By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

I could almost feel sorry for George Bush, seeing this video from the G-20 economic conference.

Almost, but not quite.

Doesn’t he look like the kid on the playground that nobody wanted on their team?

And when he tried to peddle his memoir, no publisher was interested. Meanwhile, they’re lining up to talk with his wife Laura.

Sometimes you can’t win for losing. What a pity.

Posted on November 21st, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

Here is a great clip of our President-Elect Barack Obama at Farm Aid in 2005 introducing alt-country heroes Wilco. Obama’s passion is pretty clear from the top. His energy was infectious even then. It’s interesting to watch this now, seeing how that passion was in place before his recent ambitions.

And of course, Jeff Tweedy and Wilco deliver an excellent performance. According to a few interviews, Tweedy and his band were inspired by Obama’s powerful presence to get involved with his campaign, offering their talents to fundraisers and expressing their support in TV appearances. Obama and the band have been friends since.

Posted on November 20th, 2008 by Luke
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

By a show of hands, voters at Tuesday night’s special town meeting adopted a Right to Farm bylaw (see the post just below this one) for the town of Westminster, Mass. Raised-hand votes on controversial issues are often the subject of challenge in New England town meetings, with opponents demanding voters on either side of the issue stand to be counted. The fact that that didn’t happen in Westminster is testimony to the existence of a considerable margin in favor of the measure.

The only real controversy during debate had to do with a provision that the bylaw would take precedence over all other town regulations if a conflict arose. A few town officials argued for an amendment that would delete that provision, but the amendment failed.

Last year the town established an agriculture commission, which will handle complaints that arise under the bylaw. Commission member Marsha Foster said proponents were “overwhelmed by the support we got.”  Foster and her husband Bill, also on the ag commission, are farmers.  Key to the measure’s success, Marsha Foster said, was the diligence of the commission’s chairman in talking with many who had a stake in the outcome, answering their questions and responding to objections. As always, good political groundwork was the key.

Here’s a shout out to Betsy Haley Cormier, reporter for the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, for her help with background data and sources.

Posted on November 19th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 3 Comments »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

It happens way too often: People from the city or suburbs, seeking a less expensive place to live or thinking that rural life is cool or less stressful, move to the country. Before long they find themselves offended by the sounds and smells of farming.  Then they start looking for someone in authority to complain to.

When I chaired the selectboard in my tiny town, periodically I’d get a phone call from a woman offended by the unkempt looks of a working farm half a mile from her house. For sure, the sight was  unattractive — a rundown barn, a rundown house, old farm equipment rusting in a field. The farm grazed cattle and raised hogs, and the farmer didn’t stir the swill often enough to prevent anaerobic bacteria from raising a stink. You had to drive up close to the hog pen to smell the rotting garbage, and it wasn’t on the way to anywhere, so I discounted the smell part of her complaint, but didn’t need to tell her that.

I didn’t blame her for wanting her town to be pretty, but I couldn’t give her much sympathy, either.  The farm was there before she came. The people who lived on the farm were too busy earning their living to plant flowers in the dooryard, too poor to fix the barn as long as it did what they needed it to do, which was keep the winter’s hay dry.

I told her to call the Board of Health if she thought there was a hazard to the public health (she didn’t.) I told her I’d put her on the selectboard agenda if she wanted to come in and complain, but that I wasn’t about to summon the farmer to the meeting unless the other two board members thought there was some violation we should get involved in (knowing they wouldn’t.) Eventually she gave up. She was a nice lady, with a blind spot. She lived in a farming community and didn’t want to look at a real working farm.

Today, more than 20 Massachusetts towns have adopted Right to Farm bylaws, which have the dual benefit of protecting farmers from being harassed by people who don’t want to know about the nitty-gritty of farming,  and of protecting people from buying property without knowing they’ll be living within range of a working farm.

Tonight, voters in the Massachusetts town of Westminster, 53 miles northwest of Boston with a population just over 6,000, will go to a special town meeting to consider, among other things, whether to adopt a Right to Farm bylaw. It’s article 16 on the meeting warrant (that’s New English for agenda), so if the meeting doesn’t complete work on the first 15 articles by 11 p.m., they’ll come back tomorrow night to finish.

There’s lots of legal wording to the bylaw, but here’s what reporters call the “nut graph” — the paragraph that tells you what it all means. (The paragraph that begins with “Today,” is the nut graph in this story.)

