By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

Pillows are beginning to smell of mildew. Spiders suddenly have the nerve to come inside and build new webs, having abandoned the ones they started beneath the overhangs that (mostly) keep the rain away from the casement windows. Inside the house, the outside cats are sending surly looks in my direction; surely the One Who Provides Food can dry out their hunting grounds if She wants to. Everyone’s hay is ruined. The price of a bale next winter will likely exceed that of a gallon of gasoline. At senior lunch yesterday, even the people who never complain about the weather were complaining about the weather. Nobody around here can remember the last day it didn’t rain.

When we moved here in 1985, people who learned we were here to raise sheep and chickens and grow vegetables told us not to plant until Memorial Day weekend. After that, they said, there’d pretty sure not be another hard frost, although….

We bought a kit and built a greenhouse – not heated, but good, we thought, nine months out of the year. Wrong. Try five. We could extend a three-month growing season by one month on each end, no more. We’d moved only about 70 air miles away from the ocean, but we’d lost two months of outdoor growing time.

That was 1985. Twenty years later we wanted to kick ourselves for waiting so late to plant seeds and transplant seedlings. The past couple of years, we’ve had everything but the squash and tomatoes in the ground mid-May.

It used to be that we saw frost soon after Labor Day. The past couple of years, light frost has come in mid-October and the killing one in November.

I’m not saying the change has been strictly linear. I made the photo that leads this piece on May 18, 2002. The lilacs survived. The apple blossoms did not. But the trend is clear. More rain, longer growing season. And did I mention the temperatures? Don’t ask.

The tropics are moving to New England. I’ve already got two perennials in my cutting garden that aren’t supposed to survive winters in Zone 5. I wonder when they’re going to redo the zone map. [Note to self: Find out who would make that decision, and how.]

Al Gore said something fairly astounding on July 17: “America must commit to producing 100% of our electricity from cheap, clean renewable energy sources, like solar and wind, within 10 years.” There’s a 27-minute video you can watch. It’s pure dynamite. The wing nuts are saying he’s crazy.

Mostly, though, people are comparing that with JFK’s “man on the moon” challenge in 1961. I wish I could buy that. I want to believe we can do this, too. I want to be chanting, “Si se puede.”

But while it took thousands of people working to enable Neal Armstrong’s one step for humankind, it will take more than three hundred million of us to go on a no-carbon diet. Not low carb, no carb. And however much we do as individuals, it can’t happen without the full-throated support of corporate America. In rural America, if we need food we can’t grow for ourselves, we get into the car; there’s no corner convenience store for the likes of us. Until Detroit (or Japan, or Korea, or wherever) gives us a no-carbon car (and I don’t mean one you plug into house current, using coal to provide electricity for the battery) we’ll be burning gasoline. And what about those of us who won’t be able to buy the no-carb cars when they come along because a new car is beyond our reach? Will there be help for us, or shall we simply starve?

That’s one way of looking at the Gore manifesto — to say, “Yeah, right. Ain’t gonna happen.” But Henry Ford said, “Whether you think you can or whether you think you can’t, you’re right.” And the philosopher Immanuel Kant said we should all act such that we’d be glad to see our actions become universal law.

I want it to be universal law that we make the changes in our lives that will enable us to meet Al Gore’s challenge on July 17, 2018. To do that, we have to make ourselves into an implacable force for renewable energy. It has to become unacceptable for corporations to ignore this imperative. It has to become unacceptable for politicians to ignore this imperative. You can help make this so, by signing the MoveOn petition that will be delivered to the presidential candidates and to Congress. Then start looking around the house and see what changes you can make now, before Congress and the corporations get their hind ends in gear.

I’ll be 82 on the tenth anniversary of Gore’s challenge, but the women in my family go on forever, so if some drunk in a car doesn’t pick me off on Route 2 before then, I’ll be around to see how well we’ve done. You wouldn’t want to disappoint an old lady, now would you?

Posted on July 23rd, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | 1 Comment »

By Sean Reagan

Presidential contenders spoke by telephone to the American Farm Bureau Federation’s Council of Presidents meeting earlier this week. Even though the AFB doesn’t endorse candidates, the organization and its state affiliates have long been friendlier with GOP candidates than with Democrats.

