Manhandlers or Panhandlers?

As the Iowa City Council will have one more vote on the extended panhandling ordinance tentatively on June 1st. Fair-minded people should ask: which is more dangerous, a panhandler with a sign or a city council that can't be swayed from a decision that they clearly do not have evidence to support the need of? The violations of the current aggressive panhandling ordinance has been numbered at zero--ZERO. This is governance of the worst sort: a solution seeking a problem.

Thankfully there are others in the Iowa City Community who share this concern and continue to organize around defeating the proposition.

If you are a resident of Iowa City or a visitor who has been on the Ped Mall, drop a note to the city council, if you share the concern that the city government is over-stepping it's bounds. Further, write a letter to the local papers and show up at the meeting. Let the government know that Iowa City is for everybody.

Editorial: Iowa City Peddling Business in the Ped Mall

I attended last night's City Council meeting and it brought out a new understanding of how Iowa City's "diverse" downtown commercial interests are ruling the roost in Iowa City. In discussing the second reading of a more stringent ordinance to limit panhandling on the Ped Mall, the majority of city council members pooh-poohed 1st amendment concerns in supporting the ordinance, the current version of which has yielded zero citations or arrests by Iowa City's Police Department. An ordinance which has resulted in council member and Ped Mall business owner, Terry Dickens in saying "things have gotten much better".

However, in the effort to continue aesthetically purifying the Ped Mall, the city council continued to support this measure to save "fragile businesses" in Iowa City, in the words of Regenia Bailey from people who are scary to their customers. And yet, DTA members also tout how safe downtown is and kid-friendly, as they did on a recent community program. Apparently taking the tack, the business of city government is business, the council voted 4 to 1 with Dickens "abstaining," Connie Champion going home sick, and Mike Wright reconfirming his vote in the negative.

In my call to make a more data driven decision, the council elected to vote with the DTA, which will not release the vote they took of their membership to push for additional restrictive measures on the public space or "commons" as David Smithers referred to them in his call for the council to reject this measure. This type of blind obedience would be par for the course several years ago, but with at least three self-described progressives on the council, it defies logic.

This defies logic in that the Ped Mall itself is a public space that has been developed as a for-profit center by the city in cooperation with business owners. By continually allowing businesses to sprawl out into the walkway area and permitting food carts, the overall effect is to limit the walking area. In so doing, the city and the businesses have, in part, been responsible for the environment they are now convinced needs to be changed.

Despite the efforts of several people, including US Senatorial candidate Tom Fiegan, the city council, members of ICCI, student organization members from the University of Iowa, the council chose to ignore the unwashed masses to dance with the ones who brung 'em. Oddly they were able to ignore the charge that other downtown businesses are equally challenged and that a likely outcome of this ordinance is to send panhandlers to other areas of the city where they are less likely to be hassled.

However all is not lost, the third and final vote will take place at the next scheduled formal council meeting which is June 1. This allows those who have been sitting on the sidelines to jump into the fray and contact their city representatives with their comments and to show up at the final vote to stand and be counted. By creating a solution in search of a problem, the city will likely get what they are saying they want to avoid--a downtown devoid of vibrancy.

A Dickens of a City Council Meeting in Iowa City Tonight

The issue of what to do about panhandling and other annoyances on the Ped Mall in Iowa City will likely to come to a head tonight with a group of ICCI and FAIR! members asking the city council to delay a vote on the issue citing a lack of data to make the decision. Council member Terry Dickens has largely led the charge for the Downtown Assocation (DTA) to make panhandlers, musicians and others to stay 20 feet away from store fronts on the Ped Mall and 10 feet everywhere else in Iowa City.

There are numerous considerations on this issue:

- Does this significantly reduce free speech and right to assembly?
- Is the city essentially "selling off" public property to unfairly advantage a group of business people in a particular area of town?
- Is this fair to other downtown businesses?
- Is a council member using his vote in direct conflict of interest to his office?

Hear Mr. Dickens own words on this issue. He "pays dearly" for his store's corner location and for having panhandlers who are near his store who also recognize it's prime location value. Is his profit motive clouding his judgment?



People who wish to speak to this issue should plan to arrive at 6:45 pm for the council meeting which begins at 7 pm at Iowa City Hall at 200 Washington St. The agenda item is #18 and a second and third consideration will likely be voted on this evening, unless the council is compelled to await further input.

Who Is the Party of the MOTR?

It appears from the conversations and so on that I've had with people who attended the Democratic and Republican Party district conventions that some didn't feel very well respected. Been there, done that. Political parties by their natures are fairly incestuous and are not really looking for new ideas, but rather new ways to sell the ideas they already have.

Let's talk about you and me. Most people are not party joiners, though we tend to affiliate to one or the other of the D or R parties at least once every few years. Every election we are told is decided by the "middle." And for this reason I would argue it is this way because the middle doesn't have a party of our own; hence the other two prevail.

Anyone who has tried to join one of these parties soon comes to realize that it is hard to accomplish substantial movement. Why? Because the parties' hierarchy know what has worked for them and, frankly, both major parties are arch conservatives when it comes to moving away from their sacred cows.