The Right to Farm is hereby recognized to exist within the Town of Westminster. The above-described agricultural activities may occur on holidays, weekdays, and weekends by night or day and shall include the attendant incidental noise, odors, dust, and fumes associated with normally accepted agricultural practices. It is hereby determined that whatever impact may be caused to others through the normal practice of agriculture is more than offset by the benefits of farming to the neighborhood, community, and society in general. The benefits and protections of this By-law are intended to apply exclusively to those commercial agricultural and farming operations and activities conducted in accordance with generally accepted agricultural practices. Moreover, nothing in this Right to Farm Bylaw shall be deemed as acquiring any interest in land, or as imposing any land use regulation, which is properly the subject of state statute, regulation, or local zoning law.

And, to protect people contemplating buying property in the town, the bylaw asks people selling property to furnish the following notice to prospective buyers:

It is the policy of this community to conserve, protect and encourage the maintenance and improvement of agricultural land for the production of food, and other agricultural products, and also for its natural and ecological value. This disclosure notification is to inform buyers that the property they are about to acquire lies within a town where farming activities occur. Such farming activities (which may occur on holidays, weekdays, and weekends by night or day) may include, but are not limited to, activities that cause noise, dust and odors. Occupying land within Westminster means that one should expect and accept such conditions as a normal and necessary aspect of living in such an area.”

Westminster, if it passes the bylaw, will only ask sellers to issue this notification. Some towns actually require it.

It’s not just in Massachusetts that Right to Farm bylaws and ordinances are being adopted.  A quick search found that the Washington State counties of Snohomish, Skapit, and Kittitas have them too.  I don’t doubt there are many others.

Here in my town, I’m going to see if we can get such a bylaw adopted at our annual town meeting next May. The Massachusetts agriculture department provides a sample bylaw here. The one Westminster will vote on tonight is here.

If your town has one, I’d love it if you’ll tell us about it, what it took to get it adopted, and how it’s working.

Posted on November 18th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

A Western Massachusetts farmer’s request of his state representative has resulted in a change in the number of miles farmers can drive unlicensed tractors and other equipment.  The new law lets farm equipment travel ten miles — up from two — over public roads.  An article in the November 17 Boston Globe, whose editorial staff seems composed of urban dwellers who think produce grows around the outer edges of their local supermarket, notes:

An obscure clause tucked into the Massachusetts Dairy Farm Revitalization Bill enacted in August, the measure quintuples the time drivers could spend staring into a neon orange caution triangle on the back of a farm vehicle.

The provision came about when a dairy farmer in Charlemont, population around 1,300, asked State Representative Steve Kulik (a Democrat in this state where all but a few state legislators share his party affiliation) to get the limit raised.  Petitioning one’s local legislator (actually, the petition may be as simple as a phone call) is a time-honored tradition in these parts.  It’s amazing what you can accomplish here by picking up the phone.

Only a few farms remain inside I-495, the outer belt that surrounds Boston and defines the Globe’s prime circulation area, beyond which Bostonians tend to doubt intelligent life can be found. But the towns named and people quoted in the article live within that area, and some of the quotes reflect annoyance at having to slow down so a working farmer can get from one place to another.  Especially in the eastern part of the state, but also out here where nobody lives, farms get boxed in by housing development and farmers are compelled to lease land at a distance if they hope to increase production.

The best quote in the article comes from Jeff LaFleur, executive director of the Cape Cod Cranberry Growers’ Association, whose group advocated on behalf of the change. As for the drivers who don’t like it,  “You don’t complain about a farmer with your mouth full,” he said.

The article is worth reading, but the readers’ comments are even more so.

And here’s a 51-second video with a metro-area farmer who commutes to his fields by tractor.

Posted on November 17th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

I’ve stopped pinching myself to make sure I’m not dreaming. I’ve stopped worrying that the GOP’s sleaze of lawyers (that’s a collective noun, like “a pride of lions” or “a covey of quail”) would come up with a reason why the presidential vote count was invalid and get the Supremes to order a do-over — or worse, take a vote themselves. I’m about convinced that the presidential election is over and the President Elect is named Obama.

But the composition of the Senate is not yet known. Maybe by the time you read this the Stevens-Begich race in Alaska will have been decided.  Last I saw, Begich, the Democrat, was ahead by 814 votes, the powers in Alasa having finally gotten around to counting all the ballots. As I write, they’re not done yet. Those remaining to be counted, still numbering in the five figures, come mostly from Begich-friendly areas. A Begich win would save the Senate the trouble of expelling convicted felon Stevens, which they would surely do. It would also save Alaska the grief of a special election, and the rest of us the possibility that the state’s airheaded governor would feel called by God to run.

