Dems major omission
After four days of watching and waiting, I did not hear much, if anything, about a major issue; our nation's food supply, its suppliers and its safety. I heard virtually nothing about the plight of our farmers, especially the family farmer, the loss of this lifestyle and its meaning for our culture.
Additonally, living near the Chesapeake Bay I am also very aware of the challenges facing our watermen and their livelihood. Pollution, run off from farm fields, urban areas and industry are creating huge dead zones in not only the Chesapeake Bay but the Gulf of Mexico and elsewhere.
As my wife teaches high school biology and with my long background as environmentalist, both professionally and as a citizen activist, I am acutely aware of the impact humans have on the natural world and its impact on ours. This awareness was what I taught students in 3 colleges in southern California.
In light of the recent food contamination scandals from sources in China, Mexico and elsewhere, we have all because very aware of the food safety issue.
Yet even Al Gore didn't really address this most fundamental issue, our food supply and the interactions of the human and natural world. We shouldn't have to worry if the food we eat, the air we breath and the water we drink is safe and healthy.
Some of our military leaders have begun to warn us of water wars. For example the growing loss of glacier water supplies in the Indian sub-continent may trigger major conflicts. Similiarly the Palestinians have for decades complained about Isreal's hoarding of scant water supplies. We face a growing major foreign policy conflict, yet the Democrats blithely ignore the whole problem. Here's where Sen. Obama can carve out an edge, if only he is aware of it.
I came away from the Democratic party convention with the distinct impression that the Democrats are an urban party, concerned primarily with the problems of our cities. Were I still living in the country, I'd feel like they don't give a damn about rural life, so tell them to shove off. In a close election every vote is crucial to success and if the Dems ignore rural and coastal challenges then the rural voter in key states in the mid-west and the watermen along our coasts will ignore them and vote Republican, if they vote at all.
- anElder's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Interesting Observation Rich
Rich said "I came away from the Democratic party convention with the distinct impression that the Democrats are an urban party, concerned primarily with the problems of our cities."
Interesting observation Rich! After I read that statement I visualized the "red-blue" maps that the media uses on Election Day. N.Y., Chicago, L.A., Detroit, Boston, etc. usually line right up for the Democrats but there is that sea of red in middle America, that just doesn't think the Democrats are their party. I hope Obama can shake that idea up.
Yes, the Democrats need to get down to the nitty gritty. If pig slop run off is destroying an area environmentally, don't we need to address it? What exactly are the corporate farmers feeding those pigs? Will the Democrats stand strong for tough environmental laws? One of the reasons millions of Mexicans have tried to come to this country lately is that NAFTA trashed their small farms. Most of them would rather be back in Mexico raising corn and beans, staples of the Mexican diet,but our government subsidized, heavily mechanized agri-business farms have flooded Mexico with cheaper imports and undercut the Mexican farmer. Repealing some of the shortcomings of NAFTA should be high on the agenda. Will the Democrats be brave enough to anger agri-business?
Living in the Great Lakes area, we know that our water is coveted by the dry states. If huge amounts of Great lakes water are diverted, that action will set an ecological chain of events into motion that will turn the Great lakes states into "dry states" too.
I agree that the Democrats need to get specific with workable environmental plans and remember that we don't all live in urban areas.
Food supply protection
Jim,
If for no other reason we need to insure that our food supply is; 1. safe and 2. affordable. By shoring up the small farmer we get food that is locally grown and thus much more easily monitored for safety and is closer, reducing the transportation cost. Now we see major supermarket chains looking for farmers no further away than 150 miles.
However, as one local small farmer told me, cost-wise it's a wash. What little he saves on transportation (for which he has to pay higher fuel costs) he loses in to the cost of fertilzer. If, on the other hand, he's an organic farmer then the small labor intensive supply has to be higher cost. I tell you, it's tough being a farmer these days.
And those factory farms, well they are one of the environmental degraders. Not only is it unhealthy to raise so many livestock so close, but it's also just plain inhumane. And man, have you ever stood down wind of a factory farm? Ugh, it's enuf to gag a maggot!
Obama's NAFTA reforms should include reducing public support for these factory farms, thus helping to keep the cost of Mexican food competitive in the world market keeping them home, where they'd prefer to be, rather than risking their lives entering America illegally. It's truly a moral issue.
Rich