So why not just join an established third party? Once again, the doctrine is drawn. As John Mellencamp, Malcolm X, and Alexander Hamilton all sort of said, "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." All parties stand for something, but none stand for what most people think is right. Hence we are a nation of flip-floppers who go back and forth generally between D's and R's.

Early in our nation's heritage, choosing between two was quite a step up from Monarchy. However, I think that many people agree that neither party really represents what main street or the mainstream think. In fact each party claims to feel our pain, but in reality, they are counting up our votes.

So why not join the Tea Party? Well, who is the Tea Party and do they represent mainstream values? According to the Tea Part Patriots' website they stand for:


Fiscal Responsibility: Fiscal Responsibility by government honors and respects the freedom of the individual to spend the money that is the fruit of their own labor. A constitutionally limited government, designed to protect the blessings of liberty, must be fiscally responsible or it must subject its citizenry to high levels of taxation that unjustly restrict the liberty our Constitution was designed to protect. Such runaway deficit spending as we now see in Washington D.C. compels us to take action as the increasing national debt is a grave threat to our national sovereignty and the personal and economic liberty of future generations.

Constitutionally Limited Government: We, the members of The Tea Party Patriots, are inspired by our founding documents and regard the Constitution of the United States to be the supreme law of the land. We believe that it is possible to know the original intent of the government our founders set forth, and stand in support of that intent. Like the founders, we support states' rights for those powers not expressly stated in the Constitution. As the government is of the people, by the people and for the people, in all other matters we support the personal liberty of the individual, within the rule of law.

Free Markets: A free market is the economic consequence of personal liberty. The founders believed that personal and economic freedom were indivisible, as do we. Our current government's interference distorts the free market and inhibits the pursuit of individual and economic liberty. Therefore, we support a return to the free market principles on which this nation was founded and oppose government intervention into the operations of private business.

Up to point number three, I could get behind those principles. In fact, taken with point number two, we really can't have a free market. Why, because the Constitution tells us we need taxes and those taxes are haggled over by those whom we elect. A so-called free market can't exist as long as we ask people to pony up money to have a government do things for us.

So, no Tea Party for me, and I doubt for many folks who are happy to have trash pickups, clean water, aid to families with dependent children, social security, etc. Also for those who aren't willing to lose arms and legs working in uncontrolled manufacturing plants and don't pay a living wage.

So what would the Middle of the Road Party look like? Beats the heck out of me. We haven't had our convention, chosen our leaders, or created our platform. There is not a party and so the climb is long and the odds are against us.

If I were to venture a guess, the MOTR party would place the future of kids at the forefront. It would tend to be hopeful, but cautious in what this country does both here and abroad. It would insist that rules were enforced, but the rules were fair in the first place. It would be a party that celebrates pragmatism--where some change would come fast and others a little at a time. It would not seek to win by putting the other parties down, but to win by articulating the things that people believe are in the best interest of the country, even if they aren't always in the immediate best interest to themselves. Yes, it would uphold the Constitution. And, of course, it would be fiscally responsible.

I also believe it would be hard to build. It would ask people to disengage from the politics they understand to be how things are done and engage in conversations with people in a way that doesn't make me right and you wrong. It would put us in a whole new place. It would be a bold venture to be sure.

Corporate Capitalism Is Against the Greater Good

Everyone should know by now that Barack Obama is not a Socialist, not even close--c'mon look at the definition of the word.

Socialism: An "economic, social and political doctrine which expresses the struggle for the equal distribution of wealth by eliminating private property and the exploitative ruling class. In practice, such a distribution of wealth is achieved by social ownership of the means of production, exchange and diffusion." [Rius, Marx for Beginners (New York: Pantheon Books, 1976), 152.]

No matter what side of the political spectrum you are on, does this look like the country you live in? Does this even approximate the things that either Obama or the Democrats have legislated with or without bipartisanship? Not hardly.

Does it seem like the rich are being forced to sacrifice unfairly for for the collective good? Not according to uber-Capitalist Warren Buffett. Buffett told lawmakers that because of the cuts to the capital gains tax passed under former President George W. Bush, he pays taxes at a lower rate than some of his company’s employees and he doesn't think that is fair.

But let's say you think Warren Buffett, hallowed-be-thy-name, is on cuckoo pills. Just ask people earning $30,000 to $80,000 if they enjoy making tax payments; I doubt you would have a parade forming to beat the Buffett drum. Most of us see taxes as the cost of doing "business" for having the quality of life the average citizen of the US does.

If the Tea Party and other flat taxers want to get mad at anybody, why not get mad at corporate capitalists? The problem, as I see it, is it is citizens like you and I who pay most of the taxes and corporations who are supported by our welfare.

That's right, I'm saying that we the People are the "Nanny state" that is taking care of Exxon/Mobil and other firms who pay little if any US tax dollars. Corporations are the welfare "cheats" that we should be going after. The problem is that they lawyer up much more effectively than those among us who live in real poverty.

So while some folks bemoan welfare frauds and tax cheats and say "Not in My Backyard," it might pain them to know that they may be working for one. And, as much as some find it easy to blame the poor for being poor, how is it that we don't bemoan the fact that our tax dollars often go to encourage companies who don't pay their taxes to move into our neighborhoods?