In Minnesota, despite efforts by a subset of the Republican lawyers to circumvent state law, there will be a recount because the margin between Al Franken and incumbent Norm Coleman is less than one-half of one percent.

Essentially, in those two contests, the die is cast; nobody gets to vote again, all the ballots that will be filled in have been filled in. There’s nothing to do, unless you are a lawyer representing the party that thinks its candidate is going to lose in a fair count.

But then there’s Georgia, where Saxby Chambliss, the Republican incumbent, and Democratic challenger Jim Martin stand in a runoff to be held December 2. Georgia law requires an automatic runoff if no candidate polls 50 percent plus one vote.  Chambliss polled 49.8 percent to Martin’s 46.8 percent. Libertarian Allen Buckley took the rest.

While Chambliss holds the inevitable incumbent’s edge, here are five reasons to watch this race and not write Martin off.

1.  Half or less of those who voted November 4 will show up to vote in a special election. Those who decide to vote will be the most passionate about the outcome.

2.  Chambliss has stimulated a significant amount of passion in the race, passion against him. He’s the guy who in 2002 defeated one-term incumbent Sen. Max Clellan, the Vietnam vet who lost two legs and one arm in the war, by linking him with Osama bin Ladin and Saddam Hussein. Even John McCain was appalled at the time. The Democratic Party isn’t letting folks forget about that.

Here’s the ad Chambliss ran against Clellan in 2002:

And here’s the ad the Dems are running against Chambliss now:

3. Obama has kept his Georgia field offices open for Martin and a hundred or more Ohio campaign volunteers are on their way to Georgia. Field work may well make the difference for Martin.

4. There’s no reason to think that the Libertarians who voted for Buckley will switch to Chambliss. Most likely, they just won’t show up at all.

5. McCain’s boundless hypocrisy will once again be on display as he stumps for Chambliss, about whose 2002 ad he once said, “I’d never seen anything like that ad. Putting pictures of Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden next to the picture of a man who left three limbs on the battlefield — it’s worse than disgraceful. It’s reprehensible.” Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney will also be in Georgia for Chambliss. Of the four, only Huckabee knows how to campaign on a positive note. The relentless negativity of the other three may turn out to be the best thing Martin has going for him.

The GOP is spastic over the outcome of this contest. Right now, the Democrats hold 57 seats in the Senate. If Franken, Begich, and Martin all win, then there will be 60, the magic number of votes needed to block the only weapon GOP senators have left, the filibuster.

So the outcome in Georgia matters.  It matters a lot.

Posted on November 14th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: 2008 Senate Races, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

In addition to being a great way to describe what farmers do, Serve Your Country Food is a delightful web site and fledgling campaign devoted to farmers under the age of 40. It’s an offshoot of The Greenhorns, a documentary film that explores the lives of young farmers.

(I’ll let them take over the term “greenhorns,” after a brief historical note: The word as I know it refers to an immigrant, “someone just off the boat,” as folks said when I was a child. In those days, assimilation was the immigrant’s goal. We spoke of America as “the melting pot.” When I, a second generation American, waved my hands while I was talking, my mother would say, her voice dripping with scorn, “Don’t talk with your hands. You look like a greenhorn.” It wasn’t scorn for immigrants — my grandfather, in whose house we lived, was one. But I assimilated the message so well that I nearly flunked public speaking when I got to college because I simply couldn’t gesture when I spoke.)

Back to the subject at hand.

The campaign manifesto begins:

Young Farmers, a call to arms!

Coast to coast, thousands of people are inspired to dig in and grow food! Yet access to the land, capital, market savvy, and skills requires for successful farming is available only to a dauntless few. Those few are brave, strong, and delightful advocates of the purposeful life, but it will take more than a few to reclaim a food system of industrial monocultures, labor abuse, and toxic factory conditions. This is the injustice our movement seeks to repair.

The site also has this to say about itself:

We’re excited to use this project to make visual the impact of a swelling new force on the American landscape. There are patriots working in this country today whose commitment to the freedom of the nation is exhibited in their fierce loyalty to its citizens, to their nutrition, their water, their open space, their health and their independence. Farmers have been here all along, but in this time especially of high energy costs, sinking dollar, and the changing climate—local food production has become a key puzzle piece, and with the current agricultural community reaching retirement age, recruitment has become a critical motive.

