The Petty and the Bitter

2016 to present has been a good time for the petty and the bitter. One look at the White House and those who staff it is proof enough, but when you add the voting block that made the Trump ascendency possible, you realize that there are many who have felt butt-hurt and looked for a champion of their concerns. For some, it was the feeling that equity and equal should mean the same thing and they didn't like that their perceived seat at the table sometimes went to people who had never had a chair, let alone a seat. Then there were those who believe that that American Exceptionalism meant they were exceptional and therefore should not be held to any of the rules and regs that the rest of us accept as part of our social contract with America.

But it also appears that whether you are known or unknown, pettiness and bitterness have overtaken the dialogue to the point that we cannot hear each other where larger grievances do apply. I believe that if you have been sexually assaulted and you have an angry grievance around that which society has historically been lily-livered to address, this should be the exact time to be heard. We have a political leader who was elected under a constant swirl of braggadocio in this area. We have seen men in positions of power and authority rightfully going down the drain for equally horrible and provable things. However, in conversation, men are feeling targeted for far lesser offenses including bad comic timing, i.e. things said to friends in jest, or growing up in a different point in time and (gasp) not being those same people anymore. I am not at all saying that #metoo and other righteous organizers are not correct in their grievances--because they are. I'm also saying that when we resort to dichotomies which are unempathetic and unforgiving, we give up the space for reconciliation.

Because we live in both a top/down and a grassroots "speak truth to power" version of democracy, the messages we hear are sort of set up to be rife with conflict. In a dialogue that intends to be resolution seeking, we have space both for speaking and active listening. At a bare minimum, the result should be a clear understanding of the issues at hand and a feeling of empathy, no matter how we may personally sit on the subject. We are not there at this time and it may take several years to understand how dysfunctional the American family has become.

Suffice to say, for now, agitation is likely to bring the worse out in us, left, right, and center unless we conclude that reconciliation on a big picture or even an international level is a goal worth working toward. We are all butt-hurt snowflakes on all sides of the political divide, maybe that is one thing to which we all can agree?

Not So Rosy for Pelosi?

Barring Iran's nuclear program becoming super robust in the next 6 months, the Democrats stand a fairly good chance of winning back the House in November. What could hurt their chances? A certain lightning rod many-term and former House leader by the name of Nancy Pelosi. Pelosi, who for some Democrats is too much to bear anyway, does herself no good when caught in an unguarded moment says things like the tax cuts are "crumbs" to taxpayers. With Paul Ryan about to step off, the Democrats might be smart in doing the same in their leadership role. Nancy Pelosi has accomplished much in her time in Congress, but it is also true that under her leadership the Democrats have been not held the gavel since 2011. At a time when the Democrats could and possibly should be open to a fresher face, Pelosi has already gone full Charlton Heston and essentially saying that the gavel would have to be pulled out of her cold, dead hand in choosing to run for the seat if the Dems win in November.

Clearly, there are other Democrats who could do the job, but Pelosi is an easy target for Republicans to go after in trying to minimize the hemorrhaging that they are likely to experience with the high number of retirements which they have to look forward. If I were a Democratic candidate, I would be tempted to take a page out of the special election wins and put distance between myself and the old guard. As Nancy Pelosi said, "I think if they have to do that to win an election ... I'm all for winning," 

Consequences Have Elections

Barack Obama and Scott Walker have something in common. Both famously declared that "Elections have consequences" as they enacted policies that proved to be politically highly-charged. Conversely, those consequences often set the frame for the next election. In Iowa, Republicans benefited from the Red wave brought in with Trump at the helm and with the ALEC  playbook firmly in hand, they have decimated workers rights, reduced the impact of state regulatory agencies, privatized Medicaid, closed mental health facilities, turned Iowa into a 17 county/river-to-river oil pipeline state, and most recently gave t the most stringent abortion laws in the country. From their perspective, Heckuva job, Brownie, and "Mission Accomplished."

Iowa has also gone from having an elected governor to having two appointed acting executives in Kim Reynolds and Adam Gregg. With the Iowa House and Senate in firm control of the Republicans, they have had carte blanche to go to town on tax cuts and other pro-business agenda items, extending gun rights, adding to the pro-life agenda, and walking all over state employees' rights to organize and negotiate contracts. Under the Reynolds/Gregg regime with have seen a full-court press to showcase all the wonder job opportunities in Iowa, while simultaneously under-funding schools, universities, and, now, making the state medical school a back-up because of the 6-week abortion rule, essentially making practicing the full gamut of OB/GYN an impossibility because of liability issues.

They have made it impossible for counties to decide what the wages should be in their area, they have made it more likely that property taxes will go up around the state to make up for the tax breaks that they just passed through despite not having the funds to pay the state's current bills. They have made it such that persons with disabilities are unable to get needed support services thanks to a lack of not-for-profit insurance providers.

In the words of Professor Harold Hill, "We've got trouble, my friends, right here in River City." With the state Democrats needing desperately to get their house in order and multiple candidates vying for state offices including  6 candidates running for Governor including two women (Cathy Glasson and Andy McGuire) , one African American candidate (my city's former mayor, Ross Wilburn) and three White guys (Nate Boulton, Fred Hubbell, John Norris).  All of them are running with plans to publically-fund Medicare, improve schools, improve mental health, protect women's' right to choose, increase the minimum wage, restore the union worker right to collective bargaining. Of course, the question will be who stands the best chance to defeat Reynolds/Gregg. I would suggest that the best-organized campaigns at this time appear to be Glasson, Boulton, and Hubbell, with Norris peaking interest among those wanting a voice that scrapes votes out in the rural areas. Polling in late January showed that Boulton and Hubbell polled the best against Reynolds, but still lag her by 4-5%.

By mid-June, when the primaries take place. it will require that one of the six candidates is able to break the 35% threshold or the party nomination will go to a statewide convention. At that point, it would be up to party insider arm-twisting and gnashing of teeth. All of which would lead to some people wanting to go away mad. But hold the phone, the one thing Team Blue needs to do is unify to wrest away control of the Governor's office and hope that also rubs off on the House and Senate races, as well as the down ticket offices for Auditor, Secretary of State, Agriculture, and so on.

They have got their work cut out for them and will need help from those folks who can knock on doors, drive people to the polls, and so forth. It will be important that the Democrats seize on the fact that while their opponent wears the crown, it was handed to her, not earned.

Why Popular Progressive - Redux?

When I started Popular Progressive in 2006, it began with these words:

"Mainly, I wanted to create a blog that is open to disagreement, even within the friendly confines of "progressives"--because I don't think we all agree what that means.

I believe "Progressive" is making conscious choices that improve the lives of people and considers both the intended consequences (and the unintended consequences) of decisions that affect us now and our children down the road. I define these choices in terms of social, economic, and personal. Specifically, I define progressive issues around sustainable policy, that is fair to those affected by it, and results in fiscal and moral/ethical responsible outcomes."

After a significant hiatus and moving on to social media platforms that I found to be limiting, I discovered that I had a desire to fire up the old Victrola and go at it again. In these divisive times, I wanted to offer this platform for thoughtful posting and commentary.

As I said back then, "Progressive Politics has a ways to go to become "mainstream", but it will only happen if we can present our ideas and plans to people in ways they can understand. In other words, we have to make our case AND learn what the needs are of people that are not being met in today's political environment." Clearly, we have a Conservative Populist in office, in part because he promised things that enough voters agreed with that he won the Electoral College. I think it is fair to say that we could have done better.

When I started this blog, I voiced what I thought was wrong "about how political parties work:

1) People are not valued for what they can contribute to political discourse, but for what they CONTRIBUTE $.
2) Political parties do not reach out to constituencies that REALLY need political clout (e.g., the poor)
3.) Political parties build leadership through attrition--Darwinian "survival of the fittest" mentality.
4.) Political parties do not know how to "play nice"--that is make your point versus the opposition, but don't go to the lowest common denominator to do it.
5.) They mostly work by instilling fear about the alternatives.
6.) Political parties do not generally match people to their talents effectively.

I know I left some other things out and now would add:

- Political Party upper-tier leaders are in it to win it, no matter what and are no more democratic than crime families. Rulemakers run the show.
- Political parties are always using the grassroots to shore up the ruling class. You need bodies to run campaigns and therefore it is in a party's best interest to have a lot of competition at the primary level and rally the troops at the general election, as long as the grassroots go along.

Now, more than ever, we need to be aware of how poisonous politics can become on the electoral side and how much it can be changed on the advocacy side. I am hopeful in attaching the jumper cables to this blog, that I can resume a dialogue that I started 12 years ago. Because I think the true patriot is not the one who solely waves the flag and declares his or her pledge of allegiance, but calls out B.S. and doesn't lose faith in the prospect that we can continually form a more perfect Union. I don't disagree with the idea that we can make (or continue to make) America great, but need to improve the methods and mechanisms that can make it so.

I'd love to know what you are thinking about these days. In the mean time, thanks for reading this and welcome to (or back to) Popular Progressive - Redux.

Iowa Acting Governor Kim Reynolds Signs Most Restrictive Abortion Law in Nation

Moments ago, Iowa's governor signed legislation, according to USA Today, "prohibiting nearly all abortions in the state after a fetal heartbeat is detected, making it the most restrictive abortion ban in the nation."

Planned Parenthood for the Heartland will file a lawsuit to stop its implementation. As quoted in the USA Today article, “It’s shameful that when Planned Parenthood heard lawmakers were introducing legislation to ban abortion, we were outraged — but we weren’t surprised," said Suzanna de Baca, president and chief executive officer of Planned Parenthood of the Heartland. "But I think many of us still never expected that Governor Reynolds would so swiftly jump to sign a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional."

Iowa law has barred most abortions after 20 weeks under legislation enacted last year. This, in addition to cutting off funding centers for family planning, is creating a toxic environment for women who are lower income and have limited access to healthcare choices as is.

While not unexpected under the Republican-dominated legislature, the ramifications may be widespread in terms of unwanted children and exacerbating resources that are already lacking adequate funding.

Reflection Leading Up to Elections of 2018

On November 6, 2016, I wrote: "This [run up to the] election has been at times ugly, it has been divisive, and it has been exacerbated by sexism, classism, and racism and to a large degree, the opposing candidate has turned it to his favor in a P.T. Barnum sort of way. But when I think of what is at stake with regard to the Supreme Court justice choice, attending to the worsening global environment both in terms of war and climate change, the need to have a leader who can orchestrate a working government, to address health and social safety nets, in addition to attending to social justice and immigration reform issues, and it is abundantly clear that the two parties see very different paths forward.  Both candidates promise to right the economy and have very different plans to do so. It should also be clear that one of these candidates deserves the benefit of the doubt.  My chief worry is that it is being awarded to the wrong person."

The benefit of the doubt came and went. Despite the popular vote going to Hillary Clinton, the Electoral College added up to a win for Donald Trump. My chief worries, as it turned out were justified and then some.

As of today, the FBI has tapped the phone of President Trump's personal lawyer. The President apparently repaid Michael Cohen for a nondisclosure agreement with actress/porn star Stormy Daniels, a charge he has denied on multiple occasions. And this is more important to the average American than the possible withdrawal from a nuclear agreement with Iran, the fact that the EPA and other agencies have been repealing safeguards that further damage the environment and leave gaping holes in the social safety net. This is more important than whether the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians. More important than the 20+ million people who lost their healthcare coverage. Not mention the worsening of US policy were immigration is concerned and the hostage-taking of DREAMers to drive tax and health care "reforms" through.

So far the bright spot in the narrative I feared is that the Supreme Court Justice nominated by Trump, Neil Gorsuch, is not as horrible as expected. So far.

The things I couldn't have foreseen, North Korea getting its nukes on, blowing up their facilities, and suddenly making nice to South Korea; a large number of Republicans retiring or being forced to retire due to sexual harassment or worse; Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern states jumping into the fray; a couple of hurricanes that made things incredibly miserable for Puerto Ricans; and a revolving door at the White House the likes of which has not been seen since the Teapot Dome Scandal (look it up). The flare-ups around racism and sexism, while not 100% surprising, have nonetheless been nothing less than earthshaking.

On the other side of the coin, the Koreas are talking to each other, high school kids are driving a movement to bring something resembling sense to gun laws (and the jury is very much out on how that will go); the economy in terms of jobs is looking good. The biggest thing is that it may be a November to remember for progressives Democrats as the House may flip back to their control. Sadly, the Senate is not likely to do the same short of a complete rejection of the Republican party in their strongholds. More importantly, with many Governorships up for grabs, 7 to 12 R held offices could be flipped to D and some state legislatures as well.

The Trump effect, it would appear is more of a boomerang effect than a long-term trend. However, the lesson from 2016, do not count any chickens as a sure thing and GOTV. 

What Happened?

So let's say you are on an airplane and you are not really a big fan of air travel--maybe you've had one too many bad flight experiences in the past. You look outside the window and notice what appears to be smoke coming from one of the engines. You hit the call button and summon over the flight attendant and he or she says I'll let the captain know. Over the loudspeakers you hear:  "Ladies and Gentleman, this is your captain speaking, the smoke that you are seeing is not a serious problem. We'll be at our destination shortly. Please sit back, relax, and enjoy the rest of the flight. Thank you." And yet, you see more smoke and so does everyone around you.

Now, let's rewind the tape and try again. You summon the flight attendant and this time when they tell the captain what you've seen, the captain comes on and says "This is the captain speaking, our plane is on fire and I will need to emergency land it immediately. Make sure your seat belts are really tight, tuck yourselves down, and I promise you I'll make sure you get out of this alive because I am the best, most skilled  pilot ever!"

Which pilot would you like at the helm in that harrowing example? Probably the one who has a plan and promises you will not die, right? Now imagine that this plane is the USA and the pilots were Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump and the passengers are the American public. That may sound extreme, but let me continue.

This election happened in what feels like very tumultuous times both here and abroad. Many people are uncertain of the future for themselves and their families. Wanting to latch on to a sense of security and someone who made them believe they'll be safe seems to be the most important factor of how this election went. Being plain spoken versus  high-minded or even gracious was not a factor, but wanting the pain a large group of voters seem to be experiencing and to be heard and feeling that political insiders had rigged things against us certainly were. Perhaps it was the threat of more change was too much for those of us who are trying to keep our heads above water or fearful of people whose culture and values differ from the majority culture. Maybe we have become too isolated and insulated from others thanks to our technologies and class separations. All I know is we could be asking why we are so polarized for a long time to come and fear what will happen next in the uncertainty that accompanies that understanding.

One thing that I have concluded is that while a number of people believe that the government does not work for them, they chose a leader who believes he, as the head of the government, can make us great again. I don't know how to reconcile this incongruity, but I would ask all of us to recall that America's greatness or lack thereof is in the thoughts and actions of all of us. If greatness is the goal, we have to be responsible and act in a way that lifts us up as a nation. Maybe our own insecurity in acting to be better people is what happened? In which case, "We, the People", are both the problem and the cure. 

This Election: Earning the Benefit of the Doubt

When I was growing up, I didn't always obey my parents' wishes. Being raised in the Jewish faith, the rites of manhood are a big deal. However, I was a natural born skeptic and when I was just about thirteen, I threw my Bar Mitzvah study materials down a convenient storm sewer and joined the Baptists to play Little League that summer. I felt that manhood could wait until I was ready for it. My Mother, to her credit, did not blow a gasket and let me do what I wanted to do. She was like that. She often gave me the benefit of the doubt, regardless of how it made her feel. In 2008, we as a nation did that for a junior Senator from Illinois and again in 2012. In 2016, despite the acknowledged governance experience deficit between Hillary Clinton and her opponent, we--in Iowa any way--are currently bending the benefit of the doubt toward him. Why, I wonder?

I find it highly unlikely it is because of her deficit of "honesty" compared to her opponent who by some measures of fact checkers has told untruths upwards of 75 to 90% of the time on the issues. I doubt it is because a "leadership gap", Hillary has served as Secretary of  State, as Senator from New York, and as First Ladies of the United States and Arkansas. She was even the Senior class speaker at Wellesley and took on a seated Senator in her remarks to her graduating class. Her opponent has run a privately held family business and that is about it. I doubt it is because of her charisma or personality. We had  "Silent Cal" Calvin Coolidge who chose not to run after a term and nobody cared, as well as Millard Fillmore who ascended when Zachary Taylor died and of whom a Yale history professor quipped that “to discuss…Millard Fillmore is to overrate [him].”

What I think is that she is simultaneously a powerfully polarizing, and popular figure (and recognized as such year after year in public opinion polls) and also a seasoned politician (which in this climate is not necessarily seen as a plus). The latter makes her seem less than authentic and the former is challenging to a binary thinking nation. Why else would an apparently narcissistic, inexperienced candidate have the tailwind that her opponent does? Some say that she is overly political and has not been accountable for actions that she has taken. Yet, when those acts are judged against her peers (e.g., attacks on U.S. Embassies or unprotected mail servers), her record is certainly better than most others in the positions she's held. Other have tried to treat her affiliations as indictments on her character, yet won't apply the same rules to her opponent when it comes to his tax records or business practices. They do not treat his record or statements made against men or women as anything more than "guy talk." This tells me that a double standard is in place and it is frankly sexist.

This election has been at times ugly, it has been divisive, and it has been exacerbated by sexism, classism, and racism and to a large degree, the opposing candidate has turned it to his favor in a P.T. Barnum sort of way. But when I think of what is at stake with regard to the Supreme Court justice choice, attending to the worsening global environment both in terms of war and climate change, the need to have a leader who can orchestrate a working government, to address health and social safety nets, in addition to attending to social justice and immigration reform issues, and it is abundantly clear that the two parties see very different paths forward.  Both candidates promise to right the economy and have very different plans to do so. It should also be clear that one of these candidates deserves the benefit of the doubt.  My chief worry is that it is being awarded to the wrong person.

Truth in advertising tells me that I must confess that my original choice for President was Bernie Sanders and I was very downhearted when it became clear that he was not going to be either the Democratic candidate nor going to run independently. I struggled with my doubts about Hillary Clinton's willingness to take on the Big Banks, to fight against big money in politics, and other things that Bernie so strongly campaigned. And I thought about whether I was being fair in my assessment of Hillary, going as far as doing a side by side comparison of where she and Jill Stein and even Gary Johnson stood on my most important issues. I added to my mix the likelihood there would be enough votes to elect whomever I would choose and I realized that while Jill Stein was 2% more aligned with my ideology, the fact that she was not on all the states' ballots disqualified her for me, knowing that she would not be able to amass enough electoral votes. I also considered that in Iowa, as tight as the race has been, my vote--if nothing more than a protest vote-- would likely have a double whammy effect that I was unwilling to allow. So, despite my trepidation and less than full-throated enthusiasm, Hillary Clinton's record and stated positions have caused me to give her the benefit of my doubt.

In my case, trading in Hebrew books for a baseball mitt did not lead to either moral decay or a stellar baseball career. However, what my Mom's belief in me making decisions for myself instilled a sense of fierce independence and an ability to trust my choices. I have already voted and, in a small way, I hope I have partially paid back a long overdue debt to my Mom who passed away last year by casting my vote for Hillary Clinton--despite the doubts I have, I have no doubt that she is the best choice. I will forever feel the Bern, but there is no doubt I'm with Her now.

Iowa City: City of Tomorrow--Today?

With the construction cranes whirling about in the skies near downtown and the earth movers and construction barrels on Dubuque street, you'd have to be both blind and deaf to not notice the growth and renovation occurring in our Iowa River city/town center. It seems that with anything that people find value in and with apologies to W.P. Kinsella, if they come, we will build it. And that is not necessarily a bad thing. How we grow, though is open for discussion and has serious repercussions.

As with all places, people cannot agree on what constitutes good growth. For instance, in the free market world, all growth is good and any attempt to control that growth is sacrilege. For people of social conscience, growth that creates more equity is desired and believes the levers of government should be used to accommodate that.  People craving environmental justice believe that growth that uses more inputs or does not encourage reuse, recycling, and reducing is an unsustainable model and also believe that policy and law should be used in making decisions. And, of course, there are moderations between all of the mindsets. Still, how would you like to be the City Council who has to address those concerns around growth?

So first, it is important to articulate the priorities around growth so that at least we can understand how decisions might or should be made. For instance, if the environment is given top priority, what does that mean to social equity or to unrestricted growth concerns? If growth for growth sake is the rule, what does that mean to the other concerns. If social equity is top-listed, what does that mean to the other philosophies? This is why commissions and boards were created. Ostensibly, they are intended to do the deep thinking that supports decisions that are best for all concerned. However, as these boards are political appointments, they can be swayed to favor certain ideas over others.

To that end, should boards be required to be balanced? Should representatives from the "big 3" interest areas be appointed, as opposed of the x number of applicants? I'd say that is more important than other factors such as gender or racial balance (albeit, worthwhile goals). The more the debate is inclusive of opposing mindsets, the more likely a compromise can be reached that will be less optimal for the special interest and more so for the whole. The city council can choose to implement such an agenda or it can be crafted into the City Charter.

But what else? Typically the city makes changes to master planning documents on 10 year cycles. The public and others are invited to make input to the process. However, this also means that there are prolonged periods when the master plan is static. Would it be better to have a plan that is like moving pieces around a chess board. What I mean is say an environmental goal of the city is to reduce its carbon footprint by 20% by 2030, does this require every project developed to find ways to do this or treat it as a cumulative result. If projects 1 to 10 put the city on a trajectory to reduce the footprint by 1%, could that mean that the remaining projects must make up the remaining 19%?  Policy would help to determine this. Good policy, in this case, rewards good actors and reduces the bad ones.

What if plans submitted for consideration were required to address the priorities that the city has identified as essential for its residents. If a city RFP stated clearly what the environmental, social equity, and growth goals are and the projects submitted would be awarded on that basis? Or better, incentives were laid out with the goal of meeting those goals -- 100% for each project?

Currently, there are organized forces that want things their way with limited intrusiveness and those who want to build a dreamscape without regarding the needs of right now. Surely there is a way to marry these ideas in a way that everyone involved is equally annoyed, not with each other, but with the limits of democracy and technology.

The Bern Doesn't Go Away

I have been a proud Bernie Sanders supporter since 2008 when I first heard him make the case that the Billionaire class had to be stopped. I became a supporter for his candidacy in 2015 when he made an impromptu stop at an event that was being held in the basement of the then Unitarian Universalist church building in Iowa City. He said very few words, but he let us know that what we were doing mattered. Later in the spring, at the request of Rod Sullivan, a county supervisor and long time political friend, I volunteered for the kickoff event here at the Robert A. Lee Recreation Center where Sen. Sanders spoke to an overflow crowd. I thought to myself, a balding Jewish guy, is there something that I don't know about the American taste in men? To say I was shocked at the turnout and the subsequent "political revolution" is to put it mildly.

Fast forward to last night's speech where he called on us to back Hillary Clinton and VP nominee Tim Kaine. Like most Sanders supporters, I was conflicted. I mean the DNC had been undermining his campaign, there have been reports of voter fraud, and loads of other accusations, some proven, some supposition. And I'm angry about those things. But, and it is a big "but", Sanders spoke to my heart last night and more so to my head. As he has said innumerable times, this campaign was never about him, but for what we wanted from our government. He instilled the idea that a political revolution was the only thing that would change things--and categorically, he is right. But, just as revolutions don't succeed just because you declare them, they must be fought on the landscape on which they are drawn. That is to say, to change politics, we need to fight both from the inside and the outside. And that is what Sanders and his supporters have done best. The Democratic Platform is the most progressive one of all time because Berners were working with Clinton supporters to make it. Perfect? No, far from it--but improved!

To all of us I say, keep fighting!

So where do we go from here? We take a deep breath, we remember what the stakes are, and then we vote, if our conscience and logic allow, for Hillary Clinton. Not carte blanche, but with the understanding that if she succeeds, we have a chance to succeed. From the inside, we can push the agenda that Bernie ran on and has been fighting for his whole political career. We remember that politics change when the players in them change. Hillary Clinton is seen as the ultimate insider--First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State and, for most anyone else, that would be a ticket to the White House. But there is something different going on here. And this is what I most want to talk about.

We have been generous to a fault to men in public office who have been less than honest, less than faithful to others and their offices, and less than--period. In my lifetime, I watched my mother go from being a suburban housewife with the expectations that accompanied that, to the primary breadwinner of our household. I saw how hard she worked to make sure none of her children were wanting. In fairness, my parents were divorced and my father paid alimony, but it was not enough to put a roof over our heads, to clothe us, or to make sure we could go to college. My mother made that happen.

I watched my mother work as a realtor because the jobs she might rather have would not have afforded her the ability to earn what she was capable of--and even then, I watched her passed over for opportunities that were afforded men in her walk of life. Good enough to help her broker-bosses do very well for themselves, but not good enough! But my mother was not a complainer--she went to work everyday with the single-mindedness that even if she didn't matter to those she worked for, she damn well was going to matter to her kids, her friends, and her community. And she did!

My mother passed away last October. We packed away her belongings: her name tags from her various employers, her many awards for sales--all the trinkets of her life's work. She didn't love politics, but she was a lifelong Democrat, but not a joiner. She was very much a woman of her time--one part Cosmopolitan Magazine/Virginia Slims "you've come a long way, baby" and one part traditional mother figure who loved to bake brownies and make jello. But she was tough as they came.

I don't know what she would think about a woman as President; her memory was pretty shot by the end of her life, so I'll never know. But I think she would be proud that a woman who believes as she did that you should earn your own way, not blame others for the difficulties you have, and believe that as long as you could make sure your kids were okay, you'd be doing okay-- would be all right with her. I know, like her son, she'd likely not agree with everything Hillary Clinton did or does. She loved reading the Sunday paper and comment on something she was reading, the news of the world mattered to her. She was amazed when Barack Obama was elected. She called him the new JFK--and I know she loved Kennedy because in her desk drawer for years she kept the Chicago Tribune that reported his assassination. She wanted things to be better.

Bernie Sanders spoke to my heart, the same way that I think Hillary Clinton speaks to the hearts of many and specifically women and men whose lives have been shaped by the women in theirs. Electing her and more women in political offices across the world is a gigantic leap toward that may change politics forever. That is a huge weight and responsibility, but I've seen how, first hand, the desire to make a difference in your lifetime a woman could do that for her kids. Imagine what we could do for the children of our nation if we gave in to hope and pragmatic change that makes hope turn into reality?

I honestly believe that the political revolution lives on, how could it not with millions of Berners out there wanting to keep the fight going? However, I hope there is another voice that comes up, as it has for me-- that says: "there is a way forward and we must put aside our disappointment in the moment to have that future we may all believe in." Supporting Hillary Clinton, imperfect though she may be, is, in my estimation, the best way forward.

The Day After Memorial Day

The article said: "Have you remembered the soldiers who gave all?" And I had to think about that. Had I?

Then I remembered a passing instant when I looked at the bedraggled Marine Corps flag of my neighbor, Jack Royston, who died without ceremony at 93 a month ago and said, "Thanks for everything, Jack."

   But my thanks was for the life not given in war, but for the life lived as a husband, as a neighbor, and a father, and as a grandparent. It was thanks for the decency and struggle he lived his life; for building his own house as he could afford to do it. It was for his shirtless lawnmowing perched atop a John Deere mower which was as regular as any clock.

   For the many midnight calls by the county to assist his wife and take her to the hospital and the lights on in his kitchen that followed. It was for the way he carried himself with dignity whether it was on hobbled knee or pushing his trash can to the curb.

   I thanked him for the friendly waves and loud "halloos" from his doorstoop while collecting his morning paper. It was for the tour of his home-made woodshop and his stories of The Old Soldier's Home in Dayton, the city we had in common.

   He was a "desk jockey" during WWII and was glad for that. He was lucky to marry the girl of his dreams and make Iowa City his home for most of his life. To be able to make children's furniture and raise money through a charity golf tournament.

   Thanks for everything, Jack. A life lived in service to others is also a life to be remembered. After 93 years, Jack truly did give all.

The Race to the Finish Should Lead to Philly

I was a mediocre runner back in the day, but even I understood the importance of running full-tilt to the end. Things happen, people drop out, get injured, find a second or third wind. So I understand why Bernie Sanders is neither dropping out or "phoning it in" at this time despite the rumblings. 900+ delegates have not been decided, the news about the State Department email issue has not made then Secretary Clinton look good, the polls in California have tightened, etc. And yet, some dyed-in-the-wool Ds are saying, "Wrap it up, Bernie. You made your point, but enough is enough."

    And I appreciate that viewpoint too. People have been under-estimating the Trump campaign in both parties and it is evident that the more free press he gets, the more the worry of a Trump Presidency becomes a real concern and hard to throw money at. Both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders polling numbers show that in a head to head competition, they can win, but at the moment, it depends on which numbers you look at and whether you believe that they will hold currency when November rolls around.

    For that reason alone, I say let the Democrats play this out to the conclusion and see what happens between the end of the primaries and the Convention in Philly. There are a lot of cards to be played, not the least of which is unifying a fairly frayed party. I firmly believe that the Democrats who are accused of having to love their candidate, can still fall squarely in like with whomever is selection. But how this happens depends on some factors, for instance:

1) The role of the DNC at the convention. Clearly there is a rift between party Centrists and the left-leaning wing that Sanders seems to have built up. Debbie Wasserman Schultz is a lightening rod for a significant number of party members, but she has also be the spokesperson for the party. If it is seen that she is being thrown under the bus for unity and Chuck Schumer replaces her as scheduled, then things may not go well for Sen. Schumer, who is seen as another Clinton surrogate. On the other hand, if it becomes a battle royale between a Sanders leaner and Sen. Schumer, that doesn't help either.

2) If he does not win the nomination, significant face time for Bernie at the Convention and his tone in using his time will be closely scrutinized. If he begrudgingly is conciliatory or, as he has promised, backs Hillary Clinton fully and encouraging his followers to do as well, it will help. Likely as not, those who closely follow Sanders will join him, even though some younger or more skeptical may see him as then bought and paid for, if he does toe the line.

3) Choice of running mate by Clinton or Sanders will be important. It is not very likely nor advantageous for the eventual candidate to choose his or her rival. A fresh face or a highly esteemed neutral party will likely needed to change the conversation. There are lots of names bandied about, but if it is Sanders, he'll need either a progressive who is seen positively by Clinton's supporters and vice-versa for Clinton should she chose a more moderate running mate.

4) Focus on the prize. Whoever the next president may be, she or he will be naming at least one member, but possibly two or three more in their term. With a fractured military and unfocused foreign policy goals, a coherent policy must be constructed. And on top of that, living up to campaign promises will, be "yuge." Donald Trump in some ways is the least of their worries, but in the immediate space, must be dismantled in a unified way, but that will become more difficult as alliances on the R side are better formed.

There is not a real other option for the Democrats in terms of timeline. The will have to slog it out and get their house in order both in the backroom and in public at their Convention in Philadelphia. It won't likely be very pretty, but thankfully the finish line stretches further than November.
   

Son of Popular Progressive

In 2013, I discontinued writing this blog. Then I learned that someone "spammed" the blog and people were not able to read my old posts, not even me. So, I did the only thing I could, I retrieved the blog and, like Dr. Frankenstein, I am bringing it back to life!

There has been a lot of good that has happened for the Progressives (both popular and otherwise). I intend to focus on the primaries and reconnect with old friends who never stopped blogging. If you are interested in following along, please do. Feel free to comment. Since I do moderate the comment section, please know that I believe in respectful (but humor is welcome) dialogue.

Concluding on the Frankenstein theme. There are some monstrous things going on out there, the least we can do is point them out and offer a better/different way to think about them. And with that, so long for now. Content will be coming.

Want Representation? Progressive Voters Need to Show Up in Iowa City

There is an important City Election around the corner and, for some, it is already "over"--they've early voted. But for the rest of us, we have until  Tuesday Nov. 5th at 8 pm to vote. And why should you?

In the last 4 years, we have seen more changes to city ordinances that affect the civil rights of people in our community than in the past. Why should that be a concern to you? Because it will cost all of us in the long run, either in the resources for collecting of petty fines, the addition of police officers, or in the constant cash flow to downtown businesses being seen as a unfriendly place to go and yet always with a hand out to "create" business.

Our current city council is truly downtown business-centric and, in their actions, they think whatever is good for downtown business is good for the city. In the meantime, the businesses on the east, southeast, and west sides of town are struggling. In part, it is because of years of representation of the core, largely to the exclusion  of the outlying areas of town. With 33 neighborhood associations, it is clear that residents here value other parts of town than just the hub.

However, to have a voice that advocates for outside of downtown, we have to elect people who understand the needs and have a desire to strengthen all parts of the town so that jobs can be created closer to where they live, shop, and where their children go to school.

Now that downtown has its own taxing entity, it should mean that other resources are freed up to assist the outlying neighborhoods to make improvements without all the TIF funding. And there has been some movement in that direction. However, they are for mostly to improve walk-in medical facilities that had fallen to disrepair by a large landlord rather than for affordable housing, child care facilities, and other needed services that people value.

Further, our city needs to continue finding ways to grow sustainably, improve bikeable and walkable and public transportation features so that the number of cars on the roadway can decline over time. Building on a more compact footprint should create economies in some cases, but has not proven so in the core of the city. Therefore, it is incumbent that in other parts of town, smaller communities within the community need to have the basic shops, housing, and other resources so that we have a city that can support all kinds of workers, not just those with higher incomes. When people have to spend more than 35-40% of their wages on housing, they can't afford other necessities or to save money to invest in themselves or their community. Affordable housing near work, schools, and shops allows a person to be less dependent on owning a car and more likely to be stable in their home.

There are three people running for the City Council who understand the needs of a diverse and vibrant community. They are Royceann Porter, Kingsley Botchway, and Rockne Cole. Voting in the bloc of them will balance out who is represented and will ensure that progressive minded people who are equally interested in how Iowa City grows with the livability and sustainability of it have multiple voices on the council.

Do yourself and your values the service of voting for these three great choices, our great city and its future are in your capable hands.

Do We Dare Understand?

Like many of you, when I heard about the explosions in Boston, it frightened me. And that is what terrorism does, it frightens and begs explanation. As the story unraveled and we learned that the terrorists were two brothers who had emigrated to the US with their family, something changed. Yes, they set off bombs and yes, people were killed, but now they were not "foreigners" but disaffected immigrants who's reasons for doing what they did are largely unknown. It didn't make their acts any less horrific, but the narrative changed.

And then the manhunt and the mortal wounding of one of the brothers. Citizens of Boston being told to stay off the streets while police and military personnel combed the area for the suspect. Finally, there was a celebration when the wounded suspect was  reported to authorities who swooped in with explosive flash caps, robotics, and heat seeking technology and brought the seriously injured brother in.

And then the flag waving began. People who wanted to show themselves and perhaps the world that America and its ideals won't be stopped by bombers sang loudly at sporting events and unfurled the flag for all to see.  They proclaimed as loudly as possible that we are indeed the "land of the free and the home of the brave."

And that is the part that I have a hard time  understanding. Why do we need to wave the flag every time that something unspeakable happens? Is it possible that our own propaganda has been in the background of these events. Is it possible that we can just appreciate the fact that something that could have been, and I say this with the utmost respect to the persons who were killed and injured and their families and friends--far worse?

We may be a great and enviable people, but we are also confused. We are largely navel gazing and don't want to be concerned by other peoples' concerns as long as we are okay. Then, when something terrible happens, we thank God for making us special, but apparently not too special, and drag out Old Glory to remind others of why we are great and enviable.

We need to think about the difference between what we aspire to be and what we actually do. I do not know what the Tsarnaev brothers were thinking or the Columbine or Newtown gunmen or Timothy McVeigh, but I do think that they observed the difference between our flag waving ideals and the way we do business. Many people have made similar observations in the past, present, and will in the future. Many have acted in ways that address the grievance in a positive way, as opposed to engaging in senseless violence. And I suspect there will always be bipolarity between those pusing positive and by-any- means-necessary change.

Do we dare understand the motivation of these monsters? Or do we look in the mirror and agree that whatever shortcomings the US of A has, it is still the Greatest Country on Earth and we are proud to be Americans. Wrap the flag around that idea and get back to me.

Today I Vote

I have been actually dreading going to the polls and voting. The weight that I feel as a swing state voter is a burden. But no one wants to hear from a martyr, so I'll just say that making a choice for the President of the US has been the most difficult of my life for several reasons.

On the one hand, I voted for Hope and Change in 2008, but in 2012, I'm voting for good sense. In 2008, we watched out economy tank in part by economic decisions that helped the few and cost the may a lot. I am not willing to go backwards and accept the policies that brought us to the brink again, but I also wonder what four more years of partisan bickering are going to do to us.

I do not believe that the men and women running for the highest office are perfect people or even that all their ideas will be impactful. Truly the eye has been off the prize in this election. While we have been worried about who will be the next president, the House of Representatives is not likely to be changed and therefore, either we will see the same political posturing in the House or the posturing will shift to the Senate, depending on who is elected to the presidency. So whoever we elect is going to be fighting an uphill battle.

The vast majority of people think that the House is largely ineffectual, but don't understand the ramifications it has on the person they elect to the presidency. Romney says elect him because he can work across the aisle, but how much work do you have to do when it is your party in power? Yet, as we experienced under Obama, even if you have the votes, the partisan shopping cart has to be filled first and that arguably has problems too. The Affordable Healthcare Act, while well-intentioned, is not a flawless piece of legislature and people have the right to be upset about those provisions that they feel will be detrimental to them.

This election is important, but more important is how do we as Americans deal with each other regardless of the outcome. The closer we get to the election, it would seem, the more confidence we have in spending money again (and that is where jobs come from). So, is it that we are a hopeful people putting our faith in false idols or that we are simply in need of a leader that can articulate our sense of confusion and frustration over where we are going? Or do we need a leader that can get deals cut?

What I see is that we need both. And that is what makes voting all the more difficult. I see President Obama, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Rocky Anderson as men and women who do a great part with the first question. I see Governor Romney and President Obama as the deal makers. Whatever people may like or admire in a President, what they get done is what we remember.

As much as I would like to vote purely on my beliefs, I find that is not a way ahead. The way I see it, is to build support at the state level for candidates outside the big two and to seek either non-partisan elections or at least real alternatives to the big two parties. When around 40% of the electorate claims to be independent, there certainly is room for a third party or at least independent candidates that speak to that group. But that is not where things are today.

Until that happens, at the national level, it is still most important to vote for the person who is likely to do more of what you want and less of what you don't want.
- I want a president who is relatable and can clearly articulate his or her vision.
- I want the president to be straightforward and honest, but to wait until the facts are clear.
- I don't want a president that will repeal laws that impact women, nor do I want a president that will conduct drone strikes with impunity.
- I don't want a president who would make it harder for people to join or stay in the middle class, nor do I want one that would make everyone pay for the lifestyle of the rich.
- I do want a president that will improve the prospects for all Americans to receive a world-class education, but I want localities to figure out how to do that.
- I want a president that will make sure that we all have healthcare, but won't insist on fining us if we can't afford it. I want a president who wants to find a solution for allowing American workers and immigrants to both be able to work, but I don't want one who will close off markets unnecessarily.
- I want a president who supports the rights of workers to organize, but will step in if necessary if it is for the good of all.
- I want a president who doesn't want more people in jails and, at the same time makes it possible for those who have been to rejoin society without repercussions after having made restitution.
- I want a president who follows the Constitution, but does not treat it as a static document.
- I want a president that understands that we are a part of the world and not an exception from it.
-  Finally, I want a president who supports equal rights regardless of race, religion, sexual identity, or gender.

And I am voting today.

Consequences: Voting Your Conscience or Wasting Your Vote

Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson argued last night at the Free and Equal debate held in Chicago for supporting a third party candidate. “Wasting your vote is voting for somebody you don’t believe in,” he said. “I am asking everyone watching this nationwide to waste your vote on me … and then I’m the next president of the United States.” And around 1% of the voters in the 50 states are likely to do so, but it won't be because they believe they are wasting their vote.

In the current political environment (and that of the last 200 plus years), third party candidates have been choked out by the stranglehold that the two major parties and their supporters have on the election process. Whether it is ballot access, the ability to be heard at public debates, or being covered by the press, with few exceptions, the system is severely gamed against diversity of opinion. And that is a shame.

So is voting for a third party candidate really a waste of your vote? It depends on your reason for casting it. If you are protesting the current system, than it is likely to be a waste. But, if you are voting to support the ideas of the candidate, it is a good thing. It means that you are paying attention and realize that the two major party candidates are ignoring really important issues.

For instance, if you were waiting to hear either President Obama or Governor Romney or their running mates to discuss global climate change and its impact on the economy, the environment, global politics--you are still waiting. According to an article in the Christian Science Monitor, "Not once during the three presidential encounters or the single vice-presidential debate did the subject come up." Had you been watching the Free and Equal debate (which can be seen here), you would have heard a lengthy discussion from the Green Party's Jill Stein, the Justice Party's Rocky Anderson, and also Johnson about it, the legalization of marijuana, and other issues that aren't being bandied about by the other parties' standard bearers.

When the candidates were asked what amendment that they would make to the US Constitution, two said that they would have term limits, one said she would outlaw corporations as having the same rights as people, and the other would enact a equal rights act which would be inclusive of women and those with LGBT identities. How many times did Romney or Obama address these topics?

However even the most educated voters need to consider the unintended consequences of their choices (remember Florida in 2000 and Ohio in 2004?). For instance is imminent peril to the planet more important than who sits of the US Supreme Court? Are assassination drone strikes by the CIA and imprisonment  without due process more important than national security or the best a democracy has to offer? These are the tough decisions that voters should be making rather than feeling that they are settling for the lesser of two evils (or that a vote for third party x is really a vote for major party y).

In the end, the best vote is made by the educated voter--and having the strength of your convictions probably doesn't hurt either.

Investing In Careers

By day, I spend my time helping college students to plan for and execute their career plans. It is a job that I am impassioned to do and yet, I genuinely worry that we are a nation of job-seekers rather than careerists. What's the difference, don't jobs make careers? A career by definition is "life's work" and the summing of jobs that add up to something greater than the sum of the parts. It is something that we plan for, strive toward, and readjust as we understand ourselves, our talents, and the needs that we can fulfill for others, as well as ourselves.

This morning I ran into a letter by Jim Martin of Boulder, Colorado and I truly liked the premise it. Mr. Martin's letter asked why don't politicians talk about investing in career creation rather than job creation? The problem is that I don't believe that politicians can help us to do it, if they are driven in investing solely in job creation.

Martin says, "It used to be that work was more than just a way to pay bills; it was also about following your life's passions, finding your calling or developing a vocation. It was a tangible way to complete us as people.

This country was built by people with passion, vision and determination, by people pursing [sic] dreams, noble causes and some trying to actually live out their uniqueness in their work and play. They did this by pursuing careers not in just finding a job!"

I agree that careers are created by personal initiative and supported by education systems that educate us fully, an economy that is looking for better solutions, and social and private entrepreneurship. If government were to invest into people's dream careers, we might have a more robust economy, but there is no guarantee--same as is true of the private sector jobs. Careers are often trial and error affairs where we fail and succeed to understand ourselves, our talents, and our value to others in the world.

Careers are deeply personal visions and whether it is a James Audubon painting the birds of America or Henry Ford making the car that would someday drive us to the brink of an energy crisis for our personal freedom, we have seen the upside and downside to people living their dreams.

Governments and economies thrive on us doing jobs that make stuff. To fuel the systems that require public dollars, taxes must flow and rely on industry to do it. The counterpoint to this is that we need to protect those systems that make all this industry happen and hence regulations that are non-medical Hippocratic oaths to cause no harm. Careers are more than jobs, they are personal expressions of self and the self has many complexities to it. We may cause harm to understand that we shouldn't cause it, but it is always in the interest in becoming better and doing better.

Politics does not value the ebb and flow of success and failure and governments are replaced if there is a general consensus that they are failing us. Offering people the opportunity to work is a way to stabilize them until they find their career path or to support them when their career path is on the downswing is a role that government should play (and we can argue whether Pres. Obama or Gov. romney has the better plan for that), but it is up to the rest of us to encourage people to find their passion, develop their skills, and support their endeavors.

This is where the government can really shine. Helping to build a foundation of education and supports self-discovery that creates the next Steve Jobs, Albert Einstein, Helen Keller, Dr. Martin Luther King is a great investment. But irrespective of what we do, it will still take the moxy of those individuals to step up. Because even the greatest society relies on the individual to create their own career.

While I've Been Away...

We are thirty days away from the 2012 Presidential election and here in Iowa voters are already casting their votes. Since September 28th, early and absentee voting is underway, even as candidates and their surrogates are out in force trying to swing votes or to reach the 2 to 3% of Iowans who have not made up their mind.

Another important race to watch is between incumbent Democrat Congressman Dave Loebsack who is facing his hardest campaign to date from former John Deere lawyer and Republican challenger, John Archer in the newly reformed 2nd District. Loebsack will rely on heavy voter turnout in Linn and Johnson counties to offset more conservative strongholds in the southeast and Quad Cities support for Archer.

Also on the flip side of the ballot, for Johnson County residents is the bond issue to build a "Justice Center" or a $48 million combined jail and courthouse on the existing courthouse property. While few would argue that the current courthouse and jail are antiquated and, therefore, inadequate for current demand, the larger picture of whether a bigger jail is likely to lead to increased incarceration of minorities and students busted for minor offenses. While it is fair to argue the case, pragmatically, we are faced with inhumane conditions, lawyers who have no place to meet with their clients and arraigned defendants who are housed in six other counties at an increasingly higher expense.

Lastly, on side two of the ballot is the vote to retain Iowa District and Supreme Court Justices. David Wiggins is being targeted for removal because of his vote that supported same sex marriage in Iowa. What is more at stake is replacing an independent judiciary with political surrogates put forth by a nominating committee whose majority is of one party and approved by the Governor of the same party. The determination by those who want to push a state constitutional question that two other US Constitution rights already has covered is reliant to some extent on removing Judge David Wiggins. Iowans would be wise to keep a competent judge on the job by voting for his retention.

An Open Letter to Governor Branstad: I've Got a Beef, Dude

Dear Governor Branstad,


Let me first mention that I did not vote for you, but I did not vote for Chet Culver either. I generally didn't expect that you would be a good governor for working Iowans or for those of us who think that consumers should have the right to know what goes in their and their children's food. I am writing this to express my dismay at the political theater that you have most recently engaged surrounding BPI and the production of the meat by-product that they produce. I'd also like to state that I am not a Vegan and love a good hamburger, as you also appear to do. Lastly, I understand that you promised to create upwards in the neighborhood of 250,000 jobs and the threat to 200 employees in Waterloo at BPI because of legitimate concerns over how they make the "lean finely textured beef" trimmings product (that has been labeled "pink slime"--a nickname that both you and BPI wish for consumers to strike from our vocabularies) does not help. 


As the state's CEO, I can see how you would legitimately be concerned about the loss of jobs, although at the moment, the workers are on paid leave for 60 days while BPI seeks to reclaim the public trust or at least the confidence of customers who recently bailed on them. However your support does not seem to be about those workers, but rather the support of the company's management and their business practices.

Those practices? Paraphrasing a bit they are "slabs of beef trimmings pass[ing] by on a conveyor. From there, the slabs are fed into a specialized grinder that removes any cartilage, connective tissue or bone chips.

The slabs are then sent into horizontal centrifuges, which spin at a rapid rate, separating the bits of lean beef from the fat. To facilitate that process, the cold trimmings are heated to 100 degrees Fahrenheit,

The next step, treating the beef with a "puff" of ammonia hydroxide gas, ...a naturally occurring element and has been approved by federal regulators for use in countless food processes for more than 35 years, has successfully killed E. coli and other pathogens that can cause sickness or even death.

After the treatment, the bits of meat are moved into large roller-presses with 12- by 14-foot drums, which flatten the meat and freeze it within 90 seconds. The meat is then pried off the drums and put into a chipper that churns out 60-pound bricks that are packaged for shipment.

 I understand that as a governor of an agricultural state, you are called to fend off attacks that could impact the larger industry that so much of our state economy is based on, but I also understand that many people legitimately want to know what they are feeding their families (or their schools are) and don't feel that this product passes the smell test (sort of like when McDonald's used earthworms in their hamburgers years ago). 


In fairness to BPI and meat by-product producers, it is not really their fault that people perceive their product as less than pure beef, certainly they are not covering up the process, and in recent days have gone out of their way to show how the product is made. However, this product originally was created to process animal feed and through calculated efforts has been approved by the USDA as okay for people too. It doesn't help that the process takes the leftover parts of the cow and send it through a series of steps that is reminiscent of the production of Soylent Green, albeit really purified, free-of-e.coli beef product. 


It is true that if the meat that is produced were labelled appropriately, then consumers could make an informed choice of whether they want to pay for 100% pure chuck or 80% pure chuck and the leavings of 20% of other parts of cattle that has been treated with ammonia hydroxide, frozen, and mixed into the other meat. 


But this is where I take exception to your actions after you visited the plant (Seriously, the lab coat and hair net? Not a good look.): 
To write to state superintendents and to say "If this product ceases to exist in schools, grocery stores and restaurants, it is estimated that 3,000 jobs could be eliminated. This product is proudly raised, fed, processed, packaged, transported and sold by parents of your school’s students. By supporting this great Iowa product and serving it in your schools, you will send a strong signal on behalf of those who rely on it for their living." is nothing short of political arm twisting bordering on extortion. It is the job of educators to educate and even I know that meat is not so healthy as other choices. However, I don't see you sending them letters to encourage more broccoli in school diets or to encourage them to remove vending machines with sodas and candy. 


Also, I don't see you addressing the workers whose jobs were taken from them and mobilizing workforce development resources to help find a new job, whether it is the 200 people who worked (and may yet be called back to work) in Waterloo or the other 2800 jobs (I'm sort of confused who these people might be, since BPI doesn't employ them), I'd think that you'd be most worried about making sure that they had the resources to go back to work as soon as possible.


Finally, it appears that the BPI owners have chosen to keep their South Dakota plant open, at the expense of the plant in Waterloo. I don't know if this makes you mad, but it would me, if I were governor. Iowa employees are hard working and don't deserve to be sidelined, but BPI has decided that its Iowa workers are less important, non-essential, and that  hurts. While you were on tour with Governor's Brownback and Perry, surely you got the sense of what those jobs are like to those who do them every day. Don't you think that  you owe them the kind of tenaciousness that you unleashed at the BPI press conference?


I have some small recommendations for you, lean finely textured beef, if you will: 1) Order that all beef in Iowa be labelled as to its content. If it is 100% pure lean finely textured beef, let it be proclaimed proudly. This would probably help create jobs, by the way. 2) Retract the letter you sent to the state school superintendents, let school districts decide locally what their course of action should be. 3) Put the state's resources to good use in helping the BPI workers to find a new job, if in 60 days they are permanently furloughed. 3) Boycott products from South Dakota--it will serve them right--their own governor didn't even go to the BPI event and they got to keep all of their jobs. Alternatively, boycott the Sturgis Bike Rally. 4) On behalf of fashionable Iowans, never wear a white lab coat and hair net again--it makes you look like the Pillsbury Dough Boy.