POPULAR PROGRESSIVE

Will Congress Censor the Internet?

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 02:35:00 +0000

The Internet is a marketplace of ideas and ideals. However, governments such as China's have no interest in free exchange of ideas that are seen as threatening to their interests. In the US, the government is looking at a couple of laws that could make it possible for ordinary citizens to be heaped with sites that encourage pirating of copyrighted materials. Watch this video and, if so moved, go to http://americancensorship.org/ and learn more.

The American Dream is Alive and Well and Living in Denmark

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 24 Oct 2011 17:29:00 +0000

I'm a big fan of TED Talks for this reason, the speakers, like Richard Wilkinson, explain problems is visual terms that make them easier to see:

I especially like when he says, if "Americans want to live the American Dream, they should move to Denmark."

Iowa City is Otherwise Occupied

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sat, 08 Oct 2011 11:18:00 +0000

Occupy Iowa supporters in Iowa City have taken up residency in College Green Park for the forseeable future to organize and protest against the shift of power from the 99% of Americans who find themselves without a clear voice defending their rights from the 1% of Americans who hold the political capital. In a way, it might seem jaded that a college town in the Midwest is joining in the fray. After all, aren't these the children of relative wealth attending a university with aspirations to join the class that they are protesting?

Turns out, not so much. Because among the young people are also older people who have seen their economic stability shift dramatically thanks to the crisis in the financial and housing sectors. There are teachers, librarians, blue and white collar workers among the group, as well as self-proclaimed socialists and libertarians.

But they have camped themselves in a place where not a lot of Iowa Citians let alone others are likely to see them. If the purpose were pure political theater, this would be a poor choice of location as it is on the fringe of downtown in a residential neighborhood. However, as these occupiers are using their time to draft a statement of occupation, it is actually an encouraging move to restore the democracy that they believe is slipping from their grasps. As this and other Occupation groups meet together, it is likely that a political movement could arise that would rival the Tea Party as a grassroots movement. The chief difference here, it would appear, is that this movement is a grassroots movement without the backing of deep pocketed interests such as the Koch brothers.

It will remain to be seen what this all means, but for now, let's wish them well and hope that they become the change that we can believe in.

Arab Spring, American Fall

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 03 Oct 2011 11:22:00 +0000

Does anybody see the twisted irony of Arab Spring turning into American Fall? I sincerely hope that, whatever measures that are taken to make our democracy better and more functional, we do not forget that we all are in it together. It is exciting to see a groundswell in cities of support for the occupiers on Wall Street. This group which was derided by people on the right and left for its seemingly unfocused views on what to do has, in recent days, led to groups in other cities to join.

And, not unexpectedly, the occupiers of NYC have come forth with ideas to strengthen democracy which can be found here. In a strongly worded "Declaration of Occupation" the group has laid out what they perceive to be the grievances against corporations and their role in undoing democracy. As is stated in their declaration:

"As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

- They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
- They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses. - They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
- They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
- They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices. - They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
- They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
- They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
- They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
- They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
- They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
- They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.
- They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit. - They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
- They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them. - They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
- They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
- They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
- They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media. - They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
- They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
- They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts."

Their demands are surprisingly simple: "We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power. Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone. To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal."

Ideology takes us so far then there is the living with the consequences. At the core of all the grievances stated is a sense of entitlement that these people feel that corporations have and a desire to right these wrongs. In essence, they are asking for fairness. These are not the cries of crazy lunatics, these are a measured response to a system that has gone off the rails. These people are asking for government to take an active role in making and enforcing rules that create more equitable conditions for all. It can be argued that these are unfair charges, after all don't oil companies clean up their spills and pay heavily for it? People have the right to opt out of having their private data being sold.

But the conditions that have driven these people to protest are more indicative of what happened when the rights of personhood were given and upheld by government. It is hoped by these protests that efforts to rescind much of this inequity will be addressed and that corporations will be able to carry on, but with less outright power than they currently have. Not surprisingly, this resonates with people across political spectrums. However, it remains to be seen if people power can hold its emotions in check while a reasoned approach, such as declarations and meeting with lawmakers and corporate leaders can happen.

Clearly the actions of these groups is seen as provocative, but I will hope that all will tamp down the strong emotions that will drive some to the streets and others to the authorities who are asked to clamp down on our civil liberties. I believe that we shall overcome, but we have to do it together.

Lies We Still Believe

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sun, 25 Sep 2011 23:58:00 +0000

"War is good for the economy." For too many years we've accepted that this is true. And yet, clearly, in this moment, we have proof that war is killing not only people, but also the economy because of all the debt that has been amassed to support our military excursions.

In an odd sort of way we had a chance to elect a president in 1972 who promised hope and change and would have likely delivered on that promise. George McGovern stated in his nomination acceptance speech that he would have ended the war in Vietnam on the night of his inauguration. Sadly the American people and political operatives were more afraid of those people who were included in his campaign than with their better angels or wisdom.

Fast forward to 2011 and we have a president who continues wars without a real end because he is playing a dwindling deck of cards and it requires him to hold on to the families of military families while ignoring the families of the nearly 60 million people who are unemployed. But not just him, but those robber-barons who build wealth for themselves and select others while pick-pocketing from their own workforce.

As a result of the lie we still believe, it is believed that we don't have the wiggle room to make mistakes with what resources we do have and so the conventional wisdom is to reduce the national debt while families suffer, poverty increases, and the elderly and those approaching retirement worry about what will happen to their nest eggs.

There is a second lie we shouldn't believe, "What is good for business is good for America." Business is not a person with a mortgage, a health condition, or even with children who serve in harm's way. And yet we afford it the rights of personage.

America is a great country because of its people and not in spite of them. But we need a national leader who will stand with us and not with CEOs, bankers, and financiers. We need our president to say what needs to be said, there is a war, but it is between those who have ruined the financial markets and the rest of us.

War is not good for the economy, but paraphrasing what Walter Kelly the creator of Pogo once said, "We have seen the enemy and he is being treated better than the rest of us." We need to clamp down on grossly paid corporate employees and people whose sole earnings come from reinvesting long-held family assets. If the rest of us are seeing our incomes remain flat or declining, they should join us be being taxed for their greed or forced to put people to work by enforced investment. We have tried voluntary incentives, but that only creates a culture of going to where the grass is greener somewhere else.

Wall Street has failed us, it is time for Main Street principles to be applied. On Main Street, we all do well if we are all working and using what each other is able to make or do. Main Street fails when we forget about our duty to each other. This is something that the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor can agree.

We can no longer live in ignorance of truth. Wars don't make economies better. Business is not more important than what is in the best interest of the rest of us. I believe that effective government is being an enforcement tool to fix what private enterprise has no interest in doing; that is making sure that democracy works. Maybe this is a lie too?