In Iowa City, there are some who want those people who aren't carrying their weight to go back where they came from--well, isn't it time we say the same to those companies that aren't carrying their weight?

Corporations are like the "friends" that invite the group to have drinks with them and then walk the check. Corporate Capitalists hear us roar--No free drinks--tea or otherwise!

Why Mixed Income Housing Needs Our Help

Iowa City residents are rightly concerned that affordable housing policy changes could affect the quality of life in our community. Ironically, most concerns are founded on a misguided belief that balanced mixed income/housing stock neighborhoods are detrimental to overall quality of life.

This in the absence of state and national data that support such reasoning. However, by inaction, de facto higher density neighborhoods of concentrated lower-income housing have been built and this does have ramifications, as we have seen some Iowa City neighborhoods and schools.

The common sense notion is that when housing types are mixed, this lessens concentration areas of less than market-rate housing. Now add educational concerns that are being played out by concentrating lower socioeconomic households.

Would we really be having the discussion about redistricting if there were a balance of housing types available around town? Wouldn't schools have the mixture of all types of students that the district is attempting to move kids around to achieve?

Understandably, it has been politically hard to generate steam to tackle a public policy like voluntary or mandatory inclusionary zoning in earnest.

At the likely risk of being labeled neighborhood destroyers, can anyone fault city officials from removing controversial issues from the table? However it is exactly because of years of non-action regarding needed public policy that is more largely responsible for public outcry to "cease and desist" on some housing developments.

Enacting public policy like inclusionary zoning would likely reduce future problems.

In 2003, FAIR!, which monitors issues of importance to Johnson County residents, submitted a chart that showed a side-by-side comparison of how inclusionary zoning policy was enacted across the country and was used in work sessions by the City Council, in addition to other information that analyzed the housing needs in the Iowa City metropolitan area. In 2004, when the City Council tackled the issue of whether it was a good idea to spread affordable housing out and created a Task Force on Scattered Site Housing, one of the significant findings was that an inclusionary zoning policy was needed to be sure that high concentrations of low income housing would not coalesce in one area of town.

Mayor Hayek was the chair of that committee. To date, no action has taken place on this or other recommendations made to address affordable housing availability.

There are two significant reasons why inclusionary zoning policy has not been broached:

• It is historically unpopular with housing developers who naturally resist being hamstrung by regulation.

• It would cost money or other considerations for the city to implement.

For home builders to step up to create mixed-income developments, it stands to reason that they should be compensated in some way for their community-building efforts. There is no reason to ask the private sector to do this out of the goodness of their hearts. Through fast-tracking projects, reducing development fees and other considerations, a sensible inclusionary zoning policy would permit builders to meet their bottom line demands while allowing them to build the highest quality of affordable housing stock.

This, by all measures, would be good for the city's budget by widening the tax base, good for renters and homeowners who would have more housing choices, as well as good for the home building community.

If the City Council is hesitant to consider new policy and wishes to proceed with caution, perhaps a lesson I observed from following the Scattered Site Task Force could be applied.

If scattering housing is good for the community, why not empower the Planning and Zoning Commission -- or a separate appointed group made up of the community's stakeholders -- to explore how it can be best implemented? By carefully walking through the mechanics of what it would take and the cost-benefit of doing so, a policy that works for most may be put into effect.

Dear Mr. President: Learning from the Past

Image via Wikipedia

Dear President Obama,

You promised change and you have begun to deliver on that promise. By signing the Health Care bill, you have given people who have gone without health insurance the opportunity to be healthier and those who have been ill, the ability to once again have access to care without the onus of becoming bankrupt. And these are good steps.

Harry Truman believed that all Americans should have access to health care as a right and Lyndon Johnson signed legislation that allowed the elderly and the poor to have access. With uncertainties in the economy, it is impossible to know when any of us will be without work for extended periods of time. So thank you and Congress for making this first step.

Having said this, can a for-profit health insurance industry ever really sustain affordable health care for all? Chances are there will be future trade-offs to improve what has been signed into law. More important, will the need for health care providers be met and incentivized? Access to health care is great, but it also requires enough doctors, nurses and other allied health practitioners to be trained.

Beyond health, there is a general unease in the country. A general belief that we are in over our heads financially and, perhaps, politically. From the local school board to D.C., the message is one of "live within our means." The problem is, we as Americans have made bad investments--in the stock market, in banking, and in wars.

If ever there was a need for the type of leadership that people thought they would get by electing you is crucial, now is that time. FDR had it right with his fireside chats. He understood that people were distrustful of their government, but desired a personal connection to their elected Commander-In-Chief. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle, I do not know how it is possible to command the national stage like FDR did, but I do know that you can and must make every effort.

And you need support. I don't know why it is impossible for political adversaries to put party aside in doing the people's business at this very difficult period of our history, but it is clear that there can be no good that comes out of selfish, petty party politics. The same is true of grassroots movements that are short on solutions and long on vitriol.

