2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session arts arts and culture author ballot measures basketball bomb books boy scouts budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal college courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana marriage media medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes technology television terrorism theater third parties transportation union university of oregon washington wildfire women

The US Department of Agriculture -- or as Michael Pollan suggests the US Department of FOOD -- are both innacurate anachronisms.  Society increasingly values rural agricultural environments and communities much more than just for agriculture or food.  These landscapes, places people are all about many things -- food, forests, rangelands, water, wildlife, cultural and recreational endeavors -- and the "production" of fuel and ecosystem services that are INCREASINGLY important to all Americans.  I reguarly wonder if it would be better dubbed "Department of Rural Sustainability?"  In Europe and in many parts of the world society puts a huge value on conserving rural environments and communities.  Too often, whether be design or default, Americans seem to view them as vestiges of an agrarian past.  After all we are fast moving into an age where we must be more not less self-reliant, and more rather than less committed to stewarding our natural patrimony. 

posted 4 years, 3 months ago
view in context