Lessons from 9/11

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sun, 11 Sep 2011 08:06:00 +0000

On September 11, 2001, I walked to work. It was a cool, crisp Iowa morning. As I often did, I took a path through Hickory Hill Park, a local nature conservancy area, and I ended up lost causing me to be late. When I arrived at work, there were already people asking each other, "Did you hear?" or "Can you believe it?" The first plane had already struck Tower 1 of the World Trade Center and, as I sat in my cubicle looking for updates on CNN and any other news site that had a different perspective of the developing story, I was dumbstruck.

There was no way of knowing who had done it or what was really happening, but I felt a fear I had never known. As I looked around and talked to others, I realized how connected we were all in that feeling of shock and abject ignorance. We hoped it had been a bizarre accident, but when the second plane hit Tower 2, there was no doubt and a deeper fear arose--this was planned and all of us might be in danger. When the third plane struck the Pentagon, the surreal nature of what was happening began to sink in. Could our country really be under attack? Why?

In the following days, long after the fourth plane crashed in the fields of Pennsylvania, after the first-responders and others walked like ghosts from the ash of midtown Manhattan and later rescue workers began digging through the wreckage searching for survivors, people were talking. "Did you know anyone who was there?" Neighbors were reaching out, complete strangers talked to each other--what would happen next?--an eminent war that would be supported because of the callous nature of the acts.

We were a united people in that brief moment, united in our grief, our anger, and our belief that we had been wronged. President Bush, who I and many others thought was the wrong choice of a leader when he was elected by the narrowest of margins, became vastly presidential in announcing that we would not let it stand. The very night of the attacks he said, "Today, our fellow citizens, our way of life, our very freedom came under attack in a series of deliberate and deadly terrorist acts," "Terrorist attacks can shake the foundations of our biggest buildings, but they cannot touch the foundation of America. These acts shatter steel, but they cannot dent the steel of American resolve," and "The search is underway for those who are behind these evil acts...we will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them." And we believed that was the right thing to do: To find those who had done this and exact justice.

Fast forward to March of 2003, long after we had forged ahead on breaking up Al Qaeda in Afghanistan, we were told that we needed to go into Iraq because they too were a danger to us. Then we began secretive forays into Iran, Pakistan, Syria and other places that the US government was sure were harboring those who were against us.

Meanwhile, back home, the USA Patriot Act was passed and many people were being summarily rounded up, Muslims or people who looked like they might be, were under attack just because they resembled the people who had attacked us. Our privacy was being invaded to allow law enforcement officials to have access to information that might incriminate us. People were being held without charges. Guantanamo opened and renditions occurred.

Today, ten years after the fact, trillions of dollars have been spent, thousands of lives have been sacrificed, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein are dead, and we are still at war; and would appear, a war without real resolution. Our way of life has changed, but mostly because how we have reacted after the fact.

9/11 has taught me many things. Freedom is not free because it is easily taken away--and often freely given away. The safety that we wanted so badly after 9/11 opened the door for horrible policies to gain legitimacy--waterboarding, FISA--the surveillance act, the non-compliance to the Geneva Convention protocols, among them.

Like most, I grieve the lives of those innocent lives that were lost on that fall day and all those lives since then swallowed up in war, but mostly I grieve the loss of our way--we had a brief defining moment that brought us together as a people and look where we are now?--distrustful of each other as much as we are of our government. Instead of doing what in our national interest, we are witnessing a rolling up of the sidewalk by corporations who could make jobs, by consumers who are afraid of the consequences of buying homes or donating to charities or paying our fair share of taxes to make sure everyone can get through this.

9/11 also showed me that we are better than this. We are a nation of people who will do herculean things when the cause is just. The pictures of those who were first on the scene and the way they gamely tried to save others, in some cases giving up their own lives, will be forever etched in my mind, It's really hard to know if 9/11 will be remembered as the Pearl Harbor of our time, as President Bush was noted as recording in his journal the night it happened or if it will be remembered as the time when America forever lost its way. The next generation has to decide if we will be a united nation or if we will fracture.

9/11 also showed me that if events like those that led to "Arab Spring" can happen, that freedom and peace are also attainable. If we truly wish to live in a world that resembles our remembrances of pre-9/11, we need to acknowledge that our security was predicated on others being persecuted. 9/11 showed us that our being free is only as good as all people being free.

I Formally Declare My Independence

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sun, 07 Aug 2011 16:29:00 +0000

For a long time, I have been using this blog as a way to promote both progressive and populist visions. Like many progressives, I have been more likely to align myself with Democrats than Republicans due to philosophy differences, although there are some issues which I and many people agree--regardless of party line. However, after the latest debacle regarding our economy and the debt ceiling, I see that being an Independent is the only recourse I or any populist has left to combat a two party system that is fundamentally broken. To declare my independence allows me the freedom to support only candidates who will uphold a progressive/populist agenda and, I hope, this includes Independents with a wider vision than either party will allow.

However, it also prevents me from caucusing in my state, which is very sad to me. Iowa does not have the ability to have an Independent caucus, and unless there is an Independent Party, there is mandated need. As long as there is a two party system, most people who care about the future of the country are left out in the cold.

And here are some reasons why:

1) Corporate interests have taken over politics. In each of the branches of government, there has ostensibly been a corporate takeover of the funding of candidates and issues. As such, neither party is immune to big monied interests who write many of the bills that Congress votes for, the Executive branch make exceptions for, and the Courts support interests of in interpreting Free Speech law. We are left with a blind taste test where it doesn't really matter much if you like Coke or Pepsi better.

2) The government has stopped working for the people who particularly need it to function well for: the poor, elderly, and the young. Most debates that have centered around the economy have, at best, place held the defense of retirement, health care, and education. By withholding funds for these groups, the social net has frayed to the point of breaking. Rather than working on ways to secure these budget lines, both parties are beginning to dismantle the system to the benefit of the wealthy and to the detriment of the rest of us.