America has always respected its farmers ideologically, but the financial and social rewards have not always followed. The time has come for us to embrace farming and its practitioners—to recognize their service, to praise them, and to pay them a living wage. The time has come for the agricultural arts, so valued by our forefathers, to inspire the best, brightest and most dedicated young people to enter the field. Farming is hard work, it is good work, it is bold work. Farming means nurturing the interface of humanity and ecology, cherishing that delicate, complex and fragrant soil. Bringing forth food, life and a sustained well being for this country.

If you’re farming and under 40, you’re asked to fill out a brief survey form so others can find you. A map on the front page of the site shows where people who have registered live. You can click on a dot and find the farmer’s survey response, so you can get in touch.

There’s also a wonderful collection of maps: Amtrak routes, Indian reservations, cell phone coverage, dominant soil types, hardiness zones. and more.  Maybe it’s just me, but I could get lost in those maps for hours.

The illustrations are handmade and beyond charming. (An reduced-size example tops this page.) The existence of these two related sites makes me glad. Whether you’re a farmer under forty, or one over forty, or not farming but just wanting a dose of hope and encouragement, go look. First here, then here.

Posted on November 13th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Rural Issues, Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

Photo: Doug Mills / NYT

Here we have the President, the President Elect, and their respective wives entering the White House for Monday’s visit. I laughed when I first saw this photo.

I still don’t know what to make of Obama’s hand on Bush’s back. (He’d better not try that with German Chancellor Angela Merkel — as Bush learned in her very public and televised demonstration of disgust, she doesn’t welcome uninvited touch.)

Looked at one way, this is a sort of respectful gesture by a young man toward an older one. It could also be a gesture of welcome, only the couples are entering the Bush home, not the Obamas’. Or it could be something else.

I think of the way our dog Wally shows his dominance over our cats, Sunny and Shady. They’re litter mates, domestic longhairs.  That’s all the information you need to know what they look like.

Wally, who herds both cats and chickens, puts his paw on the cats’ back when he wants to show who’s in charge.

Is that what Obama was doing? Consciously or unconsciously, was he doing the Alpha Dog thing with Bush? I’d love to think so. Bush’s Alpha Dog act so often came off more like a banty rooster.

I’d also love to think the gesture was an unconscious one, not planned.

What do you think?

Posted on November 12th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 8 Comments »

By Deb Kozikowski 

Enlisted ratios in rural America are higher than average throughout the nation. Respect for our service men and women runs high and we care about the issues that affect their lives after they leave military life.

This year marks the 90th anniversary of World War I, fought from 1914 to 1918. Voice Of America’s Deborah Block recently met American WWI veteran Frank Buckles. Buckles may well be the last living U.S. soldier who served in the Great War.

We invite you to meet Frank Buckles along with Block in this moving video report. Click on Veterans Day Honors US Service Men, Women to read the full transcript.

Posted on November 11th, 2008 by Luke
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

Posted by Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

During a press briefing a few minutes ago, John Podesta, co-chair of the  Obama Transition Team, announced what he described as “the strictest and most far reaching ethics rules of any transition team in history.” The rules are:

·         Federal Lobbyists cannot contribute financially to the transition.

·         Federal lobbyists are prohibited from  any   lobbying during their work with the transition.

·         If someone has lobbied in the last 12 months, they are prohibited from working in the fields of policy on which they lobbied.

·         If someone becomes a lobbyist after working on the Transition, they are prohibited from lobbying the Administration  for 12 months  on  matters on which they worked.

·         A gift ban that is aggressive in reducing the influence of special interests.

Evidence that Podesta wasn’t merely hyping the significance of these rules comes from statements by leaders of two prominent think tanks, the first identified with the political left, the second with the right.  When these two agree, it’s a very good sign.

Statement of Thomas Mann
Brookings Institution

“The ethical guidelines released today for the Obama transition are tough and unequivocal.  They will prevent some honorable people with rich experience from serving in the transition.  That is a real cost but it is more than balanced by the strong signal sent by the President-elect.  He aspires to attract to government able individuals whose highest priority is to serve the public interest.  This is a very constructive step in that direction.”

Statement of Norm Ornstein
American Enterprise Institute

“Restoring trust in government is a prerequisite to enacting good policy and the tough choices the country needs. This ethics policy for the transition is a far-reaching, bold and constructive step to do just that. The policy may exclude some good people with deep experience in their fields, but it will also exclude those who see government service as a springboard to financial success, or who are more intent on pleasing future potential employers or clients than making tough choices in the public interest. As much as anything, this ethics policy is a statement about the tone and tenor of the Obama administration. It is a good sign.”

Posted on November 11th, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »