Forum

TruthMove Forum

TruthMove Forum » TruthMove Main Forum

Obamas to plant organic garden at White House (13 posts)

  1. truthmod
    Administrator

    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/dining/20garden....

    WASHINGTON — Michelle Obama will begin digging up a patch of the South Lawn on Friday to plant a vegetable garden, the first at the White House since Eleanor Roosevelt’s victory garden in World War II. There will be no beets — the president does not like them — but arugula will make the cut.

    While the organic garden will provide food for the first family’s meals and formal dinners, its most important role, Mrs. Obama said, will be to educate children about healthful, locally grown fruit and vegetables at a time when obesity and diabetes have become a national concern.

    “My hope,” the first lady said in an interview in her East Wing office, “is that through children, they will begin to educate their families and that will, in turn, begin to educate our communities.”

    Whether there would be a White House garden had become more than a matter of landscaping. The question had taken on political and environmental symbolism, with the Obamas lobbied for months by advocates who believe that growing more food locally, and organically, can lead to more healthful eating and reduce reliance on huge industrial farms that use more oil for transportation and chemicals for fertilizer.

    “You can begin in your own cupboard,” she said, “by eliminating processed food, trying to cook a meal a little more often, trying to incorporate more fruits and vegetables.”

    Posted 15 years ago #
  2. Durruti
    Member

    How touching. Any word on revoking the corporate charter of Monsanto?

    Posted 15 years ago #
  3. JohnA
    Member

    Yup he's been president a whole 60 days and has not ended corporate greed yet. Slacker

    Posted 15 years ago #
  4. mark
    Member

    So far, it is a mix of some great symbolism (the organic garden) and continued support for the military industrial financial complex.

    It would be nice to see revoking of Reagan - Bush - Clinton - Reagan support for toxic food, genetic frankenfood, and other detrimental policies. That would have more impact than the wonderful symbolism of this garden.

    How does this impact the homeless people in the streets around the White House?

    http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2009/03/obama-adm... Obama Administration: Constitution Does Not Protect Cell-Site Records By David Kravets March 17, 2009 | 2:21:35 PMCategories: Surveillance
    The Obama administration says the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures does not apply to cell-site information mobile phone carriers retain on their customers.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  5. mark
    Member

    Oops - Reagan / Bush / Clinton / Bush II support for toxic food.

    The last president who took food safety seriously was Jimmy Carter, the peanut farmer / nuclear engineer / Trilateralist.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  6. JohnA
    Member

    again - 60 days.

    it might take 90 days to feed all the homeless in the street

    Posted 15 years ago #
  7. JohnA
    Member

    but of course the new right wing mantra is that he is trying to do too much too soon.

    Mark - i think the issues you raise are legitimate - and i do hope we see some sound policy regarding how food is produced and distributed in this country. i know it is something that worries me a great deal.

    but you do also have to see how silly it is to blame Obama for continuing all the policies of the past when he is confronted with some of the most profound problems any president has ever inherited - and has only been in office for 60 days.

    the problems are myriad, deeply entrenched in the culture, and protected by layer upon layer of socio-economic reasons. and it is not limited to just food. do i really need to provide you with a list of america's problems?

    one could very easily blame any president for continuing the generational policies of his predecessors - but to do it in the first 60 days shows a lack of objectivity and fairness.

    so Michelle Obama plants an organic garden and people seek to attack their hypocrisy? that's just a little too silly for me to take seriously .

    Posted 15 years ago #
  8. truthmover
    Administrator

    While I'm sure we all agree that it's important to keep Obama's feet to the fire, I think it's also important not to have unreasonable expectations about what he is able to achieve.

    I do think the campaign was smoke and mirrors. We aren't going to be seeing anything like the "change" that Obama sold us. But not merely because he's a relatively mainstream guy and another tool of the military/industrial complex.

    More important to this discussion is the fact that, as John suggests, there's not all that much he can do about many of the issues facing this country, and he has to pick his battles.

    So, is anyone here opposed to the garden? And do we really need to point out the obvious, that this was supposed to be symbolic, and that it's not going to make a huge difference?

    I don't think so. There's nothing wrong with positive symbolism, and the garden wouldn't be consider by anyone to be a proxy for agricultural reform or serious dietary guidance.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  9. mark
    Member

    The garden is great. It would be nice to see the Obamas do a speech to the nation while harvesting veggies. I hope everyone on the list has at least a few veggie starts going, even if it's just in a pot on a balcony or south-facing window.

    I hope they'll also decide to redirect funds for the War on Afghanistan to help put in victory gardens everywhere.

    It would be nice to see the EPA finally take action to prohibit the most toxic pesticides / biocides -- it's only been 47 years since Rachel Carson published Silent Spring. Carter tried to take a few baby steps toward these goals, but they were anemic and the "Team B" induced meltdown of his administration kept them from making a more comprehensive effort. Clinton was a disaster for toxics in food - the genetic frankenfood went from a small percentage to full scale production while he and Gore were in the White House.

    It's also worth remembering that George W. Bush had solar hot water and solar PV electric put in at the White House (although only running a very small percentage of that compound).

    When Clinton was in the White House, the administration perfected symbolic actions that looked great while they simultaneously undermined health and safety regulations, shredding food protection laws, NAFTA / WTO / energy deregulation / more highways / SUVs / etc etc etc.

    Empire speak with forked tongue.

    Obama is only the President, it's not like he's actually in charge.

    I don't know what it would take to change direction, but a nice start would be pressure from everyone who voted for him hoping for "change." As long as the Democratic Party doesn't feel any need to be accountable to the people who "vote" for them, it's unlikely they will listen (a reason I'm not a Democrat).

    Posted 15 years ago #
  10. emanuel
    Member

    DDT is still used heavily in Nicaragua, where I lived for a year. And the thing is, few people were actively opposed to it, because you didn't see acute pesticide poisonings with DDT like you did with other pesticides. Why? Because DDT can be sprayed in significantly lower quantities than other pesticides given that it lasts so long in the environment. Other pesticides degrade in a few weeks (faster in the tropics) and need to be continually reapplied. At the hospital where I volunteered we regularly saw people with massive burns from pesticide blowback. Deaths from these incidences were not uncommon. They never happened with DDT. When we talked to people about DDT and cancer the typical response was an empty look. Cancer was just not on most people's radar. If a disease cannot be diagnosed it doesn't exist. Old people died of old age. That was expected. Young people dying of liver failure from acute pesticide poisoning was something else.

    Emanuel

    Posted 15 years ago #
  11. JohnA
    Member

    i think there is value is pressuring government for change. but - again - it is very early in this administration. Your assessment of the Clinton years is correct. but i think it is erroneous to make assumptions about the Obama administration based on what the Clintons did.

    yes - there is value is demanding 'change'

    but - of course - there are special interests and issues of every stripe that demand 'change.' civil libertarians. animal rights groups. education reformers. people concerned about innoculations. stem cell advocates. people who need unemployment benefits. the homeless. failing infrastructure. family farmers. foreign policy. world health organizations. global starvation. global warming. and on and on and on.

    it is easy to pick one topic like toxic food and make it appear dire. it is dire. but lets also get real here. its only been 8 weeks and toxic food is just one issue out of hundreds that demand immediate attention. while there is some value in using Michelle Obama's organic garden to make a point - i think there is also value in not being too quick to poison the well and condemn this administration's policies - before they have even been defined.

    i can list policies of the Obama administration that i do NOT support. but i will refrain from peering into the future and blaming him for continuing the policies of the past - when i have no way of knowing what his plans in these areas are.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  12. mark
    Member

    Many of the key Obama officials were also in the Clinton Gore administration.

    Obama's "climate" advisor was head of the EPA from 1993 to 2001.

    Lots of people worried that a McCain administration would be Bush the Third, but the Obama administration is Clinton's de facto third term. But the meltdown underway - economy / energy / environment - changes everything. The "growth" in over-consumption that could happen in the 1990s cannot happen now.

    Symbolism is nice, but I'm more concerned about the laws they enact and what budgets they promote. If and when they lower the military budget, require warrants for wiretaps, ban food irradiation and genetically tampered frankenphood, then I'll cheer.

    If we don't have clean air, water and food, it's hard to focus on anything else.

    The Democrats are good at rhetoric and sleight of hand that makes it look like they're cleaning up the environment while allowing pollution to fester. Carbon credits. Cap and trade. Multimodal transportation. Energy independence. They look good unless you look closely.

    Posted 15 years ago #
  13. JohnA
    Member

    i do agree

    It was easy for Bush to back out of the Kyoto Protocol when Al Gore and Bill Clinton undermined the agreement in the late 1990s.

    and we do see the Obama administration drawing from the same well regarding staffing his administration.

    one side note: I'm not sure why you include food irradiation on your list. Independent scientific committees in Denmark, Sweden, United Kingdom and Canada have reaffirmed the safety of food irradiation. In addition, food irradiation has received official international endorsement from the World Health Organizations and the International Atomic Energy Agency.

    now i do know that there is a lot of buzz on this subject with claims of dangerous side effects and unknowns - but i do not believe this has reached a threshhold of credible evidence that demonstrates that the cons outweigh the pros. bacterial contamination is a killer as well.

    Posted 15 years ago #

Reply

You must log in to post.