3) We are applying 20th Century solutions to 21st Century problems. For instance:
- Whether we like it or not, the world around us has changed and is not going back to the good-old-days ever again. This means we can no longer be the bull in the China shop and throw our weight around in the world in the same way we used to. We cannot afford to police the world without causing pain to our people and innocent people elsewhere. Proof of this old world vision is Barack Obama receiving the Nobel Peace Prize. If I were the Nobel organization, I would demand it back with an apology to those who preceded him in receiving it.
- Also, if we want to bring back industry in America, companies who are here have to put aside a pure profit motive mentality and put people to work. Greed is not good and, as we've seen, corporations lack the emotions of people. Therefore, it should be criminal for companies to do business in the USA without a large percentage of their workforce being in it.
- We need to change the way we educate kids. We cannot afford for one child to fail and our education system should be changed to reflect that challenge. Our teachers are good and can be better, but the systems they work in are so dysfunctional that in many cases schools are no longer places where kids can learn. School systems that are unable to properly manage schools to help their kids to be successful and parents who don't value education enough to help their kids to succeed need to be brought to task. And we shouldn't be afraid of technology to bring our best teachers in front of students. The fact that we have teacher shortages in key areas should not stop kids from being educated. Teachers need help, make sure there are aides and tutors in the budget. Also make sure that their promotions are a result of teaching excellence, not seniority.
- We need to change the way colleges work. Every person who has the mental acuity to get one, needs a post-secondary education, whether in a trade or a specialty. Students should not be allowed to continue their educations until they have provided two years of service in either the military or in human services. When they complete their years of service and have a plan for college, their education should be paid for. Colleges should be either trade/teaching colleges or research colleges. Students with the talent to complete terminal degrees should earn the privelege and their further education funded by taxes.
- Basic human rights: we should not be arguing over who can or should be married. If the laws really worked, we all would have the same rights and the same protections under the law.
- Governments should not be in the business of deciding what we can do with our bodies, but should be able to levy taxes to offset the results of poor decisions and/or rehabilitation which the person would have to pay back, either in service or in reparations.
- Religion has a place in democracy, but it has no place in government.

4) Democracy needs defending by those who are stitting on the sidelines. Gaming the system is a capitalistic power-brokering notion--aka: counting your chicken before they have a chance to hatch. However, as democracy is not the same thing as Capitalism, the system only works when democractic principles work. Therefore, there should be a national referendum that calls for the immediate dismantling of the two-party system. That all elections would be non-partisan, that all funds would have to come from individuals, and that there would be a maximum amount of money that could be raised and spent in an election cycle. But we have to be the one's who push it.

Have I given up hope? No, but I won't support those who promise hope and can't or won't deliver. Nor will I give in to the idea that only the powerful count and their interests are paramount. This is still our America and we know we can do better. We need an Independent people's movement to bring about equitable change. We won't get there unless misguided fear is replaced with pragmatic plans that people can easily understand and support. Ready to roll up your sleeves?

Hold These Untruths to Be Self-Evident

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sat, 16 Apr 2011 11:23:00 +0000

As has been widely reported, Arizona Senator John Kyl was caught in a bald-faced lie about the amount of funding that goes toward abortion services. Said Kyl, abortions are "90%" of what Planned Parenthood does." In fact, 3% of Planned Parenthood's budget goes to abortions. In trying to provide cover for his boss, aide Ryan Pimintra said Kyl's remarks were "not intended to be a factual statement."

He later said, "Senator Kyl misspoke when he incorrectly cited a statistic on the Senate floor last week regarding Planned Parenthood. Rather than simply state that in response to a media inquiry, I responded that his comment was not intended to be a factual statement; a comment that, in retrospect, made no sense. Senator Kyl neither saw nor approved that response."

The aide is correct that the quote made no sense, but, more importantly, the misstatement of fact really made no sense. However, untruths are often spoken for political or ideological gain.

For instance West Virginians for Life's communications director, Mary Anne Buchanan, said "Planned Parenthood are the abortion giant in this country. One-third of their revenue comes from abortions [appears to be true]. They perform about 27 percent of all the abortions in this country [appears to be true]. One out of every eight people who walks into a Planned Parenthood clinic comes out with an abortion [appears to be false]." Planned Parenthood provided 11,383,900 total services and 332,278 abortions. That means less than 3 in 100 services provided were an abortion from Planned Parenthood. Even in taking into account Planned Parenthoods' own numbers of serving over 3,000,000 clients, the statistic for abortions performed was still 1 out of 9 people that went to one of their clinics.-- less than the 1 out of 8 people that Buchanan states as "fact." In fact, 7 out of 10 people went to Planned Parenthood for either contraception or STI/STD testing or treatment. It also appears that Planned Parenthood plays an important role to provide health services to those who do not have or choose not to go to private physicians.

Also, while about 1/3 of its funding comes from government funding, zero of the federal dollars can be used to perform abortions. Planned Parenthood’s government funding comes from two sources: the Title X Family Planning Program and Medicaid. About $70 million is Title X funding. The rest — about $293 million — is Medicaid funding, which includes both federal and state money.

Regardless of how a person personally feels about abortion, to not fund Planned Parenthood at all for the many important services they do provide would be like not funding schools because they have sex education classes. Unfortunately ideology can get in the way of funding the important services that agencies like Planned Parenthood do provide. Fortunately, truth prevailed at the federal level. At some state levels, truth is in second place to ideology. See: Indiana and Iowa.

Hard Times in the Heartland of Plenty

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 12:13:00 +0000

Wisconsin killed collective bargaining, Iowa, Indiana, and Ohio are lined up to try to do the same. Michigan is asserting state rights over local governance and taxing the poor and aged to bail out corporations. While 2012 presidential Queen-wannabe Michelle Bachmann is pointing to the lessons of Lexington and Concord, real attention should be paid to the tyranny that is taking hold in the heartland. As Omar and the Howlers once said it's, "Hard times in the land of plenty."

Clearly there is nowhere else in the US that is experiencing the radical notions that Republican leaders in the Midwest have been successfully espousing and spearheading through their legislatures. In the name of balancing budgets and job creation, these leaders have put into play laws that will likely lead to less economic stability and more strains on state coffers. And for what? Retribution, an attempted power-grab, or genuine belief that these remedies will benefit all?

Whatever their reasoning, their Charlie Sheen-like attempts at "winning" are coming at great cost to the people who do the work, union and non-union alike. By changing the landscape, the sum total is that workers and management have reverted to the more adversarial past that led to violence when reasonable accommodation couldn't be reached. To de-evolve back to this old world view is likely to create a free market caste-system that has no connection to democratic values.

There is cause and effect for anything we do and, had we not already tried what is being re-enacted, it might be seen as worth doing. However American history tells us that when the rights of any group are suppressed or overtaxed, eventually the main street American agrees that it is wrong. In this case, it is clear that main street already agrees that their government is over-reaching and since they have nothing to show for their votes, the political pendulum will swiftly go back the other way.

The Way We War

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Tue, 01 Mar 2011 13:07:00 +0000

While parts of the world seem hell-bent on democratizing themselves, here in the land of the free and the home of the brave, we are marching steadfastly in the opposite direction. Case in point, the current brouhaha in Wisconsin. This has never really been about a state budget crisis, it is about making sure that monied interests are the once and future ruling class. Ever since the Supreme Court decision giving corporations relative carte blance to buy elections and the politicians that do the dirty work, American families earning less than $250,000 have been put on notice: "This land is not your land."

If you haven't noticed, the desire to strip the public employees of collective bargaining is akin to bringing back feudalism. Without the right to bargain for fair wages and work conditions, it is opening the doors to go back to the bad old days when workers' rights were met with brickbats. Notice the difference in approaches, the unions call on people to protest and they show up, the governor calls out the state police and threatens to weld the windows to the state house closed to keep people from helping each other.

In the US, we have been engaged in class warfare for as long as we thought about being a republic. Federal rights and states rights have never been about you and me, but what is best for the ruling class/monied interests. Wealthy landowners were afraid what would happen to them if the riff-raff came after them and wanted to make sure that the game was skewed in their favor, hence why a bill of rights was an afterthought.

In representative democracy there is one vote for each of us, but somebody else doing our bidding. The wishes of the people are carried out through democratic processes. However, as the road to representative democracy is paved with a money trail, the messages that people use to get themselves elected are skillfully crafted by people who sell us the American Dream (and if you don't recall what the late George Carlin said, let me remind you "they call it the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."). The point is, our voices are a distant memory by the time lobbying interests go to work on your Mr. or Mrs. Smith.

Electoral politics is also served by the ability to drive wedges between natural allies. For instance, are teachers the enemy of the people in Wisconsin? Of course not. But you would think they were breaking into the homes of other folks and stealing their prized possessions. This is the way the war is fought, divide and conquer. And, by the way, what do politicians call it when people act against their own self-interest--a mandate.

To those who doubt what I am saying, think about this: if unions are the last bastion of organized workers and they are removed from the equation, what is to stop employers from changing your benefits package, your salary, and your job security? If workplaces become revolving doors where it is the survival of the cheapest, who wins? If you've been awake, you already know the answer. Look to your left, look to your right, and then look at the mirror--it isn't you.

Michael Wright to Bow Out

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Fri, 11 Feb 2011 11:26:00 +0000

Iowa City Council member Michael Wright is not seeking to run for re-election when he completes his term which ends in January 2012. Citing personal reasons for his decision, Wright has served as a progressive voice of reason on a council that has dealt with many highly charged issues including choosing two city managers, public safety concerns, and the issues surrounding abuse of alcohol in Iowa City.

With the current issue of affordable housing policy on the table, the loss of Wright's considerable knowledge on the council could have dire affects as the members debate how best to move forward.

Civility 101: Talking with Yale Cohn

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Fri, 04 Feb 2011 11:48:00 +0000

In case you are interested in what I do with my spare time, here is an example. Yale Cohn is a local media guy who has a talk show on the highly viewed PATV:

"Cedar Rapids Gazette columnist Jennifer Hemmingsen, community activist Garry Klein, and blogger Matt Butler talk with Yale about how the anonymity of the internet is shaping the tone of public discourse, causing people to avoid talking to each other in person about “hot button” social or political issues, and what needs to be done to get back to a point where people actually talk with each other rather than at each other."

Heaven Frozen Over?

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Wed, 02 Feb 2011 11:54:00 +0000

Iowa has a real problem and it is not same-sex couples with marriage licenses. Iowa's problem is that it has a legislature that is willing to create law that would explicitly treat gay and lesbian people as not equal to the rest of Iowans under the state constitution. The amendment, House Joint Resolution 6, passed by a vote of 62-37, and would prohibit not only same-sex marriage, but also civil unions and domestic partnerships.

As many proponents for such a distinction use religion as the reason for their beliefs that this inequality should exist, I believe God made His viewpoint clear to them by unleashing a blizzard that closed down many roads and disrupted commerce which will cost the state millions of dollars in revenue. As He saw it, it was the only way to reach the Republican leadership on a level that they could understand--in the free marketplace.

Thankfully, the Iowa Senate is likely not to allow HR6 to go any further and that is why a bicameral system is so important. The foolish act of foolish people has always benefitted by checks and balances and fortunately Iowans recognized a long time ago the wisdom of this in drafting a state constitution that, coicidentally has the distinction of the least amended one in the US (so take that, you strict constitutionalists).

I making their voices heard, many men and women spoke against the amendment. A glowing voice of reason that should make 67 representatives ashamed of their understanding of their role as legislators came from Zach Walls, a young man from Iowa City that I've had the pleasure to watch grow-up. If you haven't seen this speech, I think you'll agree that Zach represents what is good about Iowa.

Semi-Popular Progressive

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Tue, 04 Jan 2011 11:56:00 +0000

Happy Belated New Year. After 4 years and a month of commenting on politics, progressive and otherwise, I am continuing my last year trend of tapering off posts in 2011. Although over 10,000 people from around the world checked in on my blog last year, a fact that astounds this guy from Iowa, I feel that if I am to offer commentary at all, it should be with the same fervor that got me started in the first place.

With that in mind, 2011 will be a year with many stories emanating from Iowa. After all, the Iowa Caucuses are around the corner and the usual media blitz will follow as surely as birds fell out of the sky in Arkansas. However, as fellow bloggers like John Deeth are much better at the day to day coverage of such events and I encourage political trainspotters to follow John's blog. He is a great blogger and I tip my virtual hat to his raspberry beret.

As for me, I am writing a novel and will likely spend limited time commenting on the here and now, mostly because my novel is political fiction and I want to use the "good stuff" in that context. I will continue to post columns as events and issues strike my fancy.

A couple of 2010 notes:

The Democratic Party got an electoral whipping (yes, even in Iowa), but it should not have been a surprise. The Obama brand rose quickly and short of him genetically being fused with Annie Sullivan, ther was no way he could continue in the media-driven role of "the miracle worker." However, the party did themselves no favors by letting the narrative of 2010 to be "you're with us or against us." Clearly most voters didn't like what they were seeing and took it out on the party in power. Um, that's politics.

That being said, the repeal of DADT and the approval of the New START treaty were good exclamation points to end the year on. The Republicans take over the House with the majority of voters thinking that it doesn't matter who runs it, but will be flying up their agenda to make the case that if only there was a Republican in the White House again, they could get things done. The national agenda will be parlayed into the electioneering game as the circus comes to Iowa in the months to come. If President does not have any competition, expect Iowa to be the place where Republican candidates try to make the case for why they will be better for the country than him.

