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.

Will Congress Censor the Internet?

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

The American Dream is Alive and Well and Living in Denmark

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

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

Iowa City is Otherwise Occupied

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

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

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

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

Arab Spring, American Fall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lies We Still Believe

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lessons from 9/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I Formally Declare My Independence

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

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

And here are some reasons why:

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

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

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

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

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

Hold These Untruths to Be Self-Evident

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

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

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

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

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

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