Early indications – mostly in campaign donations – show that trend is continuing. But there are also signs the relationship may be starting to fray.

For starters, in 2005-2006, both candidates (while Senators) received relatively low ratings from the organization – 35 out of a possible 100. McCain – even with that (R) after his name - is no darling of the organization.

Given agribusiness’s reliance on diesel and other fuels, the AFB supports ethanol production as well as offshore drilling to ease fuel prices for farmers. McCain has flipped on both these issues. He was against them, now he’s for them: He opposes subsidies for U.S.-based ethanol production but supports sugar-based ethanol from Brazil, and wants to lift the ban on offshore drilling.

Obama supports corn-based ethanol production, including subsidies to American producers, but he opposes the expansion of offshore drilling.

But if that appears to tilt the balance McCain’s way, consider the Granddaddy of this year’s agriculture issues: the farm bill. Earlier this year, AFB heartily endorsed it. In language that was not unlike Barack Obama’s, AFBF President Bob Stallman called it “a good, solid bill for American agriculture, American consumers and the environment.”

Against a backdrop of growing global food security concerns, this carefully crafted legislation will give America’s farmers and ranchers a basic package of support that will allow them to continue serving as the world’s major food producers. The three-legged safety net of direct payments, marketing loans and counter-cyclical programs provides our farmers an essential level of financial security at a time when their markets are volatile and expenses such as fertilizer and fuel costs are shooting through the roof.

No farm bill ever is perfect, but this bill includes substantial reforms.

McCain opposed the bill, in classic “throw the baby out with the bath water” form.

Still, agribusiness donations to McCain’s campaign currently stand at $1.47 million, with Obama garnering $910,000. (An interesting side note to those numbers: Mitt Romney – McCain’s whispered V.P. - raised the next highest amount from the ag sector – just under $770,000.). On a state level, of the $330,100 that AFB affiliates have donated to federal candidates, parties and committees, 56 percent has flowed to Republicans.

It’s too early to say that one of the most conservative wings of the farm industry is ready to “go blue,” but the line sure is starting to blur.

Posted on July 23rd, 2008 by seanreagan
Filed under: McCain, Obama, Rural Issues | 1 Comment »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

My town is one of the smallest in Massachusetts, with a population of just over 750 people. The National Priorities Project says we will pay $1.8 million of the funds Congress has already appropriated for the war on Iraq. Coincidentally, that’s the amount of this year’s municipal budget, voted at a real town meeting (not one of the phony ones political candidates put on for show) where all registered voters are entitled to come, speak, and vote.

All 351 Massachusetts cities and towns (there are no unincorporated places here) have the same requirements to provide for administration, public safety, public works, education, and health and human services. If your town is lucky, your culture and recreation budget hasn’t yet been wiped out. My town has a little public library that we’re enormously proud of. Some of us might take up arms to defend it if its $21,000 allocation were threatened. We still maintain the ball field and the park around the town hall. That’s the best we can do. Twenty years ago, we had adult education courses at the town hall. That was among the first program to be cut when money started tightening up during the reign of Bush the First.

The budget includes $167,000 in principal and interest payments on a school construction bond issue for our nine-year-old elementary school, built at a cost of $2.5 million, not counting as much volunteer labor as prevailing wage laws allowed.

The state helps with construction funding, of course. We pay, they reimburse us. A formula was established when the town voted to build the school. When the kids and teachers moved in, in September 1999, the reimbursement formula was supposed to be adjusted. Upward. A succession of Republican administrations, the most recent that of Hugh (Wavy Gravy) Romney’s kid brother, Mitt, dragged their heels. This year, under a new governor, Democrat Deval Patrick, the town’s finance committee is expecting the state will increase its participation in paying off the school debt by $125,000. That’s $1.50 on the tax rate, bringing the real estate tax bill for an average home down by about $350 when bills go out in October. The increased reimbursement will continue for the rest of the 20 year loan.

This is not a wealthy town. It’s at least 20 minutes from any highway, 25 miles from the nearest shopping town. You don’t go through it to get anywhere. It’s so small that once, when I chaired the selectboard (the gender-neutral term has replaced Board of Selectmen because so many selectmen aren’t men) I called my counterpart in the next town to the west to talk about the horrific condition of the road that connects the two towns, and that the school bus uses to take our kids to the regional high school. I told him where I was calling from. “Where’s that?” he asked.