However, the thing to watch this year are the redistricting efforts across the country. In Iowa, Republicans who have the state house and governor's mansion are trying to make sure they have the state supreme court covered too by using the recent victory to not retain three justices that ruled on the side of marriage equality as a launching pad to impeach the remaining justices. What is really at stake is the tie-breaker if the plans for redistricting are not to the clear benefit of the Republican party. In Iowa, if a redistricting plan can not be agreed upon, the state supreme court is the final word. Politics, can't live with 'em, can't rule without 'em.

The DADT Dipsydoodle

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Wed, 22 Dec 2010 21:09:00 +0000

I, like a lot of other people were captivated by the Don't Ask/Don't Tell debate that raged in Congress for most of the lame duck session and for the many years prior. As a firm believer in civil rights for all, it was not logical to be for a policy that said it was okay to serve, but don't act out sexually or talk about it--like anyone else could.

However, now that it has been defeated, I have some serious buyer's remorse. It began when I heard stories about Ivy League schools reconsidering their ROTC policies to allow on campus programs to be installed. Today, as I was reading an article on the Nation's website, it really hit home what one of the unintended consequences of DADT's repeal now is. It is an excuse to gin up the war machine's most valuable asset, new blood in the ranks and create the next generation of the Pat Tillman-like hero.

By virtue of gays and lesbians being able to serve as themselves, the message that is now out there is "if they can, why don't you man-up and join up?" It is cool to be a red-blooded American who defends the country against all enemies foreign and domestic no matter who you sleep with (except, presumably, the enemy).

For those of us who think that building up military might is against the idea of creating peace, the movement to make sure that we have the person power to fight any damn war that our government can get us into is always a bad idea. True we have a voluntary army, but now that serving is like taking up smoking--dangerous, but a rite of passage, what young person can resist?

On the other hand, if what it takes for this nation to embrace civil rights for all is heroism at war, then it could be a good thing--it worked out well for African-Americans didn't it? Didn't it?

So Long to the Resilient Elizabeth Edwards

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Fri, 10 Dec 2010 21:23:00 +0000

In 2008, while my wife was falling in love with Barack Obama and what she thought he represented, I was thinking about campaigning for John Edwards. He was the only candidate talking about the vast expanse between the wealthy and the poor and had a plan to bridge the gap. It was during that time that Elizabeth Edwardsa came to Iowa to promote her book, "Saving Graces" and I decided based on meeting her, that if she thought her husband would make a good president, so could I. Like many people, I lived to regret this decision, but it was because of him, not her.

I remember that she had chemotherapy the day before and, yet there she was holding court for maybe a hundred or 150 people in the Buchanan Hall at The University of Iowa. She read a bit of the book that had to do with her son Wade, who she referred to in the present tense. And she moved people, not just to read her book, but to share their stories.

Elizabeth Edwards struck me as a strong, deep thinking, good-hearted person who had been dealt an incredibly bad hand. And yet there was nothing about her that said, "feel sorry for me." On the contrary there was a resolve in her that said "as long as I'm here, I'm going to make sure my family is okay and try to make my country a better place too."

The tragedy and redemption of her story lies in the knowledge that she lived to see her marriage crumble, but long enough to make sure that her young children would know their mother past their precognitive years and can choose to carry on her legacy in their own way when they grow up. She was there to be sure that her eldest daughter Cate would become a strong woman in her own right.

How many of us wouldn't want to be around for their children as long as possible? The difference for Elizabeth Edwards was she knew she wouldn't be and did the most with the time she had to spend with them, to write books, and to fight.

I'm sure that she was far from perfect, who is? But faced with the untenable knowledge that she would not live to see her progeny grown, she gave of herself like few others likely could. I am fortunate to have spent a few minutes with her. How many people have had the impact on others in the way that she did? Not many.

Jobs! Jobs! Jobs! In Search of Cooperative Creationism

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Tue, 16 Nov 2010 15:57:00 +0000

Who is responsible for job creation? According to the voters a couple of weeks back, the Republican Party, as they seated quite a few of them in Congress, state houses and governor's mansions. But not with carte blanche as they are expecting the changing of the guard to lead to an improved economy and jobs, jobs, jobs. Clearly the voters are still skeptical according to a Rasmussen poll earlier this month.

But here's what I think. We are all responsible for job creation to some extent. Those of us who are innovators can create a job for ourselves and perhaps some others (of course, if what we have to offer is of value to others). For instance, businesses with 1 to 4 employees are the most stable employment group and fairly resistant to recent economic downturns and second most resistant are employers with 500 to 999 employees. Maybe we should encourage the growth of these scales of businesses?

The government can do some things more easily than private industry. Like pump money into areas where there is likely to be future demand (what the private sector used to call research and development, when it was the right thing to do) and to invest in transportation/delivery infrastructure. The government can also provide incentives through tax abatement (though, in the long run is a zero sum gain, particularly when businesses pursue greener pastures).

The private sector can work cooperatively and pump money into creating jobs locally that will spur demand for services and goods. They can do this with the profits that they value so highly. Profits are like a savings account and can be used to dig a company out of a ditch or to spur growth when opportunities arise.

An important question that not too many people asked during the mid-term skirmishes is why aren't the government and the private sector doing what they can do TOGETHER? The simple answer is like the Hatfields and McCoys, they don't like each other much or said differently, they have different agendas. A more complex answer is that the private sector doesn't change fundamentally in terms of how it operates, but the government is a revolving door of policy-changers and bureaucrats who are in the position to try and make these policies work. This doesn't give either a license to fingerpoint and lay blame, but it is easier than working to a common end.

Occasionally things work between public and private interests. I think about places like Newton, Iowa that have successfully changed their ways of doing business because of dependency on a single employer--you remember Maytag, don't you? Now they have diversified around wind and alternative energy businesses. This was made possible both by local inducements, but also by federal and state inducements. This type of job creation is a win/win proposition.

Is it perfect? No, some of the companies creating the jobs are not wholly American companies. TPI, a wind energy company has about 300 of 2500 worldwide workers in Newton, as well as plants in China and Mexico (and also, Rhode Island, Arizona, and Ohio). Could the work be done in the US, absolutely, but the cost of doing business is seen as the obstacle. Also, this means slogging huge trucks in for the coasts and Mexico for assembly of these giant wind generators. Isn't this another place where tax dollars could be used, to support the creation of jobs that increase localized jobs and reduce transportation costs (and the accompanying effects on the environment)?

Maybe the mantra should be how do we increase opportunities for new technology or even refining old ones, reduce the impact on the environment, and put people back to work. It seems that by wishing for jobs to be made is not, pardon the pun, getting the job done. Maybe the lessons of Newton can be applied in other areas that are not in crisis mode and resources in the area can be brought together so that jobs can be sustained.

