Why do we need more farmers? What is the driving force behind USDA policy? In an infuriating epiphany I have yet to metabolize, I found out Wednesday in a private policy-generation meeting with Virginia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McCauliffe. I did and still do consider it a distinct honor for his staff to invite me as one of the 25 dignitaries in Virginia Agriculture for this think-tank session in Richmond.
It was a who’s who of Virginia agriculture: Farm Bureau, Va. Agribusiness Council, Va. Forestry Association, Va. Poultry Federation, Va. Cattlemen’s Ass., deans from Virginia Tech and Virginia State–you get the picture.
It was the first meeting of this kind I’ve ever attended that offered no water. The only thing to drink were soft drinks. Lunch was served in styrofoam clam shells–Lay’s potato chips, sandwiches, potato salad and chocolate chip cookie. It didn’t look very safe to me, so I didn’t partake. But I’d have liked a drink of water. In another circumstance, I might eat this stuff, but with these folks, felt it important to make a point.
Why do they all assume nobody wants water, nobody cares about styrofoam, everybody wants potato chips and we all want industrial meat-like slabs on white bread?
But I digress. The big surprise occurred a few minutes into the meeting: US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack walked in. He was in Terry McCauliffe love-in mode. And here is what he told us: for the first time–2012– rural America lost population in real numbers–not as a percentage but in real numbers. It’s down to 16 percent of total population.
I’m sitting there thinking he’s going to say that number needs to go up so we have more people to love and steward the landscape. More people to care for earthworms. More people to grow food and fiber.
Are you ready for the shoe to drop? The epiphany? What could the US Secretary of Agriculture, at the highest strategic planning sessions of our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get more people in rural America, to encourage farming and help more farms get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers? Why does he go to bed at night trying to figure out how to increase farmers? How does the President and other cabinet members view his role as the nation’s farming czar?
What could be the most important contribution that increasing farmers could offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care for animals? Better care for plants?
Are you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16 percent of the population, it gives 40 percent of the personnel to the military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of the day, the bottom line–you know all the cliches–the whole reason for increasing farms is to provide cannon fodder for American imperial might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back, and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.
So folks, it all boils down to American military muscle. It’s not about food, healing the land, stewarding precious soil and resources; it’s all about making sure we keep a steady stream of youngsters going into the military. This puts an amazing twist on things. You see, I think we should have many more farmers, and have spent a lifetime trying to encourage, empower, and educate young people to go into farming. It never occurred to me that this agenda was the key to American military power.
Lest I be misread, I am not opposed to defending family. I am not opposed to fighting for sacred causes. I am violently opposed to non-sacred fighting and meddling in foreign countries, and building empires. The Romans already tried that and failed.
But to think that my agenda is key to building the American military–now that’s a cause for pause. I will redouble my efforts to help folks remember why we need more farmers. It’s not to provide cannon fodder for Wall Street imperialistic agendas. It’s to grow food that nourishes, land that’s aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic, build soil, hydrate raped landscapes, and convert more solar energy into biomass than nature would in a static state.
I can think of many, many righteous and noble reasons to have more farms. Why couldn’t he have mentioned any of these? Any?
No, the reason for more farms is to make sure we get people signing up at the recruitment office. That’s the way he sees me as a farmer. Not a food producer. When the president and his cabinet have their private conflabs, they don’t see farmers as food producers, as stewards of the landscape, as resource leveragers.
No, they view us as insurance for military muscle, for American empire building and soldier hubris. Is this outrageous? Do I have a right to be angry? Like me, this raw and bold show of the government’s farming agenda should make us all feel betrayed, belittled, and our great nation besmirched.
Perhaps, just perhaps, really good farms don’t feed this military personnel pipeline. I’d like to think our kind of farming has more righteous goals and sacred objectives. Vilsack did not separate good farmers from bad farmers. Since we have far more bad farmers than good ones, perhaps the statistic would not hold up if we had more farmers who viewed the earth as something to heal instead of hurt, as a partner to caress instead of rape.
That America’s farms are viewed by our leaders as just another artery leading into military might is unspeakably demeaning and disheartening.
Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com/youll-be-shocked-to-learn-about-the-usdas-agenda/#OabFlK6O8EuyvuRh.99
It was a who’s who of Virginia agriculture: Farm Bureau, Va. Agribusiness Council, Va. Forestry Association, Va. Poultry Federation, Va. Cattlemen’s Ass., deans from Virginia Tech and Virginia State–you get the picture.
It was the first meeting of this kind I’ve ever attended that offered no water. The only thing to drink were soft drinks. Lunch was served in styrofoam clam shells–Lay’s potato chips, sandwiches, potato salad and chocolate chip cookie. It didn’t look very safe to me, so I didn’t partake. But I’d have liked a drink of water. In another circumstance, I might eat this stuff, but with these folks, felt it important to make a point.
Why do they all assume nobody wants water, nobody cares about styrofoam, everybody wants potato chips and we all want industrial meat-like slabs on white bread?
But I digress. The big surprise occurred a few minutes into the meeting: US Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack walked in. He was in Terry McCauliffe love-in mode. And here is what he told us: for the first time–2012– rural America lost population in real numbers–not as a percentage but in real numbers. It’s down to 16 percent of total population.
I’m sitting there thinking he’s going to say that number needs to go up so we have more people to love and steward the landscape. More people to care for earthworms. More people to grow food and fiber.
Are you ready for the shoe to drop? The epiphany? What could the US Secretary of Agriculture, at the highest strategic planning sessions of our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get more people in rural America, to encourage farming and help more farms get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers? Why does he go to bed at night trying to figure out how to increase farmers? How does the President and other cabinet members view his role as the nation’s farming czar?
What could be the most important contribution that increasing farmers could offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care for animals? Better care for plants?
Are you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16 percent of the population, it gives 40 percent of the personnel to the military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of the day, the bottom line–you know all the cliches–the whole reason for increasing farms is to provide cannon fodder for American imperial might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give something back, and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our military might.
So folks, it all boils down to American military muscle. It’s not about food, healing the land, stewarding precious soil and resources; it’s all about making sure we keep a steady stream of youngsters going into the military. This puts an amazing twist on things. You see, I think we should have many more farmers, and have spent a lifetime trying to encourage, empower, and educate young people to go into farming. It never occurred to me that this agenda was the key to American military power.
Lest I be misread, I am not opposed to defending family. I am not opposed to fighting for sacred causes. I am violently opposed to non-sacred fighting and meddling in foreign countries, and building empires. The Romans already tried that and failed.
But to think that my agenda is key to building the American military–now that’s a cause for pause. I will redouble my efforts to help folks remember why we need more farmers. It’s not to provide cannon fodder for Wall Street imperialistic agendas. It’s to grow food that nourishes, land that’s aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic, build soil, hydrate raped landscapes, and convert more solar energy into biomass than nature would in a static state.
I can think of many, many righteous and noble reasons to have more farms. Why couldn’t he have mentioned any of these? Any?
No, the reason for more farms is to make sure we get people signing up at the recruitment office. That’s the way he sees me as a farmer. Not a food producer. When the president and his cabinet have their private conflabs, they don’t see farmers as food producers, as stewards of the landscape, as resource leveragers.
No, they view us as insurance for military muscle, for American empire building and soldier hubris. Is this outrageous? Do I have a right to be angry? Like me, this raw and bold show of the government’s farming agenda should make us all feel betrayed, belittled, and our great nation besmirched.
Perhaps, just perhaps, really good farms don’t feed this military personnel pipeline. I’d like to think our kind of farming has more righteous goals and sacred objectives. Vilsack did not separate good farmers from bad farmers. Since we have far more bad farmers than good ones, perhaps the statistic would not hold up if we had more farmers who viewed the earth as something to heal instead of hurt, as a partner to caress instead of rape.
That America’s farms are viewed by our leaders as just another artery leading into military might is unspeakably demeaning and disheartening.
Why
do we need more farmers? What is the driving force behind USDA policy?
In an infuriating epiphany I have yet to metabolize, I found out
Wednesday in a private policy-generation meeting with Virginia
Democratic gubernatorial candidate Terry McCauliffe. I did and still do
consider it a distinct honor for his staff to invite me as one of the 25
dignitaries in Virginia Agriculture for this think-tank session in
Richmond.
It
was a who’s who of Virginia agriculture: Farm Bureau, Va. Agribusiness
Council, Va. Forestry Association, Va. Poultry Federation, Va.