The one thing that is certain is we only have one President at a time and that person deserves our respect regardless of whether we agree with all of his or her decisions. Conversely, the person in office must convey to the American people where he or she feels we are going and their roadmap to help us get there. You are a particularly gifted communicator. Communicate.

Musician Pete Seeger has a saying on his banjo that says "This machine surrounds hate and forces it to surrender." Those of us who value moving forward with hope need to be rallied to oppose those who are living in fear of what our country will become. The late Paul Wellstone said, "The people of this country, not special interest big money, should be the source of all political power. Government must remain the domain of the general citizenry, not a narrow elite." I think people on all ends of the political spectrum question whether this is the government we have.

I truly believe that those who question what has been happening in government mean well and are genuinely concerned for their and their children's future, but are allowing their uncertainty to cloud their thinking about what is best for the country. Ronald Reagan, for all of his faults, did one thing exceptionally well. He had the ability and gravitas to convince folks that the sun hadn't set on the USA--it is now your responsibility to remind all citizens that this is still true.

In faith,

Garry Klein
Popular Progressive

Future of Government: Evolution or Intelligent Design?

Where we have arrived as a nation is a disdain for the Government we have elected, appointed, and volunteered to be a part of. But really, is it in lousier shape than say during the Civil War? In reality, the times we are now are experiencing is a lack of cohesiveness about national identity. Resistance to taxes, the belief that the government is creating more problems than it is solving and so on are a symptom: we don't know where we are going as a nation.

In the good old days of manifest destiny, we could spread from coast to coast and there was plenty of reward to be reaped by all who were of God-fearing and descended from European stock. After the world wars, we continued our ascent through economic growth and industrial colonization. But with that came the need to underwrite favorable governments' leaders and prop them up with our military materiel and cash. And that was and is an expensive proposition particularly when you send in our troops to back up those leaders.

Our national debt has grown as a result of growing our military (roughly $800 billion per year), $$383 billion in interest on debt, and 1.3 trillion on medicare and social security.



This part of government growth we could call Intelligent Design -- simply doing God's will so that He/She would continue to bless us with greater abundance and allow us to be the great "exception". We would be the lantern that all other nations would turn toward, as heathens would turn to Jesus and our brand of Capitalism.

However fortunes favor those who have control of the economic supply chain and have lots of room for market growth--and that is no longer our strongest suit. We have to share the stage with burgeoning economies that are percolating in India and China and other places. Plus our balance of trade is badly out of whack as we continue to import more than we export (the trade deficit widened to $40.2 billion in December 2009 from $36.4 billion in November).

As corporate interests have paralleled government interests, one might question the incestuous nature of that relationship and wonder how government will evolve if the pattern continues. We have all borne witness to how the private sector has branded itself on public buildings and in government agencies. Imagine the world order if corporations are brokering deals between nations? Oh wait they are (See: World Trade Organization).

As both the left and right are becoming increasingly angered by the corporate and government pick-pocketing that they perceive happening, it stands to reason that there are two prime possible choices for the Government. Either Government reforms itself or Government represses dissonance. We will have to see how that "hopey changey thing" turns out. Of course, we have a lot to say about it.

Chet Culver Needs to Get Out More

While out of state in Ohio this past weekend, I felt badly for missing Gov. Culver's visit to the Hamburg Inn for a chat with The People. Having not supported the Big Lug when he ran against Ed Fallon in the last go round, I am not particularly surprised at the way his first term has gone. When I attended the Labor Day picnic and watched him spend most of his time pitching E-85 to members of local unions, I thought, this guy really doesn't care about his audience much. And, given his insular behaviors as Governor, it should not be surprising that he is likely going to be fighting the campaign of his life, if he is to be re-elected--and this is sort of sad with the stellar group he is up against.
But, as a Democrat in a state that needs to create and save jobs, Culver has been remarkably disappointing. First, because he has bitten the hand of labor that helped elect him (though very recently threw them a bone)and, second, by a lack of creativity to use the resources he has at his disposal to improve the welfare of the state. For instance, why has the "reinvention" of state government not been a "day one" priority? Why did he call for 10% across the board cuts to agencies when some agencies are of higher priority than others (e.g., anything having to do with human services)? Why hasn't the Governor negotiated with AFSME for salary cuts in lieu of forced-retirement? And in offering incentives for retirement, why hasn't the state at least required retirees to live in Iowa for the 5 years that the state is paying their health benefits?
And I won't go into the failures on agriculture, the environment, but to say that Culver hasn't lived up to his campaign promises on these two fronts. Iowa has massive potential to feed and fuel itself, but to do it sustainably has been the trick. Monsanto and ADM have done well for themselves under Culver, but not the local family farmer or those who would grow organics. Part of this, of course, is in part because of Secretary of Agriculture, Bill Northey, but the Chief Executive of the state has a lot to say about policy.

The Political Landscape: A Receding Hairline?

While glancing at the mirror the other day, I had the feeling that my hairline and the current state of American politics have a lot in common: hairy on both sides and empty down the middle. Yeah!--Huh? Follow along.

The real Left and real Right are angry and looking for leadership to help them coallesce. In the meantime, like my hair, they fire shots across the bow of each other. The central point of agreement is that it is all Obama's fault--either for not using taxes for the right things or for taxing them at all. In both cases, they are missing the point--left/right division doesn't get anything done, the Middle does. However when it comes to nominating politicians, the Left and Right know that's where they have a significant say and are actively pushing from the grassroots (or the hairline, if you will).

The Middle knows that there is something going on but, with trying to hang on to the job, the marriage, and taking the kids to assorted activities, who has time to pay a whole lot of attention? What they are paying attention to is the feeling that their lives may change--or not, depending on what happens in 2010--for reasons they don't quite get yet. They don't know for instance whether Obama is a "Radical Socialist" or if Republicans are the "Party of No," but they do worry whether they will be okay and their kids will be okay. The Tea Party Nation doesn't speak to them, but neither does Noam Chomsky.

Typically during the election cycle, the Middle does what I used to do with my hair, push it to the right or left for maximum coverage. I wonder if a real Independent Movement would be to go after the Middle, find out what it cares about and form a party around it? A real populist movement, not one formed by anger on the edges, but based on practical politics--a chicken in every pot sort of stuff. If this movement should happen, I wish it more success than my hair. But, I do know that my right and left hair-mispheres will not be coming together anytime soon.

Not Enough Canvass To Cover the Circus

Last night's gathering of interested folks at the Old Capitol Center to participate in the Project on Public Rhetoric Inquiry turned to be more inquisition than inquiry. The topic of discussion “Words Matter: On-line Postings in the Iowa City Press-Citizen” was the first of three seminars in the “Media, Space and Race” Public Rhetoric Seminar series.

Three panelists and the public were to austensibly examine an article that appeared on the Press-Citizen (“Curfew passes second reading by council 4-3”) and associated on-line commentary. No one was required to have read the article, and many, it appeared, did not.

As the panelists Jeff Charis-Carlson, Opinion Editor of the Iowa City Press-Citizen, Frank Durham, Associate Professor of Journalism, and Andre Brock, Assistant Professor of Library and Information Science framed the discussion around their unique perspectives, the commentary form the crowd was centered around the Press-Citizen's choice to allow comments on their website and the deleterious effect that has on the dialogue of human relations in our area. Some questioned the paper's policies to allow persons to post anonymously or rather pseudononymously because of the ability of those individuals to say whatever they choose (albeit within the confines of the "terms of service" of the paper which removes comments that aren't up to snuff).

Interestingly, not one person on the panel or in the audience directly commented on the curfew that the article addressed. Conversation focused on the relative merits of the Press and the commenters and bloggers. At one point a frequent blogger took umbrage at an assertion by Prof. Durham that online comments were "grafetti" and that bloggers are not held to the same standard as Journalists.

I will say that I found this part of the evening interesting. I have no problem with what the professor said as it is true that bloggers, myself included, could benefit from both a good editor and a fact-checker. Fortunately, in the blogosphere, the comments we receive from others often act in these two capacities. I know I've fixed posts when presented with new information or clearer editing eyes. I will also say that broadsides like Prof. Durham made are not likely to win any sympathy from people who do believe that the Press is elitist. I frankly appreciate facts in reporting the news that I read, even if it doesn't remove the writer or editor's bias.

I commented to the moderator that it was a good discussion because everybody's ox was gored, however I walked away with the same notion that some people have about online comments, what good was it?

Bawking at Mid-Term Caucuses

While a relative handful of people turned out for area Iowa Republican and Democratic mid-term caucuses, many stayed home. I was among them. In the past, I waded into the Democratic Party's caucus mechanism only to become frustrated by the work as it moved away from the county and on to the district level. For instance in working on the platform committee, I watched as agendas to remove women's right to choose were attacked by more conservative members of the party. I saw union influences that pushed their agendas. In fairness, I was a party newbie and didn't really understand the not so unsubtle nuances that play out by the true believers.

However, while I did not caucus, I do understand why the faithful do. When the party is not moving in the direction you's hope they might or when new issues present themselves, it is good that there are people who will act as the canary in the coal mine and raise the issues by presenting petitions that often lead to planks in the party platform.

I applaud those who work at that level of politics and wished that more would do the same. Admittedly my stomach for it has been weakened by my experience and has strengthened my resolve to work at the local level to improve conditions. However jaded I have become, I believe that young adults should particularly dive in deep in party politics. The decisions that are made today will affect more people tomorrow than today because it takes a long time for change to be effected.

Some Gitmo Detainees In For the Longer Haul

CNN reports that sources within the Obama administration are reporting that 47 detainees who are considered too dangerous to be released and unable to be tried because of national security concerns, will continue to be held.

"If you close Guantanamo but leave individuals detained without charge or trial you're just making a cosmetic change," Jameel Jaffer, director of the ACLU National Security Project, told CNN.

The Center for Constitutional Rights, which has represented several Guantanamo detainees in federal court cases, blasted the administration.

"Today was supposed to be the deadline by which President Obama would close Guantanamo. Now it will be the anniversary of the president's decision to abandon our most fundamental constitutional principles, the center said in a written statement.

Amnesty International USA chimed in with a stinging criticism.

"If the president accepts the DOJ task force recommendation to hold anyone indefinitely, this policy will not keep Americans safe; instead it will ensure that Guantanamo will continue to be al Qaeda's top recruiting tool," said Tom Parker, Amnesty's policy director for counterterrorism.

Federal officials expect to imprison the group to be held under the laws of war in a facility in the United States. If Congress approves funding, the most likely site is a prison in Thomson, Illinois.

A senior administration official cautioned against concluding that all the task force recommendations will be approved, and said numbers that have been reported may ultimately prove to be wrong.

Sources familiar with the report said the task force has recommended 35 detainees face either civilian trials or military commissions in the United States.

The remaining approximately 110 detainees - most of them from Yemen - are eligible to be transferred to their homeland or a third country once officials determine they can be held securely in their home country or a suitable third country will take them.

The recommendations of the Detainee Review Task Force were received on the date Obama set exactly a year ago as the deadline for closing the prison facility at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay. The administration now concedes it may be many more months if not longer before the prison can be emptied.

Why Politicians Matter So Much...And So Little

Reading that John Edwards finally confessed to fathering a child with a woman he was having an affair with while his wife continues to battle terminal cancer reminds me that while not many people love politics, they do seek politicians that they can believe in. John Edwards was the fair-haired candidate when he ran as John Kerry's VP choice and was a front-runner until Obama ran him over him in Iowa.

It was difficult, as a supporter of Edwards, to comprehend the depths he would sink in chasing his political ambitions. To that end, not only did he betray his wife, Elizabeth, but he betrayed the trust of thousands of people who worked hard on his behalf. Couple this experience with many other politicians from all parties who have operated in a similar matter and you begin to understand the problem of politics--the lack of trust that politicians create with their constituents.

As we are in a time when good decisions are important and we need our best and brightest to make them, it is very important that these men and women step up and do the work. At the same time, it is important that they act like adults and not like sweaty teenagers. If we hope to have better government, we need to have better politicians.

When voters become jaded to the idea that really hard-working public officials are out there, they stay home and leave the political arena to the partisans who are not invested in solving the problems that affect the rest of us, so much as working their agendas. We need and deserve better than this.

Free Speech Sponsored by...?

The US Supreme Court's ruling today to allow corporations and unions to spemd freely from their coffers to influence politics in the United States through advertising is nothing short of the worst decision ever perpetrated by that institution short of upholding segregation. The Supreme Court's 5-4 vote overturns a 20-year-old ban on businesses and unions using money from their own funds to pay for campaign ads.

The idea that corporations have the same rights as US citizens has been a bone of contention for many years (again due to the Supreme Court) and this ruling continues to erode personal freedom. The recognition by the court that these institutions are allowed to freely spend their capital to influence an election is chilling in states where corporations already have immense influence. The coup de gras is that The Supreme Court also said that any campaign ads that were not paid for by the candidate or their party must be clearly marked with the name of the sponsor.

I think that Justice Stevens in dissenting from the majority has it right when he said the court's decision "operates with a sledge hammer rather than a scalpel" and warned that it may "undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."

Check out this video from Free Speech for People.

I Have a Dream: The Party Is Over

In my years being involved in the political process, I believed that party membership had it's privileges. However today, I am convinced that while I can and will support individual candidates for public office, my days of valuing party membership are nearing their end. And this is why.

As any reader of this blog knows, I am a populist progressive. I believe that both parties are in dire need of embracing their grassroots and moving their agendas forward in a way that benefits people. As Paul Wellstone, the late FDL Senator from Minneaota said, "Politics isn't about big money or power games; it's about the improvement of people's lives." Clearly this is not the environment that we are in today.

I believe that the far Right has recognized this and it's Tea Party is a movement that feeds off the frustration that people have in mistrusting the government. Troubling is that the feeding of mistrust has burned from raw emotion and does not rely on much fact.

The far Left, on the other hand, is reeling in bitterness over helping to elect a President and Congress that may only slightly better than its predecessor on important issues. The left is not short on emotion either, but does value good information to make decisions from.

In following the debate on health care reform, it has become imminently clear that a world-class health care program for those without access will not happen and it is not because of demand or good information, it is because of ham-fisted politics. As long as those interests who fund campaigns and write legislation continue to hold sway, it does not matter which party is in power.

On this, the eve of Martin Luther King's birthday, I have a new dream. I dream of a multiparty democracy where no two parties can accomplish their will without collaboration from a third and/or fourth party. Said differently, it is in the national interest of this country to end our dependency on the two party system.

I have a dream that our children and grandchildren will support candidates from the Green Party and Socialist Party, as others support Natural Law or Libertarian candidates. I may not be there to see it with you, but I'd look forward to the seeds being sown in my lifetime.

I have a dream that a Green President will have to negotiate with a Republican/Libertarian majority House, and a Democratic/Socialist majority Senate.

My guess is it will create a challenging environment to get the People's business done, but I also believe that better legislation will come out of it. I also believe that people who have a genuine commitment to public service will step up and true progress can be made.

I look forward when the character of one's soul holds more sway than the letter on the person's voter's registration card. If we can arrive at a place where we can deal with our problems in ways that benefit people, we will be, in the word's of the spiritual, "Free at last, free at last..."

Statue (of Liberty) "Tory" Rape

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the people of France to the people of the United States to mark the centennial of the Declaration of Independence and "in recognition of the friendship established during the American Revolution." As it turns out, "We the People" weren't originally so crazy about receiving the gift because we had to raise the money privately for a foundation on which it would stand.

According to the Ellis Island-Statue of Liberty Foundation, "Joseph Pulitzer (noted for the Pulitzer Prize) opened up the editorial pages of his newspaper, "The World" to support the fund raising effort. Pulitzer used his newspaper to criticize both the rich who had failed to finance the pedestal construction and the middle class who were content to rely upon the wealthy to provide the funds. Pulitzer's campaign of harsh criticism was successful in motivating the people of America to donate."

Fast forward to noted modern historical authorities Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin discussing our Lady Liberty on his show on 1/14:

BECK: You were — you bring up France — you were telling me before we went on the air stuff I didn't know about the Statue of Liberty and the
24 windows.

PALIN: Twenty-five windows. Yes. [This number is correct, There are 25 windows in the crown which symbolize gemstones and the heaven's rays shining over the world. ]

BECK: What is this?

PALIN: Gems, representing the natural resources in our nation.

BECK: Yes, I didn't — I didn't know that.

PALIN: Well, I had my son Google for me real quick. What does everything mean? What are the symbols?

BECK: Did you think there will be a test on this?

PALIN: Yes. I thought, oh, no, he's going to do a gotcha on what do those seven points mean and that's why I google — I had Track google real quick.

(CROSSTALK)

BECK: ... seven points are just rays of light. They're not crown — it's not really a crown of seven, it's the rays of light. Did you ever see the Michaelangelo's Moses where he has horns? [Fact: The seven rays represent the seven seas and continents of the world]

PALIN: OK.

BECK: That's a misinterpretation from the Latin. It can be interpreted rays of light or horns.

PALIN: OK.

BECK: And somehow or another, they interpreted it as horns, but it's actually just the rays of light.

PALIN: Well, so full of symbolism, though. And those seven points represent our seas, our continents. Anyway, my son, I asked him very quickly, "Tell me what all this means." He says, "Quite timely, mom. I'll tell you what the Statue of Liberty means. It just got a tattoo of the Statue of Liberty on my arm." Thanks, Track, for letting me know that.

But I learned a lot about it this morning.

BECK: It's — what people don't understand about this is this almost a — this is France saying to the French, "We need to be more like America." [False: The French government was in the Third Republic by then, already having deposed emperor Napoleon III.]

PALIN: Yes.

BECK: And it's interesting now that we have so lost our way.

PALIN: Yes.

BECK: ... that we say we need to be more like Europe.

PALIN: Right.

BECK: What we ran from, we seem to have so many in our country trying to run back to.

PALIN: And you're right. Even the French recognized, too, the potential in this free country. And the French gifted this to us, this, in partnership, this international symbol of liberty and freedom — the French hoping that we wouldn't lose that and we won't evolve into something more along their lines. And yet, yes, right, look at this full circle thing.

BECK: Here we are.

Yes, here we are.

More on the Statue of Liberty's actual history here.

Viewpoint: The Johnson County Supervisor's Race

Janelle Rettig, Lori Cardella, and Jim Knapp are running hard for the Johnson County Board of Supervisor's vacancy. As such, the campaigning has turned bruising. This is politics--opposing ideas attempting to find concensus.

As a progressive, it would be difficult not to support Janelle Rettig as she is the only true progressive candidate running for the office. What makes the endorsement of Rettig easy for me is that she is the only candidate that has a track record of supporting a human rights ordinance in the county to make sure all residents have the same rights and has fought for sustainable land use and worked for well over a year to secure the support for a land conservation bond issue that passed with over 60% of the voters. She is not a "one trick pony." Add to this that she has studied, participated in boards, and worked for former Congressman Leach and dealt with constituent issues, she understands how policy is made.

Added to this is her commitment to Johnson County as a place where quality of life is part and parcel of "economic development." Taken on the face, Johnson County is the home to a state university and whose largest employers' jobs are in human and educational services. Additionally, it is a destination for retirees and mid-career professionals who seek quality of life issues such as good schools, excellent health care, and recreational amenities. Add to this a mixture of service workers from lower SES to upper middle class who see Johnson County as a more affordable, growing community with opportunities, then you could imagine the importance of amenities like recreation areas, trails, parks, senior services, schools, and the arts.

On the other side of the ledger as the area continues to grow, there are growing pains and conflicts in values. It makes sense to elect people who appreciate diversity of thought as well, and it is a compelling argument to say that a county that has had one party running the show may be seen as being insensitive or uncaring of differing viewpoints. But this may be overstated by those who see themselves as representing those opposing viewpoints.

Partisan politics means that elections have consequences. People vote the way they do for many reasons, not the least of which is they desire the same things that candidates are campaigning on. For opposing views to be successful, they have to understand and articulate what a majority of voters desire and run for office to support those views. Once elected though, those same persons have the responsibility to serve all constituents.