Smart START and DADT Distractions

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 08 Nov 2010 10:00:00 +0000

When Congress returns to Washington in the lameduck session, it is expected that the Democrat Senate majority will to try to push through the START agreements. The START treaty, which also awaits ratification in Russia, would lower each country's maximum number of long-range active nuclear warheads and set procedures for them to inspect each other's strategic nuclear bases. With the immediate seatings of Joe Manchin, Mark Kirk, and Chris Coons in the Senate to replace the interim placements, there is the opportunity to close out the year on a high note where nuclear proliferation is concerned.

Also expected to be discussed is the repaeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT). This may be a taller order, but, because it is supported by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, as well as Army chief of staff Gen. George Casey Jr., chief of naval operations Adm. Gary Roughead and Air Focre chief of staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, it may help to sway the Senate, particularly if the Suptreme Court review of the repeal is completed soon. At odds are field level military leaders who previously have sent letters not to support it. According to Poliglot, "With preliminary reports about the survey of servicemembers suggesting that opposition to openly gay and lesbian service is not as widespread as some of the service chiefs have suggested, and with questions about the ongoing appeal of Log Cabin Republicans v. United States as the background scene, it is not clear that -- despite the comments from Amos [Marines commandant, Gen. James Amos who said Saturday that combat is "intimate" and that this intimacy makes him uncertain of the impact of repealing DADT on "unit cohesion" and "combat effectiveness.] -- all of the service chiefs would be willing to send a similar letter opposing lame-duck passage of the repeal amendment."

With narrow wins by Senate majority leader Reid, it remains to be seen whether he is willing to go to the wall for the repeal of DADT or will let it play out in the next session. Also up in the air is whether, with a narrower margin in the new year, whether Republican leaders will hold out for a changing of the guard.

Mid-Term Elections: Aftermath Edition

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Wed, 03 Nov 2010 07:27:00 +0000

As expected, it was a good night to be a Republican candidate for state office, an incumbent running for re-election for Congress from Iowa, and a bad night to be a Supreme Court Justice up for retention in Iowa. (Popular Progressive predictions: Governor: Branstad; all House Representatives and Senate incumbents; State Offices: Fitzgerald, Miller, Vaudt, Northey, Mauro; and at least 1 of 3 SCJs would be retained)

The big headline: Iowa House and Senate mirror national trend-- House solidly in Republicans hands (59 to 41), Senate majority still Democrats--barely (13 to 12 in contested races).

This and That
Surprising was the ouster of Democrat Michael Mauro as Iowa's Secretary of State particularly as his opponent was widely assailed by members of his own party. Most likely, his defeat was caused by straight ticket voting, not nedcessarily an enthusiam for Republican Matt Schultz who has promised to mandate photo IDs for voting purposes and to make election day voter registration "provisional" which is likely to lower numbers of voters. (Popular Progressive prediction: Wrong--predicted Mauro to retain position).

Also surprising were the margins that the Constitutional amendments to provide funding to create a trust fund for a permanent, constitutionally protected tax specifically focused on environment conservation and restoration statewide and against a state constitutional convention were passed. (Popular Progressive predictions: Correct outcomes, but the margin was much higher than anticipated)

Locally, the the repeal of the 21-only ordinance was narrowly defeated, owing to a better than expected turnout of the greater Iowa City community in favor of Iowa City's bars adhering to keeping underage people from bars after 10 pm. This is a huge feather in the cap of Iowa City mayor Matt Hayak and other city council members who put their ambitions in jeopardy by pushing for the ordinance and fighting against its repeal. (Popular Progressive prediction: correct about closeness of count)

Quick Counts
The Iowa House: Dems = 41 Reps = 59 (Popular Progressive prediction: Dead wrong, Dems did not maintain control)

Iowa Senate: Dems = 13 Reps = 12 )Popular Progressive prediction: barely right and with two races still in play, may prove to be wrong)

Judges: Supreme Court = 0/3 retained; Other Courts = 70/70 retained (Popular Progressive prediction 1/3 correct on Supreme Court retention)

Overall predictions: Of the 21 predictions made for this election, Popular Progressive was correct at least 17 times or 81% for this cycle.

What I Think Will Happen in Iowa on Tuesday

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 08:56:00 +0000

Prognostication is subject to a lot of skepticism, and rightly so, particularly if there are based on mostly conjecture and a little bit of polling data (in my case, the Des Moines Register's most recent poll for state races and The University of Iowa's Electronic Market).

In Iowa, we are likely to see the Governor's office change hands, as well as at least one court justice be recalled. The key to these two separate votes is the turnout of voters. Regardless of the turnout, Chet Culver and Patty Judge will not receive the vote of confidence they believe they have earned.

We are likely to see a couple of tight races for Congress in the eastern end of the state and the incumbents House members Loebsack and Braley will hold on by a thread--not because they aren't the best candidates, but because they have played political hardball to battle against the millions of dollars of negative ads run against them by both their opponents and the America's Future Fund. Across the state, the usual suspects will keep their seats, including senior Senator Grassley by more comfortable margins.

Despite two very good candidates in the form of Jon Murphy and Francis Thicke, both the incumbent Secretary of Agriculture Northey and State Auditor Vaudt are likely to remain in place, as are the State Treasurer Fitzgerald and the Secretary of State Mauro. There will be a closer race for Attorney General than otherwise should be the case given the inexperience of Republican Brenna Findley, but the incumbent, Tom Miller should continue in the job by less than a 15% margin.

The Iowa House will still have a Democrat majority, but not by more than a handful and the Senate should continue as a Democrat stronghold.

The State Constitutional Convention will likely be voted down and the land and water conservation measure will be approved, but not by much.

On a Johnson County level, the 21-only referendum in Iowa City will be close and may turn out to be a squeaker for rolling back the 21-only ordinance, judging by early voting numbers. Supervisors Janelle Rettig and Sally Stutsman, Senator Joe Bolkcom, Representatives Vicki Lensing and Mary Mascher, Recorder Kim Painter, and Treasurer Tom Kriz will be retained, deservedly, but without opposition. State Senator Bob Dvorsky will also be retained, as will State Representative Dave Jacoby, despite oposition by a pair of Libertarians.

Check back on Wednesday, November 3rd when I recap the election and attempt to justify what actually happened, and whether my predictions prove to be in error.

A Crazy Thought: Sanity Should Prevail

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:33:00 +0000

While watching Jon Stewart's "Rally to Restore Sanity," I was struck by attention paid to the idea that many people are fed up with extreme views and the fanning of their flames by the 24 hour news cycle. It is logical that we the people would be wanting to stick a fork in the Tea Party and say it is done. However there is the small matter that the issues they have raised are not necessarily all "conservative."