Being so small has its advantages – we’re like a big extended family. We don’t always like each other, but when the chips are down – someone has a house fire or a mowing accident, for example – we pull together and help out. But it has one big disadvantage: a few years ago a couple of Really Wealthy Families built houses here and kicked our average family income above the level of eligibility for some federal grants. When you only have about 300 families, it doesn’t take much to skew the bell curve.

According to NPP, each of us in this town – from the oldest to the newborn - carries $2,400 in debt to pay for a war we never ordered. I went back to the web site to see what else that $1.8 million could have bought us. It told me that amount of money could have provided:

547 People with Health Care for One Year OR

2,845 Homes with Renewable Electricity for One Year OR

36 Public Safety Officers for One year OR

31 Music and Arts Teachers for One Year OR

190 Scholarships for University Students for One Year OR

6 Affordable Housing Units OR

684 Children with Health Care for One Year OR

218 Head Start Places for Children for One Year OR

26 Elementary School Teachers for One Year

Of course, some of us would just like to have that $2,400 in our own pockets. But if the winter’s brutal snows have taught us anything, it’s that we’re all in this together. We’d be glad to see those six affordable housing units, and to know that everyone in town had health insurance. We’d surely like enough funding so that every child could go to pre-school, and every one who graduates from high school can go on to college.

You can go to the NPP site and look for your town’s share of the war in Iraq, or of tax cuts for the richest 10% in 2009, or the cost of nuclear weapons or Bush’s proposed ballistic missile defense system, among other things. It’s a real eye-opener, and we all need a bit of that once in a while.

180 days to the end of the Bush regime

Posted on July 22nd, 2008 by MiryamEhrlichWilliamson
Filed under: Uncategorized | No Comments »

J. Marcus


Last week, while everybody was fighting over Obama’s coverage and McCain’s senior moments, we missed out on a groundbreaking solution that will save the world. It’s an idea so powerful, so compelling, that it will be compared to the human achievement of agriculture. It will make those smarmy jerks who hand out Nobel prizes trade in their fancy booklearnin’ for a far more fashionable opium addiction.

There will be a national holiday over this one, folks.

Washington, DC will be re-named Lamaria, as Alexandria might make people think of some small-time, short-lived, over-rated Macedonian.

You thought the eagle would remain the symbol of this country? You fool. Get ready to slap some Cosberella lamaralexanderi on those plates you’ll be special ordering from the Bradford Exchange.

Late last week, (The Exalted) Lamar Alexander (King of the Republic, Lord of Sciences and Knowledge) solved our energy crisis and altered the course of our rising gas prices, apparently all before lunch. At an energy meeting in Jackson, Tennessee, he said that the key to solving our energy problems can be summed up in four magical words: “find more, use less.”

Now I’ll answer the next question that has come to your mind: The yearly wage for a state senator is $165,200 and there are no limits to how long you can serve. I’ll see you all on Friday, I’m gonna go update my resume.

Posted on July 22nd, 2008 by jmarcus
Filed under: snark | No Comments »

By Matt L. Barron

Rumors are mounting that Sen. McCain will tap former Massachusetts Gov. Willard “Mitt” Romney as his running mate as soon as Wednesday of this week. Rural Americans can learn what we in rural Massachusetts found out between 2002 and 2006: Mitt Happens.

Torrential rains pelted New England during mid-October 2005 and left a path of destruction in their wake for many rural towns in Massachusetts. In the hilltown hamlet of Middlefield (pop. 542), Clark Wright Road was washed away as well as a bridge over Glendale Brook. In Franklin County, Huckle Hill Road in Bernardston (pop. 2,155) disappeared from the floods, causing concern as the road is an alternative evacuation route, should an accident occur at the Vermont Yankee nuclear power plant across the state line. The neighboring town of Leyden (pop. 772) also saw several roads rendered impassible.

Rising waters also swept away an entire mobile home park in Greenfield, victimizing dozens of residents and leaving them homeless. Springfield television stations captured the surreal scene of thousands of orange pumpkins floating down the Connecticut River from their flooded fields, depriving farmers of an important cash crop soon before Halloween.

