Same Old Song and Dance

 Nineteen elementary school-aged children were murdered in a classroom along with two teachers and an additional 15 people were injured when an 18-year-old gunman entered an elementary school in Uvalde, TX with a newly purchased semi-automatic weapon. As parents mourned and struggled to understand, politicians sent out the usual thoughts and prayers and President Biden asked rhetorically, "Why do  we let this keep happening?"

Why, indeed? Why should schoolchildren be targeted in this way? Why should guns that can shoot thirty rounds at a time be legally sold? Why should politicians pray for the dead while doing so little to keep people alive?

The outrage that 4th-grade children should so easily be mowed down in a town of 16,000 is horrendous. The fact that the gun used in the killings was able to be purchased by a kid without so much as a lesson, a license, or parental permission is hard to fathom. Also, where were the police? Why did it take an hour for a tactical unit with the tools/equipment to be assembled and show up at the school? 

Now, here we are two days later and already the handwringing is subsiding. Already we are being told that legislation will take a while. In the meantime, people in Uvalde are burying their young, including the gunman, and trying to make sense out of the nonsensical. And sure, we can keep pointing that the fact that gun violence in the US is so wildly out of control compared to our western nation neighbors. And sure, we can point at the gun lobby and their outsized power over the political leaders in our states and country and how their money is paying for the deaths of innocent people most every day. And sure, we can point at ourselves and the frustration that we have both for those who think the 2nd Amendment means that everybody should be toting a gun and those who think there should be very strict requirements for possessing them. But, if we really do believe in the sanctity of life, we have to decide how that is going to coexist with a culture that celebrates guns and violence.

In the meanwhile, the National Rifle Association will still be holding its convention today in Houston, three days after the shooting in Uvalde. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, was supposed to be there in person but will now provide a video welcome. His opponent, Beto O'Rourke, who was at Abbott's press conference pressed him the day after the shooting on taking action to deter future massacres. The governor was mute while O'Rourke said, “The time to stop the next shooting is right now and you are doing nothing. This is on you, until you choose to do something different. This will continue to happen. Somebody needs to stand up for the children of this state or they will continue to be killed, just like they were killed in Uvalde yesterday."  Also in the US Senate, “Is Texas the tipping point? Is this what we’ve been waiting for?” Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said on CNN, hours before the Senate was to vote on whether to advance the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act of 2022. The answer was a resounding no as the bill was not passed by the 60 votes needed. Indeed, it is the same old song and dance.

All Politics Are "Yokel"

Rural Johnson County Road Sign via Flicker

 The title of this is intentionally facetious and is from the late long-time leader of the House of Representatives, Tip O'Neill who famously said "all politics are local." Iowa is swept up in a sea of red at the statewide level. As a rural state with a handful of urban outposts, the prospects for Iowa to bask in a blue wave are somewhat limited. Part of the reason is messaging and the other is authenticity in the redder parts of our state. 

Rural Iowa currently does not love Democrats, and why should they? Look at the signs along the farm fields, in the small towns and you will see how effective Republican, Christian right, pro-life and business issue-pushers have been to date. Let's face it, it is a tough row to hoe to change the minds of people whose own politics embrace keeping things the same (or turning back the clock to the "better days").

Nonetheless, there are truly independent and more center-leaning voters in these red counties who are not walking lock-step with their neighbors and Democrats will need to cultivate them, as they are likely to stay at home otherwise. But to get out this group of voters, Democrats need to meet them where they are and tell them why their vote matters. Also, as these voters may not be as progressive as their city cousins, the message has to be genuine and to the heart of the matter. Democrats cannot plow these Iowans, they have to be willing to go slower and easier to build trust with these voters. No small task for a party whose left flank is pushing hard for decisive change which centrists have to warm to.

It would be a good start to post signs that challenge the notions, such as the one pictured here. As we know, Republicans have down a fair share of taxing the poor more and spending on subsidies for the wealthy and connected. Why don't the Democrats invest in better messages for the less indoctrinated? 

Also, as we have seen in my county, it is possible to be both a rural Iowan and progressive. Jon Green, the County Supervisor and the former mayor from Lone Tree, and Seth Zimmermann, a candidate from Solon, are competing for a couple of seats this June and neither of them is Iowa Farm Bureau supported. But both want to make sure rural land is conserved, the water supply is clean, and pesticides are limited.  And neither of them might otherwise stand a chance in a county that is highly non-rural except that this is an area of rapid growth and they have a vested interest in how that growth goes, as do their neighbors and those who recreate away from the towns. Their knowledge of the rural area gives them both credibility and authenticity and sways some of the more right-leaning folks to vote for them. I am aware of other candidates, such as Kevin Kinney who is a state senator and farmer who also represents a more rural district and is up for re-election. He refers to himself as a "Dirt Road Democrat" and he walks that walk authentically by growing corn and soybeans, raising cattle, as well as fighting for better pay for Iowa's teachers.

Iowans deserve better than laws and policies that harm the very fabric that the state is created from. Democrats can be fuller-throated in supporting policies that preserve the land and water, help teachers to teach, and take care of the family farm. If Iowa is to ever have a Harold Hughes or a Tom Vilsack acolyte as governor, Democrats are going to have to convince rural Iowans that they also have their backs.