For instance, the effectiveness of government is not the providence of extreme conservatives, many progressives and moderates are just as frustrated by the political processes of government. Regardless of whether people think that government should be big or small, I think the point we all agree on is: it should work. Frankly big ticket items that Congress debates like wars and health care should raise hackles--they are incredibly expensive. The difference in wars and health care though is that we have waged war for a long time and the return on the investment is not always so hot. How much will health care end up costing? Well, depending on the election, we may not ever know, despite having a couple of model programs that the government runs (The VA and Medicare) that actually work pretty darn good.

Is our disdain of government limited to the majority party du jour or the fact that regardless of which party is in power, the ability to make laws that serve people over other more monied interests is questionable. Whether you fear corporations, millionaires, or labor unions' influence, the major point is that all American people are disadvantaged by decisions that are not intended to be in our best interest.

The hope that I take from seeing thousands of people turning out for a pseudo-political rally is that we realize the joke is on us. We realize that our government is only as good as those who represent us. Fortunately, many politicians are reasonable and decent people, despite what the 24 hour news cycle tells us. It is true that there are some folks with rather extreme views representing people who also share these views, but most are people who want to do the job they were sent to do, but are isolated from the moderating voices.

If pressed, I'll bet most would agree that if they could be assured that they could be elected without taking PAC money, they would--as long as other men or women would do it too. If pressed, I'll bet none of them would add "pork" to bills, if the folks back home wouldn't throw them out if they didn't take care of pet projects. Politicians, like the rest of us, use the tools at their disposal. Also, if politics could be moved into the realm of the non-partisan and parties had less control over who the "strong" candidates are, perhaps we could expect more reasonable people to seek offices. Perhaps, if more third party candidates ran, a more even keeled government might be formed.

But who am I kidding? Jon Stewart, I'm not. I'm a guy in Iowa who has witnessed sausage being made for a little too long. And as soon as this mid-term election comes and goes...here come the Caucuses. Whatever end of the spectrum you are on, be prepared to be used for photo opportunities or join the fray. There is sanity in it--somewhere.

Early Voting Report

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:19:00 +0000

If turnout at the local HyVee grocery store is any indicator, turnout for the mid-term election is going to be much higher than anticipated. While my wife and I were there, there were no less than 40 voters lined up to cast early votes (among Sunday grocery shoppers who were unpleasantly surprised to be squeezing through the voters). I'll leave it to the much more agile John Deeth and the auditors at the Johnson County Auditors Office to determine the statistics, but it may be that there is some reason to believe that close races will be that much closer.

The hot buttons in this area are, of course the vote to repeal the 21-ordinance, retaining district and supreme court justices, and less visably, the call to change the constitution for a phased in penny tax to fund water conservation efforts in the state. This may be the lowest flying object under the radar, but if it goes through, it may well help to protect Iowa's waterways from toxic runoffs.

With respect to the elected county and state office races, all of them are in play, except for Johnson County Board of Supervisors Sally Stutsman and Janelle Rettig, and State Rep. and State Senator Vicki Lensing and Joe Bolkcom who are running unopposed. Also Recorder Kim Painter and Treasurer Tom Kriz are also running without opposition. Of course, there are likely to be write-in votes for others, but there is no organized opposition to these candidates of which I am aware.

Weighing in on a Local Issue: Yes to 21 or No to 19

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Fri, 22 Oct 2010 03:56:00 +0000

Several years ago I ran for the city council in Iowa City. At the time I did not support invoking a 21-only ordinance for being in a bar after ten at night. Though I was absolutely sure that bars were making a killing selling to underage customers, I worried what would happen if these same kids ended up at house parties (because I had heard some awful reports). And, at that time, there were a number of other measures I felt could be undertaken that might have made things better and served to curb binge drinking.

One of those initiatives happened. There is now a keg registration, so that there accountability if someone should hold a house party and underage drinkers are there, the responsible party is the person who registered the keg. I'm not saying it has stopped house parties, but it is a deterrent. I also supported raising the age of alcohol servers and restricting the use of alcohol at community events, neither of which has happened.

However since that time, a few things have swayed my thinking on this topic. First, and foremost, I now work at The University of Iowa and have had a better look at the problems that underage drinking can cause. Secondly, the bar owners had not done a whole lot but give lip service to curbing their enthusiasm for selling to minors, as the police statistics prior to the enactment of the current ordinance showed. Finally, and most damning, the number of people who are underage and come from other communities continued to climb. Call it civic pride, but I don't want somebody's child being harmed in my city or on the way home to their own.

Also with the recent decision to let establishments make "split venues" and students still able to go to places that make 50% or more revenue from food after 10 pm, I don't feel that folks will have to roam the streets for entertainment. And nor will entertainers. Plus, the incremental evidence since June shows that the ordinance is doing what you'd hope a law would do, it's reducing underage alcohol offenses.

I believe that the culture of alcohol goes beyond people under 21, and from a perspective of fairness, I wish that the legal age of drinking would go up to 25. Why 25? Because, statistically, that is when alcohol related offenses generally begin to decline. However, a couple of extra years of maturation may do two things, turn the tide for a group of people who desperately need their wits about them so that they can get through college and two, help change the culture of drinking, even if it is ever so slightly.

Realistically do I think that people will circumvent the law? Of course, but a lot of young people are not looking to get into trouble. Some need a compelling reason to stay out of it. Morality cannot be legislated, but laws can help some people to do the right thing by themselves.

As far as what will or won't become of downtown Iowa City's economic heartbeat, time will tell. I do believe that nature abhors a vacuum and with the number of built-in customers in and around it, things will likely be fine. At the worst case, perhaps the rents and real estate values will come down and more people who'd like to live and work downtown could. That's one unintended consequence with which I could live.

Waiting on the "Declaration" of Independents

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Thu, 21 Oct 2010 21:22:00 +0000

In July I got an email from the Democratic Party to complete a survey. They ask if I was a Democrat. I honestly had to reread the Iowa 2010 platform and agreed with six of the priorities:
1. We oppose corporate personhood.
2. We support a single-payer health care plan for all citizens.
3. We oppose the Defense of Marriage Act.
4. We support separation of church and state.
5. We support energy independence with locally-owned renewable, eco-sustainable sources.
6. We support removing the cap on Social Security contributions.

What was absolutely missing in these priorities are the Economy and jobs. Democrats used to be the party of the working class person. They still are to a lesser extent, it helps if you are a member of a union. But when the economy and jobs don't make your top priority list, there is definitely trouble in River City.

There are some pretty significant disconnects for both Democrats and Republicans in their platforms and that causes pain for their candidates who ostensibly run on them. Why? Because they are not running for Democrat or Republican, they are Republicans and Democrats running for offices that require getting more votes than the next person. In other words, platforms are nice, but elections are won by keeping your party happy and winning over those people who have their own agenda--these are the Independents.