As worried highway superintendents and local officials called the governor’s office in Boston to request state aid for threatened dams and devastated roads, they found to their dismay that Gov. Mitt Romney was out of state. Making matters worse, Romney issued a statement offering the services of the Massachusetts National Guard to New Hampshire.

Rural voters looking for insight into how Mitt Romney will treat rural America can learn from our experience.

When the Massachusetts Legislature passed a sweeping economic stimulus bill in 2006, Romney vetoed rural broadband access provisions designed to bring high-speed Internet service to the hinterlands. He chopped $3 million for an agricultural innovation center at the University of Massachusetts. Luckily for rural Massachusetts, the House and Senate overrode those vetoes by huge margins.

According the most recent U.S. Census data, more than half the state’s 351 cities and towns can be classified as “rural” using the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s definition of having a population of 10,000 or less. While the percentage of residents considered rural is 8.6%, we cover a lot of geography and the rural economic engine fuels a significant work force.

Other Republicans like Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell and Vermont Gov. Jim Douglas stepped up to help save dairy farmers in their states, but Mitt Romney turned his back on Bay State dairy producers struggling to stay on the land. He turned a deaf ear to our cranberry growers, whose signature crop contributes more than $50 million in payroll to Massachusetts’s workers and employs some 5,500 people.

Mitt Romney has a history of nonsupport for the rural community.

His 2002 gubernatorial campaign detoured around rural Massachusetts as he avoided any talk of closing the digital divide, protecting the working landscapes of our farms and forests or real solutions to encourage rural economic development. As governor-elect, he signaled little interest in having rural voices in his administration. Only one of 97 transition team members was from a rural community.

One month after taking office, Romney created six “regional competitiveness councils” as the cornerstone of his economic revival strategy. Councils included representatives from agriculture, the forest and wood products and tourism sectors and the hope was to devise a strategy for boosting local economies. A year later, Romney dissolved the councils and his director of economic development, who championed the idea, resigned.

Things got much worse for small towns and rural communities as Romney’s term progressed. The governor’s annual budget shortchanged critical local aid accounts, such as payments in-lieu of taxes, which reimburse communities for tax-exempt state lands and facilities and regional school transportation payments. Rural towns host huge tracts of state forest and park land, which are off the local tax rolls, and rural school districts with almost no commercial tax base had to pay ever-increasing bus and van costs for transporting students across multiple towns, many with dirt roads.

Romney’s smart growth initiative penalized rural towns from the outset. Dubbed “Commonwealth Capital”, the program placed heavy emphasis in calculating a community’s score on such factors as “transit-oriented development” and “commercial infill” even though dozens of rural towns have no public transportation service or town centers with commercial districts. My town of 1,273 has a general store. Period. Romney tied a town’s score to its ability to compete for state environmental funds for farmland and open space preservation, programs that had been successful stand-alone entities since the 1970s. Rural towns were shut out because their CommCap scores were so low. And it never got better.

In 2003, with the state in financial turmoil, Gov. Romney’s solution to solve the budget crunch was to raise every state fee, including those for gun owners like me. Romney quadrupled to $100 the Firearms Identification card registration and made law-abiding gun owners go through the hassle of being fingerprinted like criminals.

Voters would do well to pay close attention to Mitt Romney’s long trail of flip-flops and u-turns on policy positions as he campaigns for a Republican victory. Here in rural Massachusetts, we know better and no amount of those “Farmers 4 Mitt” signs drawn by campaign staffers during the primary season will paper over Romney’s abysmal record as governor when it came to helping our Commonwealth’s 6,000 commercial farmers, sportsmen and broadband-deprived rural residents.

Posted on July 21st, 2008 by seanreagan
Filed under: McCain | 1 Comment »

DEMOCRAT TOM UDALL TAKES A BIG EARLY LEAD

By Sean Reagan

Democratic Congressman Tom Udall is taking on Republican Steve Pearce, who narrowly defeated Heather Wilson in their hard-fought primary, in the race to replace retiring Republican Senator Pete Domenici who has held the seat since 1973.

Udall has politics in the blood. He’s got a couple of cousins in Congress - Mark Udall, who’s currently leading Bob Schaffer in their race for Colorado’s open Senate seat, and Gordon Smith in Oregon.

Polling last month gave Udall just shy of thirty-point lead of Pearce – a twelve-point bump over his lead in May. He’s got the base wrapped up and is tapping a quarter of Republicans right now.

