Turning or Tuning Out the Vote

At the risk of being sanctimonious, if you aren't planning to vote during the midterms, what is wrong with you? Literally thousands of Iowans and millions of others around the country will likely sit this election out just because they believe their vote doesn't matter or is being suppressed, that politicians are all crooks, that their vote is being manipulated, etc. Hogwash. Sadly, it means that others are doing their thinking for them. All those political strategists, lobbying efforts, PACs, etc. have targeted them as a demographic and through caterwauling web ads, tv spots, and campaign framed-messages convinced them that they would be suckers to vote (or to vote for their best interests). Add to that those nattering nabobs of negativity that are our friends and family who also reinforce that sentiment and give us comfort to do nothing. In a nutshell, that is what keeps generally decent people from voting.

Some will say, that is overly simplistic and say things like what about those who don't know enough about the candidates and their stances--do we really want them voting?" --Yes we do and clue, check-out Headcount for ways to self-inform about issues and candidates. Well, what about those who mean to but... (kids, work, illness)--surely you have compassion? No, I don't and a clue, vote early or absentee (check-out Vote.org to figure out how). Well, what about those who have committed a crime, should they vote? Yes, when they have served their time, they should automatically be restored to the voter rolls--no governor or panel should be needed--but, your vote can help get this done.

It is your right and privilege to vote or not vote, but ignorance or feeling minimalized are not justifiable reasons--just excuses. Reasons you should vote are numerous, but here are mine:

1. A vote is the oil that makes democracy run. Democracy is still an experimental form of governing. Voting is the mechanism that puts representatives to work for or against you. 
2. A vote is influence peddling. You likely don't have enough money to influence your representatives financially, so the least you can do is help elect the one who you feel will be less likely to screw you over for campaign cash.
3. A vote is a form of hope. You want your world to be better, your schools, neighborhood, state? A vote is for all those things.
4. A vote is a protest. You don't like what a party or candidate are doing, your vote for another party or candidate is your best way to show your discontent.
5. A vote is a voice. Your voice and many others add up to a public library being given the go ahead, a scoundrel given the boot, or a part of the Constitution being amended. 
6. A vote is change. Who really knows what the Founding Fathers (and Mothers) would think about the United States today? What is true is our votes create change through policy, law, and leadership.
7. A vote is the future. With what we hear about the effects of climate change, nukes, and other potentially life ending events and factors, our vote can change the course of humankind or speed our demise.
8. A vote is a choice. A vote says "I think A is better than B" and you have weighed the pros and cons and made a decision.
9. A vote is a responsibility. It is you contract with your neighbors, your fellow citizens and, to some extent, to the people of the world, that you understand that we all need to figure out a way to live with each and thrive together. You vote says you understand that id being responsible.
10. A vote is a connection. The issues, whether they be local, state, or national will impact you and others in good and bad ways. Your vote connects you to the person who is representing you and allows you to petition them when you are aggrieved and encourage them when you want them to do more.
11. A vote is a correction. History tells us that we don't always get it right the first time. A vote is a way to repeal and replace solutions with better ones. 

Tune out or turn out, those are the only choices. How will you vote?

Dangerous Politics

The toll of politics is on my mind today. County Supervisor Kurt Friese, one of the biggest hearted people I have known passed away on Friday and that made many of us locally take a collective breath as we felt the heaviness of that loss. However, time waits for no one and politics has an even shorter timetable with an election a week away from now. And to that point. With no less than three mass killings that were based on hatred and rage because of the victims color or religion, can we have a long-term moratorium on race baiting and religious intolerance? From the President on down, many of us have shown a great deal of intolerance of others, but some have seen it as an opportunity to unleash their brand of hatred in support of some ideal that they hold. No holds barred.

Enough is enough! If this nation should fissure, it will not be by accident. There are political motives in play that have been harnessed to to put us at each others' throats. And yet, it is so preventable, if we decline to be played for political gain. Refuse to be used as a photo opportunity or to lend credibility to the party or person who converts your presence as a referendum on their ideas and methods. In other words, don't be played a fool or turned into a pawn. Be brave enough to call BS when you know you are being fed it.

This is not to say that you should not be involved in politics. This is to say, be involved in a better more humanistic-style of politics. One that, as Kurt did, put service ahead of agenda. The only politics that is worth spit is that which attends to the needs of people and uses political movement toward that end. People need jobs? Great work on that, but not by telling lies about other people. Health care needs to be fixed? Great, work on it, but not by robbing Peter to pay Paul. It is clear that the scales of justice and economics are badly out of balance. Let's use the tools of government to right the wrongs and even out the scales, but not through scapegoating our fellow human beings.

An action you can take right now is to vote for people who are more aligned with justice and democracy. Ask yourself, whose policies make things better for more people than a relative few? Also ask yourself: what is gained by my hatred or intolerance of any other human being? I say that fear for fear sake benefits no one but those who invoke it. Work backwards, who is trying to instill fear in you? Vote against that agenda. 

What Is at Stake in the Midterms

With November 6th rapidly approaching, it is a good time to walk away from the noise and conflation and media spin and talk about what is going on in our country and how voters make a difference. Currently, unemployment has decreased and more people are working. In a normal cycle, that would bode well for the incumbents. However, with healthcare expenses, property taxes, inflation and other factors, workers are not seeing the benefits of income tax cuts. With Congress looking to change Social Security and public healthcare in ways that are not looking good for those who need them, social insecurity seems to be the mantra of the day. Add to this the ongoing struggle of immigrants and asylum seekers, a military whose actions are largely stealth operations with lack of media coverage, a leader who is arguably the most divisive of any to date, and it leaves a lot of room for improvement.

On the other hand, what does the other side offer?

According to The Hill

House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said recently he’d “focus like a laser on job creation, infrastructure and skills training investment.”
Rep. Joseph Crowley (N.Y.), chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, said he’d like to prioritize health-care access, affordable college tuition and oversight of the Trump administration.
Rep. Linda Sánchez (Calif.), vice chairman of the Democratic Caucus, added another item to the list: retirement security.
And Pelosi on Tuesday named four items on her wish list: infrastructure, campaign finance reform, tougher gun restrictions and help for the Dreamers — immigrants brought to the country illegally when they were children. She noted that Democrats have been urging Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) to take up all those issues before the elections.
“We’d be hard put to call on the Speaker to do it, and then when we win, not do it,” Pelosi said.

A reasonable question to ask is what about the things that matter to younger and poorer voters? Certainly skills training and affordable college tuition are helpful (and not on the other side's agenda). What about paid family leave, childcare supports, supports for nutrition programs and addressing the environment and climate change? What about reforming the criminal justice system, addressing sensible drug policy? These are important issues for a group of voters who may not show up, if they don't see the benefit directly to them.

People who follow politics understand that it is the down the ticket races that are super important because if the Republican agenda keeps growing at the state level, more and more people will feel the tightening of its grip on their personal choices, on their wallets, and the safety net that has served generations well since the Great Depression. But the average voter  does not vote big picture.

The cult of personality is a funny thing. Despite the divisiveness of Trump, he is not running at this time and voters who support him are going to support whoever makes sense to them. If the Blue Wave turns into washout, it will likely be because the message missed a really important point: give the people what they want and, more importantly, what they need.

The Problem with Populism or Why the Mob Always Rules

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.” ― Thomas Jefferson

Mob Rule: "control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation."

I am a populist with a Progressive bent. I happen to think that The People (aka the Mob) are better served by socialist democratic tendencies than with conservative capitalistic ones. Donald Trump recently said “The Democrats are willing to do anything, to hurt anyone, to get the power they so desperately crave"  in Minnesota last week. He added, “They want to destroy.” Jenny Beth Martin of the Tea Party's Patriot Citizens Fund said, “Do I want to live in a nation besieged by left wing political violence and mob rule, or a nation where we are all protected by the Constitution and the rule of law?” in an op-ed in The Hill. 