The good news about this special election is that there are two candidates, Lori Cardella and Jim Knapp, who express those opposing views and are campaigning for them. Credit should go to those who petitioned for a special election, and hopefully the state statutes will be changed or be made more specific about when it is appropriate to appoint or hold elections. Whether they are in step or out of step with the majority of voters in the county will be known on January 19th. But it should be noted that they are acting with the same sense of conscience as Janelle Rettig is in standing in opposition to them.

I fully expect that with a reasonable turnout, that Rettig will be handily elected and that it will remove the perceptual "whammy" that being originally appointed has created for her. As both Cardella and Knapp have committed to running in the November election, I sincerely hope they do a good job in listening to all residents of Johnson County, as they have said they would. Perhaps then their message of fiscal conservatism will have to reckon with a constituency that wants to maintain a quality of life. It's a tough balancing act, and frankly, I think that is why Janelle Rettig is so formidable an opponent, she understands this already.

But it is now our responsibility to vote our values and to do it between now and 9 pm on January 19th.

FAIR! and League of Women Voters Sponsor Board of Supervisor Forum

From Carol Spaziani, FAIR! Steering Committee member:

FAIR! will be co-sponsoring with the League of Women Voters a forum for the candidates running for the unexpired term on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors. The election is on Jan. 19 at your regular polling place. The press release below gives you all the details about the forum. We hope many FAIR! members turn out to ask these candidates questions on progressive issues. There are sharp differences among the candidates. Janelle Rettig is currently filling the vacancy by appointment until Jan. 19.

FAIR! has chosen not to endorse a candidate this time in favor of co-sponsoring this opportunity to hear these differences for yourself! If you are unable to attend, try to catch it on a local cable channel, and do definitely VOTE. Given the uncertainty of the weather, it is best to vote early. You can vote now during regular business hours at the County Auditor's office in the County Administration building on So. Dubuque. There will be other opportunities at Hy-Vee, the Public Library,the North Liberty Community Center. Watch the news for times and places.

The candidates vying for the current vacancy on the Johnson County Board of Supervisors, Lori Cardella (Rep), Jim Knapp (nominated by petition) and Janelle Rettig (Dem), will share their perspectives and answer audience questions at a candidate forum on January 7th, 2010. The forum, co-sponsored by the League of Women Voters of Johnson County (LWVJC) and FAIR!, will be held at the Iowa City Public Library,Room A, from 7:00 pm to 8:30 pm. A meet and greet will follow from 8:30 pm to
9:00 pm. Refreshments provided by FAIR!

The Special Election is scheduled for January 19th, 2010. The shortened period for campaigning heightened the need for public forums, a need the League of Women Voters of Johnson County consistently meets in the community. The forum will be broadcast live on the Iowa City Public Library Station(cable 10)and rebroadcast on City Channels in Coralville, Iowa City and North Liberty. Allison Werner-Smith, a lawyer and League member, will moderate.

Voting on January 19th, 2010 will be at your regular voting location with early voting available throughout the county. Visit www.jcauditor.com for more information.

2009: The Year That Almost Is (Over)

It is a tradition of the Fourth Estate to review the year as soon as it draws to an end. It sells papers, magazines, and brings in muchas advert dollares. Since bloggers are not reliant on ad revenue, I will summarize 2009 now (not beholden to any corporate entity except Google who owns Blogger.Com. For all your blogging needs, choose Google).

2009 saw the first African-American President inaugurated and ammunition and gun sales skyrocket--welcome to "Change America Needs."

2009 saw a drawing down in Iraq and a loading up in Afghanistan. It saw a reup of the Patriot Act and Guantanamo still in operation.

Congress allowed the national debt to increase to 12.4 trillion dollars while 40+ million people continue to not have health care. The health care that is likely to occur in 2010 will cut that number to 24 million.

The Supreme Court welcomed a new member of its rowing crew when Sonia Sotomayor was confirmed despite the NRA, the Republican Party, and others who objected to her. The Supreme Court continues to function, as of this time.

Iowa saw its state income decrease 7.8% at the end of October and 6.7% of its workforce unemployed. The universities of Iowa stimulated the economy by using Federal tax dollars to encourage employees to retire early.

2009 saw Tea Partiers, Birthers, Obamafacists, and come together and Jon and Kate break up. 2009 saw "King of Pop Music" Michael Jackson pass away and Glenn Beck become the king of pop punditry.

2009 also saw Sarah Palin go rogue and Edward Kennedy go underground. It saw a Tiger and a governor lose their marriages and marriage equality to occur in Iowa and Washington DC.

In Johnson County, urban chickens, school plans and closings,curfews, and a bridge to nowhere (actually to Sutliff) were debated ad infinitum. To build or not to build led to the biggest voter turnout of residents in University Heights for a council election, while Iowa City saw the lowest turnout in twenty years. A County Supervisor's passing led to an appointment and a special election. The killing by a sheriff's deputy of a homeless refugee was ruled justifiable, but holding the man accountable who likely caused it was deferred.

Finally, 2009 saw people affected by job losses in record numbers, corporations being bailed out, and housing markets collapsing. So to those of us who escaped 2009 in good shape, remember that 2010 is just around the corner. Happy New Year?