Udall draws support from 86% of Democrats and from over a quarter (26%) of Republicans. Pearce wins just 69% of Republican votes. When it comes to voters not affiliated with either party, Udall has a commanding 46% to 27% lead, a major improvement from the ten-point lead he had last month.

Coming on the heels of a Republican primary in which both candidates (Pearce and Rep. Heather Wilson) spent gobs of money and battled tenaciously, that’s an impressive set of numbers for Udall.

Obama currently holds a six-point lead over McCain in the state.

Both parties are likely to pour plenty of resources into the state. New Mexico has given razor-thin margins to its Presidential victors in the last two cycles. Bush won by 6,000 votes in ‘04 while Gore took it by just 365 votes in 2000.

And all three of New Mexico’s Representatives gave up their seats to run for the Senate, which means that 111^th Congress is going to see all new faces from the Land of Enchantment. It’s going to be one of the most interesting states to keep an eye on heading into November.

It’s hard to imagine Udall holding onto such a commanding lead for the duration of the campaign. New Mexico is politically volatile landscape, and Republicans aren’t going to cede Domenici’s seat without an expensive – and probably ugly by the time we get to the end of it – fight.

Bob Benenson rates the Udall-Pearce race one of the top five for a likely Democratic pickup.

Running in a state that is split very evenly between the parties, Pearce is staking his hopes on persuading voters that Udall’s House record is too liberal. This race is rated Leans Democratic, which means Udall has an edge in a contest that still is highly competitive.

Look for the margin to narrow as summer turns to fall, but when the dust settles in November, it’s going to be Senator Udall.

Posted on July 21st, 2008 by seanreagan
Filed under: Senate Races | No Comments »

Posted by Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

Barack Obama detailed his foreign policy plans in Washington, D.C., last Tuesday, a week before his trip to Europe and the Middle East. The speech, on video at the link below, runs 36 minutes. If you’d rather read it, the printed text is on the same page.

Video: A New Strategy for a New World

Below are some excerpts — enough to refute those who say he’s not seasoned enough to confront a dangerous world.

As President, I will pursue a tough, smart and principled national security strategy – one that recognizes that we have interests not just in Baghdad, but in Kandahar and Karachi, in Tokyo and London, in Beijing and Berlin. I will focus this strategy on five goals essential to making America safer: ending the war in Iraq responsibly; finishing the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban; securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states; achieving true energy security; and rebuilding our alliances to meet the challenges of the 21st century.

[...]

At some point, a judgment must be made. Iraq is not going to be a perfect place, and we don’t have unlimited resources to try to make it one. We are not going to kill every al Qaeda sympathizer, eliminate every trace of Iranian influence, or stand up a flawless democracy before we leave – General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker acknowledged this to me when they testified last April. That is why the accusation of surrender is false rhetoric used to justify a failed policy. In fact, true success in Iraq – victory in Iraq – will not take place in a surrender ceremony where an enemy lays down their arms. True success will take place when we leave Iraq to a government that is taking responsibility for its future – a government that prevents sectarian conflict, and ensures that the al Qaeda threat which has been beaten back by our troops does not reemerge. That is an achievable goal if we pursue a comprehensive plan to press the Iraqis stand up.

[...]

In fact – as should have been apparent to President Bush and Senator McCain – the central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That’s why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

It is unacceptable that almost seven years after nearly 3,000 Americans were killed on our soil, the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari are recording messages to their followers and plotting more terror. The Taliban controls parts of Afghanistan. Al Qaeda has an expanding base in Pakistan that is probably no farther from their old Afghan sanctuary than a train ride from Washington to Philadelphia. If another attack on our homeland comes, it will likely come from the same region where 9/11 was planned. And yet today, we have five times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

I will send at least two additional combat brigades to Afghanistan, and use this commitment to seek greater contributions – with fewer restrictions – from NATO allies. I will focus on training Afghan security forces and supporting an Afghan judiciary, with more resources and incentives for American officers who perform these missions. Just as we succeeded in the Cold War by supporting allies who could sustain their own security, we must realize that the 21st century’s frontlines are not only on the field of battle – they are found in the training exercise near Kabul, in the police station in Kandahar, and in the rule of law in Herat.

[...]

Only a strong Pakistani democracy can help us move toward my third goal – securing all nuclear weapons and materials from terrorists and rogue states. One of the terrible ironies of the Iraq War is that President Bush used the threat of nuclear terrorism to invade a country that had no active nuclear program. But the fact that the President misled us into a misguided war doesn’t diminish the threat of a terrorist with a weapon of mass destruction – in fact, it has only increased it.

[...]

We cannot wait any longer to protect the American people. I’ve made this a priority in the Senate, where I worked with Republican Senator Dick Lugar to pass a law accelerating our pursuit of loose nuclear materials. I’ll lead a global effort to secure all loose nuclear materials around the world during my first term as President. And I’ll develop new defenses to protect against the 21st century threat of biological weapons and cyber-terrorism –

[...]

We cannot tolerate nuclear weapons in the hands of nations that support terror. Preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons is a vital national security interest of the United States. [...] I will use all elements of American power to pressure the Iranian regime, starting with aggressive, principled and direct diplomacy – diplomacy backed with strong sanctions and without preconditions.

[...]

The surest way to increase our leverage against Iran in the long-run is to stop bankrolling its ambitions. That will depend on achieving my fourth goal: ending the tyranny of oil in our time.

One of the most dangerous weapons in the world today is the price of oil. We ship nearly $700 million a day to unstable or hostile nations for their oil. It pays for terrorist bombs going off from Baghdad to Beirut. It funds petro-diplomacy in Caracas and radical madrasas from Karachi to Khartoum. It takes leverage away from America and shifts it to dictators.

This immediate danger is eclipsed only by the long-term threat from climate change, which will lead to devastating weather patterns, terrible storms, drought, and famine. That means people competing for food and water in the next fifty years in the very places that have known horrific violence in the last fifty: Africa, the Middle East, and South Asia. Most disastrously, that could mean destructive storms on our shores, and the disappearance of our coastline.

Never again will we sit on the sidelines, or stand in the way of global action to tackle this global challenge. I will reach out to the leaders of the biggest carbon emitting nations and ask them to join a new Global Energy Forum that will lay the foundation for the next generation of climate protocols. We will also build an alliance of oil-importing nations and work together to reduce our demand, and to break the grip of OPEC on the global economy. We’ll set a goal of an 80% reduction in global emissions by 2050. And as we develop new forms of clean energy here at home, we will share our technology and our innovations with all the nations of the world.

That is the tradition of American leadership on behalf of the global good. And that will be my fifth goal – rebuilding our alliances to meet the common challenges of the 21st century.

For all of our power, America is strongest when we act alongside strong partners. We faced down fascism with the greatest war-time alliance the world has ever known. We stood shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies against the Soviet threat, and paid a far smaller price for the first Gulf War because we acted together with a broad coalition. We helped create the United Nations – not to constrain America’s influence, but to amplify it by advancing our values.

[...]

We will have to provide meaningful resources to meet critical priorities. I know development assistance is not the most popular program, but as President, I will make the case to the American people that it can be our best investment in increasing the common security of the entire world. That was true with the Marshall Plan, and that must be true today. That’s why I’ll double our foreign assistance to $50 billion by 2012, and use it to support a stable future in failing states, and sustainable growth in Africa; to halve global poverty and to roll back disease. To send once more a message to those yearning faces beyond our shores that says, “You matter to us. Your future is our future. And our moment is now.”

This must be the moment when we answer the call of history. For eight years, we have paid the price for a foreign policy that lectures without listening; that divides us from one another – and from the world – instead of calling us to a common purpose; that focuses on our tactics in fighting a war without end in Iraq instead of forging a new strategy to face down the true threats that we face. We cannot afford four more years of a strategy that is out of balance and out of step with this defining moment.

184 days until the end of the Bush regime

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

J. Marcus

The Washington Post finally gave me the kind of graphic I was looking for to compare McCain and Obama on their tax proposals.

The rest of the article is here.

So, the bottom 60% of taxpayers will have more money to spend under Obama’s plan. Somewhat like the check you received from the government this summer, except it will come over the course of several years and won’t make you feel like you’re taking a bribe from yourself.

At least the candidates have teams that fully investigated these differences months ago, and would never stoop to regurgitating false information over…ahhhhh, who am I kidding. I wasn’t the only one who needed this graph.