If you take either of these statements seriously, you have to ignore the actions like the Tea Party and Nationalistic conservative groups, like the one that marched on Charlottesville (where a neo-Nazi ran over a anti-Nazi marcher by driving backwards through the crowd). So, point one, you can't be against the very thing you are for and be seen as credible.

In our country, the mob is ruled by elected officials who try their best to game the system in their direction. The good thing about a voting public is that they can reverse course by voting. That is not to say all things can be changed by elections. For instance, as long as Supreme court justices have lifelong appointments, their rulings can literally cripple one type of political ideology and make it possible for another to rule the roost. One of the reasons that the conservative movement has been so focused on the Supreme Court is that they know things like the Voter's Right Act has not helped their cause. Already voters in North Dakota have seen the harm to voters who have no street address (Native Americans no less).

So the mob rules all the time. As political leaders roil their base and elect people who march in step, the mob decides which way the country will go politically. The problem with populism is the people and their susceptibility to charlatans bearing ideology.
For democracy to be truly broken, all three branches of the government have to be aligned and the ability of the common voter to make a change via the vote made obsolete. If anyone should be worried about mob rule, it is the mob itself.With the mob actually propping up a leader who lies to them constantly and likens authoritarian rule to being a good businessman, it is right that other people would be trying their best to beat back that threat.
Fear not the mob, but fear the mob rulers.

The Blame Stops Here

A friend posted on Facebook that the "Bernie or Bust" people are responsible for Brett Kavanaugh being in the Supreme Court. Other than it being patently wrong, it also continues to pick at the scab of a group of people who really need to rally the troops and work on what happens next, not what has happened in the past. This is something that conservatives do much better than progressives.
   Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch are on the Supreme Court and that is a fact. The best cure for them and the conservative surge is a trouncing in the mid-terms and a movement in the state and national level to shift the ride back toward progressivism. Trump has given Americans ample reason to want to step away from the abyss and that means getting people out and voting. Mad about Kavanaugh? Good, go to work to help elect better leaders. Remember, the enemy of your enemy is your friend. And we need all the friends we can get!

The Case for the "Protest" Vote

Many people choose to sit out elections. They don't like the choices, they don't know the issues, therefore, they don't take the time to vote. I argue that even an informed voter is not necessarily a smart one. I consider myself to be a better informed voter than most and yet, I have voted for some pretty unsavory characters (I'm talking about you, John Edwards). The point is, no matter how well-informed we are, we all make mistakes.

Which leads me to my argument for protest voting. By definition, a protest vote is one when you for for someone just because you don't want someone else to get elected. Stay with me on this point. In 2016, I voted for Dr. Chris Peters against Rep. Dave Loebsack. What the hell?--you might say, but I did so because Loebsack voted for the Keystone Pipeline and was supportive of it running through Iowa. As it was the single most important issue to me, I voted against him and not because I "loved" Peters Liber-publican policies stances. However, in this cycle, with the Democrats likely to overtake the House, Dave Loebsack can vote to make unarmed burglary by an undocumented person a Federal (and deportable) crime and he still has my vote (or does he? Hmm...).

We've all heard how protest votes made Donald Trump President, which is convenient. But what is more true is that people who could have voted and they didn't. Who knows what would have happened if  10,000 or 15,000 more people voted in 2016 in places like Michigan? Maybe Trumpledore would still be President, but maybe not. One thing is for certain, a lot of folks voted for the Libertarians, Greens, and wrote in votes in those tightly contested states--I'm pretty sure they didn't think those parties would win. I'm going out on a limb and say those may have been protest votes.

The larger point is that your vote is yours to do with as you want. You don't want yet another man elected, vote for the woman. You think Black Lives Matter, vote for black candidates. You are tired of corporately-owned politicians, write yourself in or vote for the Green or Libertarian candidate who you've never heard of. But use your vote to express yourself and appreciate your freedom that a bunch of old white guys made possible for you (well, not all of you [at first],  but eventually-ish).  Because the only way we are going to get better politics is to bum rush the show.

Parallels: Mollie, Sadie, Celia, and Christine

In Iowa, three women have tragically lost their lives to men who assaulted them. Mollie Tibbitts and Celia Barquin Arosamena were alledgedly killed by their assailants, while Sadie Alvarado's death is still being investigated as she allegedly jumped out of the automobile of her boyfriend during a fight. These deaths are senseless and tragic both from the perspective of their unfulfilled ambitions and to women who continuously fear for their lives from the men in them and in the periphery. Currently, a nomination for the Supreme Court is being held up while aging Senators, mostly male, pursue whether the male nominee, Brett Kavanaugh as a teenager assaulted a teenage girl, Christine Blasey Ford, who now alleges that he did.

While understanding that what happened to Ford is not exactly the same as what happened to the three women in Iowa, nonetheless, the symptoms are the same. Men believing that they had the right to inflict their will on these four women and a society that often fails to see how assault and rape can lead to the unspeakable. Every day, women are assaulted by men and, for generations, have felt betrayed when they reported these incidents when men walked away with either a light slap on the wrist or no justice at all. It is only recently that the charges are being treated more seriously, in part because of high-profile cases involving celebrities.

Once again, a man of questionable character is being considered for the highest court in the land and his behavior may be given a pass, just like Clarence Thomas' was where Anita Hill's sworn testimony was concerned.Our Senator Grassley chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee and has the right to call witnesses, as he has to look into the allegations, but unlike a court of law, ironically, the Senate is not a court, it is a political body whose Republican leaders are hell-bent on putting a conservative-minded justice on the Supreme Court before the mid-term elections, fearing that they may not hold that power after the mid-term elections.

And what if Brett Kavanaugh has been unjustly accused? What about his rights? The statute of limitations has long expired to file charges against him, so why bother? The question is that of fitness to serve a life-long appointment to the highest court in the land. We have seen other nominees "Borked" for far less serious things (e.g., Douglas Ginsburg who was nominated by Reagan was withdrawn when it was revealed he smoked marijuana with his students at Harvard). There are plenty of other conservative judges that could be nominated and likely would be approved, but this is ultimately about what is possible here and now and with a famously stubborn President and Senate, Brett Kavanaugh is there guy.

Christine Blasey Ford has earned a right to be heard, especially because she was a reluctant witness whose business was put on the street because of politics. No one could risk more than she can. If she is telling the truth, she still will be excoriated as she gives her testimony, if she is not, all other women who step forward in the future will be treated as instantly suspect. She is reluctant, and she has asked the FBI to hear her out prior to testifying to Congress. However to Grassley and his cohort, the clock is ticking.

And what of Kavanaugh? What Kavanaugh has to lose is relatively minor. If he did what she accuses him of, his nomination should be dropped, no question. But he could also be awarded the seat despite it all. Will his current job be imperiled? Probably not, though he might face judicial review, if he gave false testimony in being approved for that seat. If has been falsely accused, he either chooses to fight for the nomination or decides it isn't worth it. Either way, other than not being seated, he still would likely have his appellate court seat.

However it goes, we should not forget Mollie, Sadie, and Celia. They are the unfortunate ones who died, while their assailants live. Brett Kavanaugh may prove to be a very fortunate one as well and that could be the greatest injustice of all. 

Another 9/11

As I write this, it is about the same time that the first reports came out of New York on September 11, 2001 that the first of two planes crashed into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center and later another crashed into the Pentagon and still another crash landed in a field in Pennsylvania. I was walking to work through Hickory Hill Park that morning. It was a beautiful, cool morning and I remember arriving to work in a quiet, contemplative mood. Within half an hour, that would change. Now, 17 years later, I now know just how much all of it has changed and now is worth questioning--Are we "the land of the free and the home of the brave?"

Americans, it has been said, are a people of boundless optimism and I'd like to think that, deep down, we still are. However, on that day and all the days that have come after, we have seemingly descended into two clearly demarcated camps. One that embraces us joining the greater world community more fully and one that wants to partition ourselves off from those who are not American. I won't say that it is not understandable because the images of that day live on and the unspeakable horror of the events that unfolded are more a part of the mindscape of many Americans than say, Pearl Harbor, D-Day, the planting the flag at Iwo Jima or the bombings of Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Perhaps it is a matter of time that we will regain our boundless optimism, but I fear, we never will. I also fear that we will continue the kind of politics that are so wildly dividing us, that we will begin to see the enemy everywhere. That is one of the lessons of 9/11. We enacted the PATRIOT Act not too shortly after 9/11 essentially allowing more and more surveillance of our lives. We have steadfastly refused to reduce the arming of Americans making it that much more likely that innocent people will die by the gun. We have passed law after law and policy after policy to allow us to pick and choose who gets to be in America and what religions that they can practice. And yes, we have jailed 1/4 of the world's jailed population. That is not boundless optimism at work. That is the work of mistrust and hopeless fear.

Perhaps the single greatest tragedy of 9/11/2001 was the loss of personal freedom and the increase of mistrust and fear. Perhaps on both sides of the divide that is something we share in common. Thankfully, there are people coming of age that were not born or were very young when the events of 9/11 unfolded. They have lived a lifetime of America at war. It is my hope that they will sicken of the constant state of warfare and seek to join different coalition of the willing to stop the wars and work on the root causes. 

Iowa City Special Election: The Morning After

I have been involved on various levels with politics for much of my adult life and I have to say, the aftermath of yesterday's special election reminds me that reasonable, well-intentioned people are why the winner/loser mentality of politics is hard. With barely a month to have their issues heard, five candidates who were well-qualified were narrowed to two finalists by less than 9% of the eligible voters casting votes. Nonetheless, to Ryan Hall, Christine Ralston, and Brianna Wills, congratulations on running on your core values and organizing good campaigns. In some way, your work is not done as you will likely be asked for support by the other two campaigns and will want to keep pushing your issues with those who agree with you. I am hopeful that you will stay engaged in community efforts and run again in 2019.

To Ann Freerks and Bruce Teague, kudos to you both (and your stellar campaign teams) for having your voice heard and affirmed by those who took the time to vote. Now, it is a matter of who will be able to convince the most others to join you and to support your candidacy in the October 2nd election. With less than three hundred votes separating you on election night, it is clear that this will be a very competitive election. In the coming days, I will dissect the differences in stances of these candidates, but for today, wish them the best in this sprint to the finish line--and then to work.

5 Reasons Why Iowa City Council Special Election Primary Is Just That (and You Should Vote) - Part 2

In the last installment, I provided background information on all of the candidates. In this posting, I want to provide some analysis and a way to consider who is the "best" candidate in this cycle for you. Let's begin with the current make up of the council:

The current make-up of the council is 50% men and 50% women; 1 person of color; No self-identified members of LGBTQ community; Median age +/- 59 (4 members age 60 or above, other two in their 40s); four located in northside neighborhoods, one in a westside neighborhood, and one in an eastside enclave.

Jim Throgmorton (Mayor): Professor Emeritus/Urban Regional Planning, (Retired) - Near Northside
John Thomas: Landscape Architect, (Retired) - Near Northside
Rockne Cole: Attorney-at-Law (Self-employed; Private sector) - Eastside
Pauline Taylor (Mayor Pro-Tem): Registered Nurse, UIHC (Employed; Public Sector) - Westside
Mazahir Salih: Community Organizer at the Center for Worker Justice (Employed; Non-Profit) - Far Northside
Susan Mims: Financial Advisor (Self-employed; Private sector) -  Far Northside

With a special election, it is worthwhile to consider the issues that are important to you--and to consider the "special sauce"--what the person brings to the council that is currently absent from it. In considering overall representation and demographics alone (and not including gender as the council is currently equally split), the ideal candidate would be a person from a differing vocational field; a person of color; a LGBTQ community member; in the less than 39 age range; and living in either the Center; Far Eastside; or Westside. Issues

The Candidates

40% men and 60% women; 1 person of color; 1 self-identified members of LGBTQ community; Median age +/- 40 (3 candidates age 40 or above, one 39 and the last 25).

Ann Freerks: Creative Coordinator - (Employed; Public Sector)- South Center
Ryan Hall: University of Iowa Student - Center - (Not Employed) - LGBTQ (self-identified)
Christine Ralston: Director of Career Services - (Employed; Public Sector) - Near Eastside
Bruce Teague: Owner of multiple healthcare/real estate businesses - (Self-employed; Private sector) - Westside - LGBTQ (Self-identified)
Brianna Wills:Excutive Director - Old Brick - (Employed; Non-Profit) - North Eastside

With a special election, it is worthwhile to consider the issues that are important to you--and to consider the "special sauce"--what the person brings to the council that is currently absent from it. In considering overall representation and demographics alone (and not including gender as the council is currently equally split), the ideal candidate would be a person of color, a LGBTQ community member; in the less than 39 age range; living in either the Center; Far Eastside; or Westside. Besides issus that matter to you, the candidates that you might consider are:

Ryan Hall: 4 factors Student status; LGBTQ, under 30, Central resident
Bruce Teague: 3 factors: Person of color; LGBTQ; Westside resident
Ann Freerks: 1 factor: Central resident
Christine Ralston: 1 factor: Under 40

I won't tell you how you should vote. I'm hoping that if you took the time to read both of my postings, you have enough insights to form your own opinion. I'm heading off to early vote this afternoon. I hope, if you haven't voted yet, that you will take the time to do so. As a note: this particular election is a great example why instant runoff voting (IRV) should be considered. With a short run-up to the primary, I think it is tough to be a newcomer and be successful. If the candidates had until October 2nd to run their race and voters had the chance to vote for their first and second choice, it is likely that the "best" candidate would win. Sadly, if the turnout is very low on September 3rd, we'll never really know. With IRV, you have a longer window to run a campaign and the voters only have to show up once. A win/win, if there ever was one! Happy Voting, everyone!

If you don't know where to vote, the Johnson County Auditor has this nifty poll locator which can tell you when and where to vote.

5 Reasons Why Iowa City Council Special Election Primary Is Just That (and You Should Vote)

On Tuesday, September 4th, voters in Iowa City will be making a difficult choice about which two of five candidates that they will send forward to a special election on October 2nd with the winner finishing up the term that Kingsley Botchway began before departing to Waterloo for career advancement. In this two part series, here are profiles on the five candidates (The quotes below come from the Cedar Rapids Gazette, as well as the links to the candidate's own guest opinions. Questions posed by The Iowa City Press-Citizen are also linked to each):

Ann Freerks  (Questions from Press-Citizen Editorial Board)
Community Service: Former member of Iowa City Planning and Zoning Commission, Historic Preservation Commission, President of the Longfellow Neighborhood Association and President of the Longfellow PTA, Member of Advisory Board for Any Given Child

Current Role: Creative Coordinator, University of Iowa, Office of Strategic Communications

"I have come to understand how everything is interconnected. We need healthy, balanced, sustainable neighborhoods for all. Our streets and bike trails need to be connected. Our bus system and parks need to meet our changing needs. We need to preserve the character of our downtown but not be afraid of growth in the right areas and with the appropriate character and scale. This growth should not be at the expense of something else in the community, but an addition to it."