What I'm focusing on are the Independents who are notorious for "voting with their pocketbooks." Since the early 2000s, their pocketbooks, like many of ours, have shrunk considerably--despite tax-cuts by both Democrats and Republicans. While soccer Moms and Dads have disappeared in this year's dialogue because of the roar of the Tea Party, they are still out there and many of them are not excited about their choices. They are concerned about what will happen next.

For them, a Congress that will help them keep more money in their pockets is better than a Congress that they perceive will take more money out. Now, in fairness to Democrats who are in tight races and somehow being perceived as hurting working families, they(and no one from either party) wants to retract the middle class tax cuts that happened in the Bush and Clinton years. The difference is where the line is drawn. Democrats argue for drawing the line at individuals making less than $200,000 and families reporting less than $250,000 which equals 97 to 98% of all Americans. Republicans argue that any new tax is bad for the Economy.

How is it logical to the independent voter that voting for a progressive or even blue dog Democrat will hurt them financially? The crux is in the idea that the remaining 2% whose taxes would go up will withhold spending, thus hurting the small business person or working stiff. Categorically, this is goofy-think. If the middle class receives tax cuts, they are likely to spend money on stuff they haven't been able to buy, pay down debt, or even "gasp" put some money into savings. All are a good thing while the economy is stagnant. Money spent either on debt service or put into savings goods frees up money to be lent and money spent keeps or puts more people to work.

Also, if those who have been not been paying their "fair share" are fully in the mix like the rest of us, the debt on the rest of us comes down fairly dramatically in a much shorter time frame and at no significant hardship to those in question. This may be unpalatable to those in that 2 to 3% range, but they aren't going to go on a peanut butter and mac and cheese diet over it either.

Also, if we ever hope to transform our economy, we need to free up resources from things like war and national defense and use it to rebuild our nation's infrastructure. For example, electricity can be generated and delivered relatively cheaply from sources other than oil or coal on smart grids and people can be moved from region to region by high-speed rail, if the investment is there.

We need education that train/retrain people to work in the new economy. Democrats are investing in this by making it possible for more people to go to college or technical schools.

Reviving the economy calls for everybody who wants a job to have one. Democrats and Republicans both are off the mark in pointing their fingers at each other. It is possible to invest both in public works to build infrastructure and invest in the private sector to build new capabilities. There is no magic to this. What is lacking is a confidence that the investment will pay off. Partisan bickering and gamesmanship are the Debbie Downer of confidence being restored (as well as lobbying efforts that attempt to quash competition).

If this election is a referendum on who "gets it"--the frustration that the Independents feel about their wallets, the Republicans will likely mop the floor with the Democrats who have been tone-deaf with this issue on November 2. If the election hinges on thoughtful people who are demanding a functional government, it may turn out to be a much closer race than expected and we'll all be better off for it. In any case, it will make 2012 a much more interesting year.

Something for the Rankin File

noreply@blogger.com (Gark) — Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:19:00 +0000

Time magazine mentions Jeanette Pickering Rankin as a top ten political prodigy. My public school education failed to fill me in on the amazing Ms. Rankin, who was the first woman elected to Congress. She was from Montana and a progressive Republican back when there was such a thing.

As a young woman, she was a teacher and later a social worker and became involved in the Women's' suffrage movement. In 1912 she became the field secretary of the National American Woman Suffrage Association. Rankin was among eight thousand suffragettes in a 1913 march in Washington, D.C., before the inauguration of Woodrow Wilson.

Rankin returned to Montana and helped to organize the successful Montana suffrage campaign in 1914 which allowed women the right to vote there. As war in Europe loomed, Rankin turned her attention to work for peace, and in 1916, ran for one of the two seats in Congress from Montana as a Republican and became the first woman elected to the U.S. Congress (as well as the first woman elected to a national legislature in any western democracy).

Rankin used her fame and notoriety in this "famous first" position to work for peace and women's rights and against child labor, and to write a weekly newspaper column. In 1918 she led the debate that was integral to the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment in the House of Representatives. Two years later, after three-fourths of the state legislatures ratified the Nineteenth Amendment, all American women were constitutionally guaranteed the right to vote.

Rankin made history in yet another way; she voted against U.S. entry into World War I and violated protocol by speaking during the roll call before casting her vote, announcing "I want to stand by my country, but I cannot vote for war." She was criticized for her vote by former allies in the suffrage movement as opening the cause to criticism as impractical and sentimental.

The Republican Party in Montana, unhappy with Rankin's antiwar stance, kept her from running for a second congressional term by gerrymandering her district. She ran for the Senate, but lost the primary and launched a third party bid, which lost overwhelmingly in the general election.

After moving to Georgia, she farmed and founded the Georgia Peace Society in 1928 which unsuccessfully lobbied the Georgia legislature to pass a state constitutional amendment banning war. In the first half of 1937, she spoke in 10 states, giving 93 speeches for peace. She supported the America First Committee, but decided that lobbying was not the most effective way to work for peace.

By 1939, she had returned to Montana and was running for Congress again, supporting a strong but neutral America in yet another time of impending war. Though elected by a small margin in 1940, Rankin arrived in Washington now as one of six women in the House and two in the Senate.

After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress voted to declare war against Japan. Rankin once again voted "no" to war, this time saying "As a woman I can't go to war, and I refuse to send anyone else" as she voted alone against the war resolution. She was widely denounced by the press and her colleagues. She left elected for good.

The next twenty years of her life were filled with trips all over the world, including India, where she studied Mahatma Gandhi's nonviolent philosophy. She made Watkinsville, Georgia her home base, though she also spent much of her time at an apartment in Carmel, California.

In the 1960s Rankin established a self-sufficient women's co-operative on her Georgia farm. Rankin traveled around the country making speeches and lobbying politicians for peace, just as she had for women's suffrage more than fifty years earlier. In 1968, at age 87, she led a march on Washington; as thousands marched to the Capitol, they called themselves "The Jeannette Rankin Brigade." She continued giving speeches against the Vietnam War until late in 1972, when she became ill and physically unable to travel.

Upon Rankin's death at 92 in 1973, $16,000 in proceeds from her estate were earmarked to assist "mature, unemployed women workers." This seeded the Jeannette Rankin Foundation, which has been helping mature, low-income women succeed through education since it was chartered in 1976. Since 1978, over $1.3 million in scholarships have been awarded to over 600 women.

(Sources: http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-3377, http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/USArankin.htm, http://www.csufresno.edu/peacegarden/nominees/rankin.htm, http://rankinfoundation.org/)