Posted on July 18th, 2008 by jmarcus
Filed under: Uncategorized | 2 Comments »

By Miryam Ehrlich Williamson

If you’re already familiar with the value of the US National Agricultural Library, an agency of the USDA, and know that it’s in trouble, you can take action without delay by clicking here and sending a letter to your congressmember and senators about its share of the 2009 budget, which should (but won’t) be enacted by the end of September. Enter your ZIP code and you’ll find a draft letter to customize and send by email.

According to Special Libraries Association, the reduction in NAL’s funding recommended in the Bush Administration’s 2009 budget “will have a severe impact on the NAL and create a ripple effect throughout the country and the globe.” SLA makes it easy for you to act in your own interest, and in the interests of people worldwide engaged in agriculture — or depending on it (that would be all of us.)

If you’re not aware of this outstanding resource, read on. The action link will appear again near the end of this article. I hope to persuade you to invest the requisite five minutes (maximum) to tell your legislators what you think about the cuts proposed for this national treasure.

Look at the variety of topics available on the NAL web site. (Go ahead and check them out, but don’t forget to come back here.)

animals and livestock

education and outreach

food and nutrition

history, art and biography

laws and regulations

marketing and trade

natural resources and environment

plants and crops

research and technology

rural and community development

The NAL is to agricultural research and farming what the National Library of Medicine (NLM) is to medical research and practice. Both provide users worldwide with a wealth of reference and research material. If you believe that more people eat food than need medical care on any given day, then you’ll be surprised at the values expressed in the discrepancy in funding the two libraries.

In financial year 2006, which began Oct. 1, 2005, the NAL’s federal budget allocation was $22.8 million; that same year, the NLM’s appropriation was $315 million. Fast forward to FY 2009, which begins next Oct. 1. The Bush administration wants to give the NLM $323 million (up 2.5% from FY2006) and to cut the NAL’s budget to $18 million (down 21%).

At my request, the NAL’s public affairs office provided two examples of projects undertaken to serve small farmers who practice sustainable agriculture; a fair number are organic farmers.

The Library’s Alternative Farming Systems Information Center (AFSIC) assembled a collection of pre-1942 (before synthetic chemicals came into widespread use) documents containing state-of-the-art information that remains pertinent to today’s agriculture. Then, when some of the farmers told AFSIC that what they needed most was help in marketing their products, AFSIC developed a series of seven how-to guides on various aspects of organic marketing and trade.

The erosion of NAL funding stands in opposition to the 2001 finding of an interagency panel asked by the USDA to assess how well the library was fulfilling its Congressionally mandated mission. The panel reported that the library was seriously underfunded; it suggested increasing the library’s budget over five years to $100 million. Since then two other reports have been developed, the most recent a “staff discussion paper” titled “Blueprint for Success, that the USDA wants everyone to know does not represent official department policy, but is intended for discussion and comment. It spells out what it would take to make the NAL realize its mission: $317.58 million between now and 2012 to enhance library programs, and $159.4 million by 2026 to improve or replace library facilities.

Clearly, that’s not going to happen, but it does put the administration’s $18 million budget request into perspective. Just as clearly, NAL’s natural constituency needs to make itself heard. Here’s that link again.

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

J. Marcus

A NYT/CBS poll found that John McCain is trailing amongst Latino voters by a margin of 62%-23%. Zogby backs them up with similar numbers. So, here’s the experience candidate - who was an elected official a state with a sizable Latino population for twenty-five years - failing amongst the very constituency that helped him win the nomination in the first place. So I wondered what John McCain could have done to cool the love affair that seemed so full of promise back in January.

I guess there was the one where he told the National Council of La Raza that (since the primaries are over) border security must now come first. He’ll take care of immigration reform at some point in his presidency, my friends, just trust him!

Maybe they noticed that Obama talked about bringing undocumented people out from the shadows, while McCain talked about drug trafficking and millions of criminals.

Have the Minutemen wing of the Republican party finally gotten under the skin of the people who may become a majority in this country around 2050?

Either way, it seems the meme of Obama’s “Latino problem” was a whole load of over-reported hooey in the hopes of better ratings.

Posted on July 17th, 2008 by jmarcus
Filed under: Election 2008 | 1 Comment »