Ryan Hall  (Questions from Press-Citizen Editorial Board)
Community Service: Green Iowa Americorps, Current member of Iowa City Board of Adjustment, President of River City Housing Collective

Current Role: Student, University of Iowa Environmental Studies Program

"This campaign is about an Iowa City community that has limitless potential to address poverty, build a sustainable future, clean our water, and prepare our young folks to be leaders. I am running because young people need to get involved in community issues and local politics. We must bridge the gap between the student population and the residents of Iowa City. We must come together to face the issues in our community. I will be a voice for all people. This includes Iowa City’s working class, students, renters, immigrants, people of color, and other marginalized groups of residents."

Christine Ralston  (Questions from Press-Citizen Editorial Board)
Community Service: Former Vice-chair of the Generation Iowa Commission, Current member of Iowa City Housing and Community Development Commission

Current Role: Director of Career Services, University of Iowa Law School

"I am uncompromising in my search for honest, creative solutions to the problems our community faces. “It is too hard,” is a challenge, not a response. And so, when facing complicated, intersectional issues like raising wages for city workers, I won’t accept at face value that we cannot afford it. I will ask about other revenue sources, about what we as a community value and how we prioritize it, about what it means to be a good member of our community. Only then do we decide".

Bruce Teague  (Questions from Press-Citizen Editorial Board)
Community Service: Iowa City Chamber of Commerce, Iowa City Noon Day Rotary, Target Small Business, Iowa Olmstead Consumer Task Force, Mental Health and Disabilities Advocate, AARP (past chapter president), IC Compassion/Immigration BIA Center (steering committee and past chair), Johnson County Livable Communities (committees included Task Force on Aging, and vice chair, Cleaning 4 A Reason

Current Role: Owner/CEO, Caring Hands & More Home Health & Family Service; Caring Hands & More Multigenerational Center; and CHARM Homes

"Iowa City faces highly complex issues: affordable housing, livable wages (for city workers and the workforce in general), effective transportation, economic development, and diversity and inclusion. If you elect me to the Iowa City City Council, I will hear your voice! I will work diligently for policies that honor the belief that human rights are our right. It is time for all voices at the table!"

 Brianna Wills  (Questions from Press-Citizen Editorial Board)
Community Service: Public Relations Chair, Special Populations Grant for Voting Access, Johnson County Board of Supervisors, Planning and Zoning Commissioner, Meals on Wheels Participant, Iowa City Noon Rotary, Johnson County Democrats Central Committee, District Wide Parents’ Organization (DPO), Co-President 2014-2015, Trustee, Kickers Soccer Club, Iowa City Community School District Foundation Board, DPO Rep. 2014-2015, Iowa City Community School District Foundation, Parties for a Purpose committee, United Action For Youth (UAY), Festival of Flowers Committee, Operation Backpack, HACAP Food Reservoir, 100+ Women Who Care, Iowa City Junior Service League, Holiday Home Tour-Chair and New Member Chair, Herbert Hoover Elementary: PTA President 2013-2014, Neighborhood Park Planning Committee, City of Iowa City/Neighborhood, Distinguished Young Women of Iowa Scholarship Program, VP-Board of Directors, Iowa City Panhellenic Alumnae Council, Iowa City Community School District Interview and Selection Committee, Iowa City Community School District Advisory Committee on Magnet Schools, Iowa City Community School District PERL Levy Committee

Current Role: Executive Director, The Old Brick

"Iowa City is growing. This means more people will need more housing and services. The council benefits from collaborating with the nonprofit sector, which has experience serving the most vulnerable. One of my top priorities as council person is to make sure no one in our community feels physically or psychologically isolated."

Update 8/31: Additional insights of each candidate via Little Village

Resurgency of Urgency in Progressive Politics

With the election of Barrack Obama in 2008, Democrats and other progressives were self-satisfied that the times they were a changin'. Midterm elections in 2010 and 2014 proved to be telling for falling in love with mythology as conservatives took the Senate and held the House and as a result, The Supreme Court has two young, Federalist Society-friendly justices and a possible third on the way.

  What progressives always seem to forget is that the other side is in a constant state of panic and there is always urgency to stop something or someone. Whether it is they are after our guns, the illegals are taking our jobs, or they are taking our religious freedoms, you have to give the conservatives credit--they sure do know how to start a fire.

   People may have been surprised that a PT Barnum-huckster-quack like Trump could be elected, but when your hair is on fire, you go with the guy who says he'll make your hair great again. And, despite all the malarkey that he has perpetrated, 40+ % of Americans still buy what he is selling and it is spreading to unlikely communities, including the African American community.

  With the special elections and midterms this November, there is a renewed sense of urgency by Democrats to turn this mess around. This time the fire is in reverse. Women's rights are under continual siege, the LGBTQ community is being discriminated in the workplace, health care for those who can't afford it has become both less available and the replacement doesn't help those with pre-existing conditions, and Trump is a liar and probably a thief, and so forth. Democrats are coming out of the woodwork to run for office and women are doing very well in their efforts.

  It may well be that a newer and possibly more progressive Democratic party is emerging or perhaps it is a blip on the radar, particularly as 2020 looms and old war horses consider running for the presidency again. Whatever the case may be, both parties are looking for infusions of younger, fresher faces. So far, it looks like the Democrats have to prove that the right is slipping and the House and possibly the Senate can stave off a thuggish Trump and send him packing in 2020.

  However, to do this, they need to be able to show what they can do with the spoils in November.  Winning an election is good, keeping momentum moving in your direction is quite another. Also, the issues that are so divisive are not going to solve themselves, it is for advocates of democratic values to repeatedly beat the drum of for those issues which progressives and some Republicans may find agreement. My urging to all, keep beating the drum, keep knocking on the doors, but also keep the home fires burning--because you know the other side will be.

Politicizing Tragedy:How Cristhian Rivera Became Willie Horton Overnight

Personal Note: The death of Mollie Tibbetts is without question tragic. She was a student at the institution in which I work. As a community we mourn her life. She was a young woman denied the most fundamental right of all: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What follows in no way excuses her alleged killer, but presents perhaps a sadder truth:  politics loves a tragedy that fits a narrative. 

Yesterday afternoon at 4 pm, a press conference was held to discuss the facts at hand of the death of Mollie Tibbetts, a 20 year-old college student who had been missing for five weeks. The alleged killer, Cristhian Rivera, is a Mexican national who lived in Guernsey, Iowa. He secured employment at a local farm as a worker (and was not screened out via the e-verify system). According to his attorney, he is not an undocumented worker or an illegal immigrant, but that doesn't matter. Every day in the United States hundreds of murders take place, but this case has made international news. It fit a narrative.

No sooner had the press conference ended when statements from the Governor of Iowa, Kim Reynolds and Senators Joni Ernst and Charles Grassley were released. Reynolds said, “As Iowans, we are heartbroken, and we are angry," she said. "We are angry that a broken immigration system allowed a predator like this to live in our community, and we will do all we can (to) bring justice to Mollie’s killer.” Ernst and Grassley released a joint statement which said in part, "As Governor Reynolds said, ‘our immigration system allowed a predator like this to live in our community.’ Too many Iowans have been lost at the hands of criminals who broke our immigration laws. We cannot allow these tragedies to continue," Grassley and Ernst said in a joint statement Tuesday evening. Later in the evening, President Trump chimed in and said in West Virginia, "You heard about today with the illegal alien coming in, very sadly, from Mexico and you saw what happened to that incredible, beautiful young woman,” he said, shaking his head. “Should’ve never happened.” Even Vice-President Pence joined in the clamor stating, "We commend the swift action by local, state, & federal investigators working in Iowa in apprehending an illegal immigrant, who’s now charged with first-degree murder. Now, justice will be served. We will never forget Mollie Tibbetts."

In spite of the tragedy, these politicians chose to make the moment, not entirely about the death of a young Iowa woman, but to make it about the "broken" immigration system and also to cast Cristhian Rivera as yet one more mark against undocumented migrant workers who do much of the manual labor required from the US agricultural industry. 

If this politicizing a tragedy seems vaguely familiar, there is precedent. During the 1988 presidential campaign, Republican operatives used a specific case against Democratic nominee for President, Michael Dukakis involving a convicted murderer, Willie Horton, who was weekend furloughed, due to a loophole in the law and went on a crime spree which included rape and robbery before he was rearrested and re-sentenced. The program, itself, while being created prior to Dukakis being elected governor and ended during his administration, nonetheless was used through a series of ads to make Dukakis seem weak on crime. It appears that Cristhian  Rivera is the new Willie Horton, a poster-villain for the Republican agenda and potentially a game-changer for the fortunes of Republicans running for office in Iowa.

What we might also conclude is that Mollie Tibbetts' case has been made special because of the amount of publicity surrounding it. Curiously, in Iowa, during the investigation of Mollie Tibbetts a young woman's body was found on a gravel road in Lee County. For a moment, investigators thought it might have been Mollie Tibbetts. When it was determined it was not her, but another 20 year-old women who reportedly died by jumping out of the car of her boyfriend during an argument (and him driving off and leaving her there), it was largely forgotten by the public. Her name was Sadie Alvarado and her case is still under investigation. In Colorado this week, a US citizen murdered his wife and two daughters and buried their bodies in a shallow grave. Any other week this is a big story. Not this week. Doesn't fit the narrative.

Also lost is perspective on murders and how relatively rare they are in Iowa. In a state with 3.1 million people, between 2000 and 2016, 857 Iowans have been murdered or roughly 2.3% of the entire population. Mollie's death is tragic because her family has lost a daughter, her boyfriend lost his love, and her extended family lost the joy of knowing her. To turn this tragedy into a Willie Horton moment to win elections is the worst type of politics: the politics of fear-mongering. I trust that common-sense will help Iowans and others to see through this callous political posturing.  But, you never know. It may fit the narrative.

(Updated 8/22 at 3:06 pm)to include the information from the attorney of Cristhian Rivera that he is not an undocumented worker.

A Personal Note to the Iowa Democratic Party

Dear Iowa Democratic Party Candidates,

How are you? You may or may not have noticed that the Republicans in our state are making a solid case to retain their leadership in November. They point at low unemployment, increased manufacturing, a poll that shows Iowa is one of the best places to live. They are painting the picture that with them at the wheel, things are getting better. And you're saying what?

Iowa is a state where 1/2 of the population is not working either because they are too old or too young. This means that those who are working are carrying a lot of weight. Wages need to be increased for sure--and good of you to kind of talk about that. But, how about pushing to keep more young adult aged Iowans in Iowa? Between UNI, ISU, and UI, we educate over 80,000 students and only about 55% stay in Iowa upon graduation.

Iowa is also a state that has a pretty amazing healthcare system that is being undercut by privatizing medicare and cutting resources for training. Why not create a single-payer system using these great existing resources and putting services where they are needed? How about your plan to shore up a failing mental health system that has watched consolidations without improvement to care?

And what a great time to be pro-farmer? With the federal government making it harder than ever to make it as a farmer, unless you're one of the big boys, what's your plan to help farmers to farm? At the same time, can your plans also help use clean up the water supply in our state? Can your plans give back local  control for CAFO approvals, encourage sustainable farming practices and deal with runoff issues?

What about education policy? Do you have ideas to help rural and small towns to have schools that meet the educational needs of their students? Can teachers continue to make good earnings for good work and be able to also have healthcare and other benefits that are affordable?

And what about labor? Is it good to allow Republicans to dismantle labor laws and to get rid of collective bargaining and even the Labor Center, as if the middle class would have been around without labor fighting for it? What is your message for the hardworking Iowans who are not seeing much more income, but are seeing more inflation taking away from what they bring home.

What about jails and prisons in Iowa. What is your plan to make sure that we don't incarcerate unfairly and make it less likely that prisoners will be returning to prison?

Iowans need to hear from you about that.

Best of Luck,

Popular Progressive (Redux)

The Privilege to Vote: Why Democracy Is in Trouble

Philosophically and legally, all law abiding citizens have the right to vote.In practice though, it is a privilege to be a voter. The right to vote assumes that everyone has free access to casting a vote, possesses the same knowledge of how, when, and where to vote, and believes that voting is fundamentally important or even patriotic to do. I will try to demonstrate that, while all of these things are worth striving for, the truth is voter turnout has some interesting trends that help to make my point.

As everyone who follows voter ID (VID) laws is likely aware, the more hoops that you put in front of a person to vote, the less likely it is that he ir she will do so. In fact, while proponents of VID laws stress it is to protect the sanctity of the election, it serves more to disenfranchise voters largely across accessibility and economic lines. Make registration time consuming or documentation intensive, less people register. Wired points out that of 3.6% of white people lack the "approved" credentials to vote while 7.5% of black people did. With regard to disability, according to American Association of People with Disabilities, voter registration was 2% lower for those with disabilities than for others and voter turnout for those with disabilities (who make up 1/6 of all voters) was 6% lower than among all other voters. Whether this is attributable to VID or other variables is speculative.

Secondly, information about when and where to vote is often attached to communications and how and to whom things are communicated. Many election boards have adopted state-wide voter information systems that work for those with smartphones and computers, but are not helpful for those who don't. Canvassing for votes tends to be much higher in certain precincts than others, typically high minority precincts, so again, another means of communicating information is not there.Also, canvassing has a very small impact on voting behavior. As Alan Gerber opined in the NY Times, "When the findings of 51 canvassing experiments were pooled together, the results showed that a successful effort to contact a voter produces a 4.3 percentage point increase in the probability the voter will cast a ballot. But this overstates the impact of the intervention: Typically, when a campaign canvasses a neighborhood, most door knocks go unanswered. If a standard canvassing effort reaches only 25 percent of the intended targets, then the overall effect on the target group’s turnout is just 1 percentage point. An increase of this size could make the difference in a close election, but it suggests that even a huge canvassing outreach would have a small effect on turnout."

Lastly, many people choose not to vote for many reasons, but chief among them is the value they see in doing so. A lot of my progressive friends like early voting. However, studies have shown that early voting actually may lead to decreased voting numbers. In addition voting may vary by how diverse the district is. A study by a University of Indiana researcher showed these interesting results:

• Having a political candidate of the same race or ethnicity on the ballot does not, by itself, prompt a larger voter turnout among minority groups.
• Turnout is often greater for minority voters when they live in a congressional district where their racial or ethnic group represents the majority of the citizen voting-age population (CVAP). For black and Hispanic voters specifically, turnouts are higher when each group makes up a larger portion of the electorate – regardless of the race of the candidates listed on the ballot.
• When no black congressional candidate is on the ballot, the general-election turnout for black voters is, on average, 40 percent in a district where black people make up 10 percent of the citizen voting-age population. The turnout is considerably higher — an average of 49.3 percent  — in a district where black people are 50 percent of the voting-age population.
• In the absence of a Hispanic candidate, the general-election turnout for Hispanic voters is 6.4 percentage points higher in a voting district where Hispanic people make up 40 percent of the voting-age population compared to a district where they comprise 10 percent of the voting-age population.

Pew Research surveyed those who did not vote in the 2016 presidential election and learned that the main reasons for not voting were dislike for the candidates and/or the campaign issues, didn't think their vote mattered/disinterested or were too busy or had conflicts with work or school schedules. More information is in the charts below, including trends from prior years.

There are many possible solutions to this problem, mail-in voting options, a national election day, weekend voting, mobile voting stations among them. As always, it is important to reflect on why things are the way they are and who is motivated to change them. Without addressing this, democracy is for the privileged.

Potentially More Devastating than Citizen's United

The House last week just approved a bill that any progressive or supporter of separation of church and state should be contacting your Senator about. According to The Hill, "The House passed a measure Thursday to block the IRS from using funds revoking the tax-exempt status of churches that participate in political campaigns." Yes, you heard that right. A church will be able to use its clout to support political candidates as well as, de facto, strong-arming its membership to fall in line. A indelible stain on democracy if it should happen.

The legislation limits the agency from rescinding the groups' tax-exempt status and requires the express approval of the IRS commissioner to do so. As you might imagine, it was tacked on as a rider to a government funding bill which was passed 217 to 199, pretty much along party lines. This bill also applies to other non-profit organizations which raises the spector that there will be more "pay to play" with politicians holding their hands open to possible contribution in exchange for a little quid pro quo.

The measure has been sent on to the Senate who killed a similar measure in December of 2017. However, with tight senate races underway, the temptation this time may be too great for the Senate to reject this, especially attached to a funding package. Even those you might perceive have the most to gain aren't thrilled with this. A 2016 poll showed that 3 out of 4 Evangelical Christians don't want their ministers preaching politics out of the pulpit--do your part to prevent this. However, it will go a long way to holding the senators accountable, if they know you are watching and acting! 

Turning Polarity in Progress: How Progressives Can Win

Having a divide along political lines is far from a new phenomenon. What we must never forget is that issues can unite us where politics divide. For instance, while national healthcare has been politically divisive, there are few that would argue that our current form of health care coverage is successful. So it may be surprising to know that of all the people who had Medicaid or ACA coverage in 2016 , nearly three-quarters of adults said they are satisfied with their plans. According to The Hill, "Overall, 71 percent of people who have plans through the ObamaCare marketplace or Medicaid said their healthcare plans were good, very good or excellent, according to ... the nonprofit Commonwealth Fund." And yet, when Trump and the Republicans were successful in eroding funding and limiting access for the ACA, satisfaction went down to 22% in 2017.

So, what we now know is that people are again going without health coverage and still believe it is important to address. Governing listed health insurance as the second top priority for states for 2018. An AP-NORC poll showed that healthcare is the #1 concern on domestic and economic issues.

What is missing is a push from the public to make it front and center to our expectations from our legislators. Not uncoincidentally, voters believe that their lawmakers won't get far with their priority this year as 72% believe the government won't make progress on this as the survey below shows.

As usual, as long as politics divide us, progress on the things that matter to people get side-stepped. In this less than optimistic time, it is important to note that when we join together on the things that we hold in common, stuff gets done. A popular catch phrase is "pick a lane" and we all need to do it around the issues we mostly agree on.

Trump Trumps Trump

Unless you were in a coma or other catatonic state, you are aware that our President threw his national intelligence agencies under the bus at the summit he had with Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. He also intimated that he felt like Russia was not involved in the 2016 election mess--comment that he has since walked back (while still claiming no collusion occurred between his campaign and the Russians.

Badmouthing is not a new thing for Trump. He seems to take great pleasure in calling his opponents all kinds of diminishing names. However, what is doing now is harmful to us, the American people. He is saying that the only authority you should trust is his. This is simply authoritarianism and not how representative democracy is supposed to work. Coupling this with his own party's inability or unwillingness to censure him in any way lends credibility to him and reduces trust in them as a countervailing force to executive overreach.

Add to this  the tax cuts made before the new year, the US government is going to borrow a $1,000,000,000,000 to pay the bills and support the programs that the budget is addressing. According to Fiscal Times, "the updated budget now includes a projected 2019 deficit of $1.085 trillion, up from $984 billion in February — and more than double the $526 billion the White House called for in its 2018 budget." The Chicago Tribune adds, "The U.S. Treasury expects to borrow $955 billion this fiscal year, according to a documents released Wednesday. It's the highest amount of borrowing in six years, and a big jump from the $519 billion the federal government borrowed last year."

Essentially, the idea that growth in the economic sector would take care of these tax cuts is proving to be a big, fat, lie. According to Market Watch, "the Treasury Department on Thursday said government receipts fell 7% in June compared with the same month a year earlier, including a 33% drop in gross corporate taxes. Individual withheld and payroll taxes were down 5% from June 2017, while non-withheld individual taxes rose by 7%."

Meanwhile, at least until the mid-term elections November, the Democrats are observers with little power to prevent these shady dealings from happening. As Edward R. Murrow once said, "Good Night and Good Luck."

Trump Nominates Originalist Judge

For years conservatives have framed progressive or liberal judges as "activist judges" and suggesting that they use their political views to form their judicial decisions. However, for the last 30 years or so, conservatives have been working an agenda that does exactly what they purport the other side does. In nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the conservative movement has reason for patting themselves on the back. Kavanaugh, a United States Circuit Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and a White House Staff Secretary under George W. Bush.  His confirmation hearings were contentious and stalled for three years over charges of partisanship. 

Where he stands in his words is "My judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must be independent and must interpret the law, not make the law. A judge must interpret statutes as written. And a judge must interpret the Constitution as written, informed by history and tradition and precedent.”  This puts him in the camp of the "strict Constitutionalists" or "Originalists."

Kavanaugh was part of Ken Starr's impeachment team against Bill Clinton and, according to Mother Jones,  "has so frequently inserted himself into high-profile political battles that during his confirmation hearing for his DC Circuit seat, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) called him the “Forrest Gump of Republican politics.”

For example, Kavanaugh represented former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush in his fight to overcome constitutional hurdles to his controversial school voucher program that would direct public money to private religious schools. In the 2000 election came down to Florida, he worked on George W. Bush’s legal team.

While these qualities will not endear him to many Democrats, it is his legal record that is of issue.

Kavanaugh, has been cagey around the issue of abortion. According to Wikipedia:

During his confirmation hearing in 2006 for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, Kavanaugh stated that he considered Roe v. Wade binding under the principle of stare decisis and would seek to uphold the ruling of the higher court. However, he also ruled in favor of abortion restrictions in several cases.

In May 2006, Kavanaugh stated he "would follow Roe v. Wade faithfully and fully" and that the issue of the legality of abortion has already "been decided by the Supreme Court". During the hearing, he stated that a right to an abortion has been found "many times", citing Planned Parenthood v. Casey. 

In October 2017, Kavanaugh joined an unsigned divided panel opinion which found that the Office of Refugee Resettlement could prevent an unaccompanied minor in its custody from obtaining an abortion. Days later, the en banc D.C. Circuit reversed that judgment, with Kavanaugh now dissenting. The D.C. Circuit's opinion was then itself vacated by the U.S. Supreme Court in Garza v. Hargan (2018).

He has also been a dissenting vote in preserving the Affordable Care Act,  In 2015, Kavanaugh found that those directly regulated by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) could challenge the constitutionality of its design

There is more to be learned about Brett Kavanaugh and his hearings will likely go on for awhile.

Addendum: On-going list of articles that shed further light on his judicial background.

Trump’s Supreme Court pick: ISPs have 1st Amendment right to block websites (added 7/11/18)
Trump’s Supreme Court Nominee Is a Major Net Neutrality Opponent (added 7/11/18)
Brett Kavanaugh Has GOP Bona Fides, But a Surprising Record (Added 7/11/18)
Here’s How Kavanaugh Could Deal a Big Blow to Gun Control (Added 7/11/18)
How Brett Kavanaugh Would Change The Supreme Court (Added 7/12/18)
Judge Brett Kavanaugh: In His Own Words (Added 7/12/18)
A look at Brett Kavanaugh's opinions on guns, abortion and the environment (Added 7/12/18)
America Under Brett Kavanaugh (Added 7/12/18)

Trump Putting Hardworking Americans He Hired Out of Work

No one said being POTUS would be easy, but by his 365th day as president, 34% of Donald Trump’s "A" Team staff quit, changed roles or were fired, this according to the Brookings Institution’s Katie Dunn Tenpas. That statistic has now climbed upwards past 43 percent.  According to the National Journal,  this is "more than double every other administration since 1981."

As a comparison, Barack Obama lost 9% of senior staffers by the end of his first year, George W. Bush lost 6% and Ronald Reagan had the previous record of 17%.In 2018 alone, 58 officials have left, changed roles, or were fired from the White House and Executive branch departments like the State Department and the DOJ,

     Added to this, Trump has already accepted the resignation of or fired 5 cabinet officials, Scott Pruit just the latest in a line. According to the New York Times "analysis of 21 top White House and cabinet positions back to President Bill Clinton’s first term shows how unusual the upheaval is through the first 14 months of a presidency. Nine of these positions have turned over at least once during the Trump administration, compared with three at the same point of the Clinton administration, two under President Barack Obama and one under President George W. Bush."

   Perhaps in other segments of service industry jobs, this would not seem so out of the ordinary, but in terms of other presidencies, this is without parallel. Perhaps someday there will be an accounting of the reasons why these rats are leaving or being told to leave a seemingly sinking ship.

What Would the Founding Fathers Say?

The United States has an interesting core values dilemma. We are a nation founded both on religious freedom and tolerance and yet we have locked up asylum-seekers and their children on our southern borders. As of today, the DOJ announced it needs more time to bring the children of asylum seekers and their parents back together despite being court ordered to do so by July 10th for children under 5 and by July 26th for older children. This despite compelling medication on several children in custody, forcing dozens of women to be paraded in front of the DHS head, keeping kids in detention centers that avoid state oversight, using DNA testing to ID children and their parents and keeping them in captivity for weeks. Many of these people are deeply religious and socially conservative by our standards.

While many churches are rightly vilifying our government for this inhumanity, the wheels of bureaucracy creak on.  This continued inhumanity is a black mark on our country and the indignities that these people face are reprehensible.

Contact your Senators and Representatives. You have a voice, use it.

Feel The Sun Burn

With thanks to the word warriors at the Merriam -Webster dictionary, I now know that we have entered into the canicular time of the year, that hot period in our hemisphere between now and early September (aka: the dog days of summer). It is fitting, politics are also heating up. Though likely to feel like a slow boil up to November,  Iowans and other voters throughout these United States will have the opportunity to "feel the burn" of at least two or more years of conservative policies that are mostly hurting average Americans through higher prices on fuel and items that will now be tariffed by our trading partners (creating job uncertainty/instability, by the way), policies that allow air and water quality to be severely compromised, education to be extremely under-funded, and local property and sales taxes and other "fees" for services to escalate.

   These lazy days of summer are creating discomfort for many people who want a sense of real relief from their state capitals and the chambers of DC (that  they are being told that they are getting), but are seeing little evidence that it is actually occurring. People don't want to play moral "Monopoly" and side with dishonest wheeler-dealers who lull them into thinking they are having a spa retreat when all that is happening is the water on the stove is being turned up incrementally until they and things boil over.

   While many people also are concerned about the mistreatment of immigrants and their families, they also made to worry about "bad" people crossing our borders. They want blue and black lives to matter. They want safer communities and more consistent, common-sense gun laws while also maintaining their right to self-protection. It is likely that with the heat of the summer, tempers may flare and fires of disparagement will be fanned for the sake of driving a wedge between people who are far more alike than not on many issues.

   Even those who wish to restore an America that others fear may be in the rear-view mirror recognize that we can't be great if our allies are uncertain of our goals and question our resolve to live up to our own agreements. It has never worked for one nation to wield so much clout without resistance being fomented. America, as most have known us, has been great because we have used our diplomatic power to broker more democracy in many parts of the world. Clearly we are in uncharted waters with a President whose foreign policy is undefinable and is so self-congratulatory in the face of nebulous results.

   The summer reminds us that while the other seasons bring cool relief to us, only it can bring the degree of discomfort to our entire being and also solace to our tired bones. We may enjoy the warming trend for a period of time, but it can also wear us out and lead us to into doldrums that only the coming of autumn coolness can bring.

   During my self-imposed vacation from social media, I have discovered that losing the voice of the echo chamber has been healthy, like a brief intense breeze on a summer day. It is important to hear each other out. We have seen what a lack of civility and unforgiveness can do to people. We have seen the real enemy; we live with ourselves. May cooler heads prevail in the months ahead, even as we fight for the future of our country. For this democracy to work, we have to make it work every day, with each person to be one nation indivisible. As the bumper-sticker says "We are the change we've been waiting for."

Coming Distractions-- Who Gets To Name The Next Supreme Court Justice?

To say that Judge Anthony Kennedy's resignation is a blow to the future of progressivism in the US for the next 20 years is to put it mildly. Because of the amount of laws and policies that end up being ruled on and over-ruled by SCOTUS, the next choice is likely to bend the court much further right than the more moderate on social issues Kennedy has allowed.

   With less than three months to decide who will have a majority of or retain the majority vote in the Senate and the House for the remainder of Trump's first (and hopefully only) term is anybody's guess. Of course it is in the interest of conservatives to name Kennedy's successor sooner than later and you will not need to be Nostradamus to guess how Republicans will be playing this. However, given the rulings handed down just this month, it is not in the interest of progressives to let that happen easily. But, since a super-majority is not required to approve a nomination nor to knock down a filibuster, it would seem that Republicans have all they need to do their worst.

   Aha! That is until you consider the Republicans who are retiring in January (Shout out to Jeff Flake and Bob Corker) who could exact revenge on a President with whom they have parted ways or an ailing John McCain who may not be up for a vote on a nominee. This would mean that an embattled Democrat like  Joe Manchin, Jon Tester, or Heidi Heitkamp would have to be pulled into the fracas and arm-twisted to go along with the Republicans. So it will be a drama to the end to see how cards are played and who ultimately wins or gets a stay of execution.

   Then it all gets real when, at best, the Democrats win the Senate and still have to negotiate with Trump for the Kennedy replacement. Or the President lives without the nominee knowing he has a deadlocked SCOTUS for the next two years and runs for re-election on the theme that Democrats are obstructionists. Or, the Republicans use the obstructionist angle now to attempt to win Senate seats outright and then name anybody that Trump or they desire.

   All this points to a challenging scenario wherein the blue line has to hold and the Democrats would need to run the table in November and again in 2020. This also points to a lot of dollars being spent trying to win the electorate over to the narrative each side will be promoting. Let the wedge issue framing games begin.  Note to Liberal SCOTUS members, please stay healthy.

Addendum: Over the weekend Senator Susan Collins said that an opponent of Roe v. Wade would be a deal breaker for her. Sen. Lisa Murkowski may also be in that camp. So there are a number of ways this could go past November.
1) Democrats hold, Murkowski and Collins join to block a nomination.
2) McCain, Flake, Corker  abstain from voting and nomination fails. Even if an embattled Democrat crosses over, the nomination fails.
3) Some combination of 1 and 2, the nomination fails.
4) The Senate leaves the SCOTUS with 8 justices through the lame duck session and Trump has to negotiate a moderate choice come January--if the Senate numbers hold or go slightly bluer.

Improvable Objects: Politics Not Sensitive to Concerns and Circumstance of People

Many years ago when I started this Blog, I thought about what to call it. At the time, I remember thinking about Paul Wellstone as he described what he believed politics should be about. He said, "A politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives, a politics that does not speak to and include people, is an intellectually arrogant politics that deserves to fail." A failure I recognized in pure progressive politics is that it does not always account for the differences that wealth and values create for people. Populism, it seemed to me was the missing piece. Giving the people what they agreed they needed seemed to be inherently important to the success of a progressive movement.

