Mary - if someone with no training, no background, and inadequate facilities decides tomorrow morning that they are a teacher, should they get the same government support that public school teachers get and be exempt from the rules and regulations that you have to follow? Should public school students be sent to them? Should they be exempt from standards? What if they went to the media and claimed to be speaking for all teachers? What if they promoted privatization and an end to government involvement on education?


Hey Mike, of course not, I asked as I could't quite figure it out! And I sure as heck want someone inspecting the food and farms that grow it!

In the Education realm, they are actually trying to standardize things so much that anyone could teach the lessons, ie: October 8, read pgs. 22 to 30, ask these questions for the kids to write down. Hyperbolic, yeah, but not too far! Its getting to the point of all rote learning, just the facts, no true thought processes, critical thinking, or problem solving skills being taught, might end up being all long distance learning with assistants to turn on the box...
oh and data mining, drug control (I mean pharmaceuticals being mandated), and required military recruiters allowed. It'd be kind of like having to use a ruler to plant each seed and specific seeds only, the regs are too much in NCLB....

OTOH there is my friend Glenn, who plows up bout 5A on his old family property, just subsistance and selling to the 'farm stands'. Last year he plowed it all under, drought made it useless.He's an ace carpenter and hustles here and there and gets by ok. Usta make big buck raising game chickens but the market has fallen out. He'd never claim to represent anybody but I know you're not talkin' bout him.

OTOH there is my friend Glenn, who plows up bout 5A on his old family property, just subsistance and selling to the 'farm stands'. Last year he plowed it all under, drought made it useless.He's an ace carpenter and hustles here and there and gets by ok. Usta make big buck raising game chickens but the market has fallen out. He'd never claim to represent anybody but I know you're not talkin' bout him.


Yeah, you are right. There are people here and there with 5 acres, and supplying the farm stands. They aren't selling direct. There is an old guy in northern Michigan who picks wild berries every day and delivers them to a couple of dozen farm stands. Another guy raises a few chickens and trades them for produce, or guns or something lol. There is an Amish couple who have a couple of acres of trees and some brambles, who make jam from them and sell that to the farm stands. Of course they are licensed and inspected, though, and would not be put out of business or burdened by the new regulations. Another gal built some greenhouses and grows hydroponic tomatoes for the local market - inspected and regulated of course. Those people are all from farming backgrounds and have found niches.

Then there are people who control 10,000 acres of farmland and are not farmers at all.