Cattlemen’s Ass., deans from Virginia Tech and Virginia State–you get
the picture.
It
was the first meeting of this kind I’ve ever attended that offered no
water. The only thing to drink were soft drinks. Lunch was served in
styrofoam clam shells–Lay’s potato chips, sandwiches, potato salad and
chocolate chip cookie. It didn’t look very safe to me, so I didn’t
partake. But I’d have liked a drink of water. In another circumstance, I
might eat this stuff, but with these folks, felt it important to make a
point.
Why
do they all assume nobody wants water, nobody cares about styrofoam,
everybody wants potato chips and we all want industrial meat-like slabs
on white bread?
But
I digress. The big surprise occurred a few minutes into the meeting: US
Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack walked in. He was in Terry
McCauliffe love-in mode. And here is what he told us: for the first
time–2012– rural America lost population in real numbers–not as a
percentage but in real numbers. It’s down to 16 percent of total
population.
I’m
sitting there thinking he’s going to say that number needs to go up so
we have more people to love and steward the landscape. More people to
care for earthworms. More people to grow food and fiber.
Are
you ready for the shoe to drop? The epiphany? What could the US
Secretary of Agriculture, at the highest strategic planning sessions of
our land, be challenged by other leaders to change this figure, to get
more people in rural America, to encourage farming and help more farms
get started? What could be the driving reason to have more farmers? Why
does he go to bed at night trying to figure out how to increase farmers?
How does the President and other cabinet members view his role as the
nation’s farming czar?
What
could be the most important contribution that increasing farmers could
offer to the nation? Better food? Better soil development? Better care
for animals? Better care for plants?
Are
you ready? Here’s his answer: although rural America only has 16
percent of the population, it gives 40 percent of the personnel to the
military. Say what? You mean when it’s all said and done, at the end of
the day, the bottom line–you know all the cliches–the whole reason for
increasing farms is to provide cannon fodder for American imperial
might. He said rural kids grow up with a sense of wanting to give
something back, and if we lose that value system, we’ll lose our
military might.
So
folks, it all boils down to American military muscle. It’s not about
food, healing the land, stewarding precious soil and resources; it’s all
about making sure we keep a steady stream of youngsters going into the
military. This puts an amazing twist on things. You see, I think we
should have many more farmers, and have spent a lifetime trying to
encourage, empower, and educate young people to go into farming. It
never occurred to me that this agenda was the key to American military
power.
Lest
I be misread, I am not opposed to defending family. I am not opposed to
fighting for sacred causes. I am violently opposed to non-sacred
fighting and meddling in foreign countries, and building empires. The
Romans already tried that and failed.
But
to think that my agenda is key to building the American military–now
that’s a cause for pause. I will redouble my efforts to help folks
remember why we need more farmers. It’s not to provide cannon fodder for
Wall Street imperialistic agendas. It’s to grow food that nourishes,
land that’s aesthetically and aromatically sensually romantic, build
soil, hydrate raped landscapes, and convert more solar energy into
biomass than nature would in a static state.
I can think of many, many righteous and noble reasons to have more farms. Why couldn’t he have mentioned any of these? Any?
No,
the reason for more farms is to make sure we get people signing up at
the recruitment office. That’s the way he sees me as a farmer. Not a
food producer. When the president and his cabinet have their private
conflabs, they don’t see farmers as food producers, as stewards of the
landscape, as resource leveragers.
No,
they view us as insurance for military muscle, for American empire
building and soldier hubris. Is this outrageous? Do I have a right to be
angry? Like me, this raw and bold show of the government’s farming
agenda should make us all feel betrayed, belittled, and our great nation
besmirched.
Perhaps,
just perhaps, really good farms don’t feed this military personnel
pipeline. I’d like to think our kind of farming has more righteous goals
and sacred objectives. Vilsack did not separate good farmers from bad
farmers. Since we have far more bad farmers than good ones, perhaps the
statistic would not hold up if we had more farmers who viewed the earth
as something to heal instead of hurt, as a partner to caress instead of
rape.
That
America’s farms are viewed by our leaders as just another artery
leading into military might is unspeakably demeaning and disheartening.
Read more at http://www.realfarmacy.com/youll-be-shocked-to-learn-about-the-usdas-agenda/#OabFlK6O8EuyvuRh.99