   As we know, the progressive left pushed a type of populism under Bernie Sander's leadership that came up a day late and many dollars short of capturing the Democratic Party's nomination. He spoke to the pain that poor and middle class Americans were experiencing, but was running against Hillary Clinton. Clinton, while not the most progressive Democrat was seen as the right woman for the job by many party faithful (particularly after Elizabeth Warren thought better of running against her). The "I'm with Her" bankrollers and supporters, with the success of Barack Obama breaking through the color barrier that served as the glass ceiling for African Americans, believed it was the time for women to do the same.
 
   What Democrats failed to see was the clapback that had been fomenting in the Age of Obama. Sure people were aware that angry people were saying and doing despicable things to showcase their bigotry, but conventional wisdom held that this was a relatively small group of disaffected people and that they were living life in the rear view window, living in America of their imagined past. Progressives and others dismissed these voices as they might anything they assessed as politically incorrect, as fodder for late night talk show monologues or assuring themselves that now that we had, in their estimation by electing Obama twice, accepted that "Black Lives Matter" as the new reality.

   What I and others did not count on was what would happen if populism came at us from the Conservative side of the yard. While we thought the Tea Party movement was "astroturf" as opposed to "grass roots" politics, it turns out that the righteous anger of unheard people could be turned into a type of populism/Nativism that found enough votes in the right places to elect Freedom Caucus members and eventually Donald Trump as our President.

   Paul Wellstone's voice reminds me that "intellectually arrogant politics that is not sensitive to the concerns and circumstances of people's lives...deserves to fail" is what generally what happens after the election. No matter which party wins. Before the election, people have been surveyed and focus-grouped to learn what will move them to vote this way or that.Then the communications are formed and framed around winning the vote--from the top of the ticket to the volunteer calling you at home. You, dear voter, are a fish to be caught in a net. In fact, if you vote early, that's even better, you are still in the net if the candidate says or does something stupid, like say what he or she really thinks.

But after the election, you are a form-letter recipient when the person who you elected does something that he or she told you they wouldn't. Because now, they don't work for you or even try that hard to represent you. Now, they work for special interest groups or self-interested groups. The most self-interested groups are the political parties that are trying to grab and maintain power and pulling the strings behind them are the business and issue groups who want to make sure their interests are properly looked after. There is a country club made up solely of elites and you and I are not invited.

   While those are politics Wellstone said "deserve to fail," the truth is that those politics fail us, not the practitioners of them. Hence a people-powered political base is the only possible solution to the poison in the well of politics. Not a small marginalized group of people, but a large, organized mob of people who realize they have been bamboozled by politics as usual and resort to politics that are unusual. They run for office independent of party bosses and win. Then they win some more. Until finally, the politics of the unusual become the usual politics when people see that their lives are improving by them.

   To be sure, the elite will not go quietly, they will use their resources and knowledge seeking to drive wedges into such a movement. But history tells us that if we have resolve and trust that we will win, even the most corrupting of forces will fail to hold sway against such an army of every day women and men.

    So, I hope you are finally getting a view of what I am seeing so clearly; politics where the "radicals" win is probably a better brand of politics for people when the only other options are supplication or bloody revolution. The radicals on the left and right share something very basic, these are people who want the power in the hands of the people versus the elite. Right or left, it is the same battle. Defeat the political elites and then a politics that is sensitive to the people is truly possible, both before and after the elections.

Lost Wages and Lost Perspective

On July 1, 2018, Johnson County would have enacted a $14.00 minimum wage. But, due to legislation passed in 2017, counties no longer have the authority to enact wage polices. Despite this, many businesses in Johnson County have held a $10.10 minimum wage in place as it was the going rate when the Johnson County Ordinance was in place.

According to the Corridor Business Journal, "Johnson County had a higher minimum wage than the state for 17 months, including three months when it was $10.10 per hour. Last year, the county's Minimum Wage Advisory Committee found that the  increase did not appear to hurt businesses - one suggested possible negative consequence. The committee also found the wage increase benefited low-wage workers, who saw a larger increase in their average weekly earnings."

 Sadly for workers in the area, Johnson County can only symbolically call for the raising of the minimum wage. The need for a higher minimum wage has not gone away. Remember that the state minimum wage is still $7.25 per hour and also remember this in November.

Sick Puppies Abusing Dogs in Iowa with No End in Sight

Iowa is a state that is known to be very lax where animal rights and protections are concerned. As the Quad-City Times reported recently, "Iowa has the third-most puppy mills in the country with 10. In total, Iowa has 260 licensed dog breeding facilities" and with it, groups trying to effect change in Iowa run up against pro-agriculture legislators who are unsympathetic and worse.

Again according to the Q-C Times:

"When the Animal Rescue League of Iowa proposed amendments to the state law that seeks to protect dogs and cats, Illinois law was their guide.

The amendments approved this year by the Iowa Senate would have increased penalties for crimes that sicken most Iowans. For those convicted more than once of abuse or neglect of a dog or cat, causing serious injury or death, the penalty would increase from an aggravated misdemeanor to the more serious class D felony.

For torturing a companion animal, a felony charge automatically would result. A second offense of torture would lead to a more serious felony.

But the bill didn't make it to the Iowa House. It was hijacked by House leadership and the powerful agriculture lobby."

In yesterday's The Daily Nonpareil, it was reported that a Council Bluff's area man was arrested and change with "36 counts of animal neglect — a simple misdemeanor — and four counts of animal neglect as a serious misdemeanor" when his breeding and training business was  reported to the Pottawattamie County Sheriff's Office. When officers arrived on the scene, their investigation revealed that at least 4 dogs were dead, the facilities were covered in feces and urine, and many of the dogs were malnourished. A total of 25 dogs and 13 puppies were removed and sheltered.

The owner of the kennel was released on a $20,000 bond. Each simple misdemeanor carries the possible sentence of up to 30 days in jail and a fine of up to $625. Each serious misdemeanor charge carries the possible sentence of up to a year in jail and a fine of up to $1,875.

This is the latest case in Iowa, it won't be the last. It is time for Iowa legislators to improve the inspection process and levy more severe charges against poor operators such as this one.

Fear and Loathing of Human Rights

In the latest blow toward America as arbiter of global human rights, the Trump Administration's Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, is expected to announce that the US is walking away from the UN Human Rights Council for alleged anti-Israel bias. At the same time, the US government is arresting asylum seekers and their children and interring them for an indeterminate period of time on our borders.

This march toward isolationism is directly attributable to the Trump Administration's nationalistic bent in which people who are not "patriotic" Americans, i.e., don't walk in lock step with Trump's ideology are to be dismissed or destroyed. Policies are replacing the rule of law to make this happen at an alarming rate.

The important thing to keep in mind is that we all need each other because we are all on planet earth.
There is a good reason that propaganda and wedge politics are so closely entwined, the goal is singular. For ideology to prevail, it must be seen as the only sensible game in town. If we allow our own government to dismiss the world community, people seeking asylum, or even our own citizens to be dismissed, democracy has ceded to demagoguery. God save us all if our shared humanity fails us.

Updated: The US has now officially withdrawn from the U.N. Human Rights Council, Haley "saying the group should make it easier to expel states with poor human rights records. She said the U.S. withdrawal came after the desired reforms were not fulfilled.

“We take this step because our commitment does not allow us to remain a part of a hypocritical and self-serving organization that makes a mockery of human rights,” she said, adding that the U.S. would be “happy” to rejoin the council if it is reformed."

John Bolton added this morning via The Hill:

“Getting off the U.N. Human Rights Council is an assertion of American determination to stick by its Constitution and not to recognize that there is some higher authority at the U.N., whether it is the Council or the High Commissioner for Human Rights, to judge our performance or to give us advice on how to implement the Constitution,” Bolton told "Fox and Friends."

“We’re perfectly capable of doing that ourselves. We make our share of mistakes and we correct our mistakes. That’s what this is about, self-governance,” Bolton added.

Editor's note: How conspicuously contradictory is this move in light of separating immigrant/asylum seeking children from their parents and interring them in Texas and other places?