Throw the Right Bums Out

 

Political Cartoon is by Rex Babin in the Sacramento Bee.

In American politics, there is a tradition in the mid-terms to punish the party that won the last election because they didn't deliver as promised. For the record, I think that is as good a reason as any to replace those who need replacing, but there are no guarantees that things will get better as a result. You see, throwing the bums out often means bringing new bums in. And it also means awarding "points" to the other side that they didn't earn and may have helped cause through voting and working in opposition of the presiding party's policies. 

Concretely, when the Republicans sat out on things like Build Back Better, they cut off their noses to spite their faces, because economic development generally is one of their chief jams. However, because inflation is on the rise, they are likely to get a pass and be rewarded because of people voting with their wallets. They did nothing to help people get better jobs, but they didn't "cause" inflation--therefore it is all the other party's fault. Do you see how that works?

Now, in Iowa, we have  Republican leadership, and, given that inflation is also rampant in Iowa, shouldn't that leadership be flailed in the next election? That same leadership that is underfunding schools and their teachers, is more focused on transgender kids not playing sports. The same leadership who shortened unemployment benefits for Iowans by 10 weeks and is almost forcing Iowans to take less well-paying jobs believes they should be rewarded for it. The same leadership that sent highway patrol officers to guard the US border to keep immigrants out but kept meat processing plants open while many immigrant workers died believes it earned the right to keep doing more of the same. Bum-like decisions, if you ask me.

There are bums and then, there are bums. Both sides have got 'em. Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Synema are bums by holding up things like voter's rights. Majorie Taylor Greene and Matt Gaetz are bums because of the nationalistic fomenting. Predatory Matthew Cawthorn would continue being one had he not been beaten in his primary. Kim Reynolds and Chuck Grassley are bums. Kim Reynolds wants to push out someone from her own party because they don't want to do school vouchers in their district. Chuck Grassley wanted to hang Joe Biden about the shortage of baby formula when he voted for the USMCA that added tariffs for imports and lessened the supply of it. Pretty bum-like behaviors, wouldn't you say?

At this time, when people are working harder and losing value on the money they are earning, we need better than the present group of bums. In Iowa, there is a primary coming up. The Democrats have three people who want to replace Chuck Grassley in the senate--the DNC would love for their candidate to be the choice (for those of you who remember how that went last time when Bruce Braley ran with their blessing, it wasn't pretty). This time the quality choice might be a retired Navy admiral who is right on the issues and does not have the baggage of winning and then losing a seat in Congress. In many parts of the state from the Board of Supervisors on up, there are competitive races that could well decide how this state is run for the next several years. It is actually a really good time to both be an educated voter and active in turning out the vote.

Turning things around doesn't happen overnight, but as the last presidency assures us, a lot of damage can be done in four years with the wrong bums. If we are going to be in the business of throwing out the bums, shouldn't we at least aim at throwing out the right bums?

Certain Unalienable Rights

Consider these words as it applies to our country today. 

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

These words are Thomas Jefferson's and are from the Declaration of Independence, the document that told the British Monarchy that the Colonists wanted their autonomy and freedom. Fast forward to today where women, the LGBTQA community, and many others are wanting to maintain their hard-fought freedoms. Fundamentally, should any government be able to dictate how any of us chooses to live and the choices we make for ourselves? I ask this as a straight, white man who has it especially easy relative to the women, the BIPOC, and the LGBTQA communities. I ask this as a person who may want to choose when my life will end (as I regard what happiness means to me in a state of physical or mental decline) while progressing into later life.

The universal human rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness have been argued as sacrosanct and yet, are regularly trod upon to serve "the greater good." But who should really have the authority to deny a person their fundamental rights to appease others and their ideas of what is right and wrong? We may argue when a person has the maturity to know what is right for them, but even that is presuming that adults somehow have special knowledge that children lack or that the "normal" possesses over the "abnormal." When what we as individuals choose to do is identified as self-harming by others, do we not have the ability to be able to judge for ourselves whether it is actually the pursuit of happiness that we are engaged in? If, for instance, a person is in excruciating pain for which no medical procedure nor medication gave relief, could not the reality of death releasing them from that pain authentically be seen as the pursuit of happiness? When a person needs to make a decision about whether to carry a fetus to term, shouldn't that be solely their decision to make? Likewise, if a person is happier inhabiting a body of the sex not assigned at birth, shouldn't that also be their call? And if a person serving time for malicious murder should choose to want themselves euthanized, shouldn't that also be their choice?

Whatever the rest of us may feel because of our religious upbringing, personal philosophy, or beliefs, should we really be able to wield our will over anyone else but ourselves or by those we choose to do our bidding? The one-size-fits-all model of what our forebearers ostensibly thought and fought for is pointless to try to come to a consensus about. The very particular choices of the words: life--that thing that we all share in common, liberty--the freedom to do with that what we see fit, and pursuit of happiness--the mode in which we choose to exercise liberty/live our lives is an ideal to ascribe to, but it is also a personal choice of how to attain.

What a different world we would be a part of if we all could be assured of our own self-determination. As individuals, we always have that right. However, the sounding board of living as part of society gives us adequate pause to learn, engage, and ultimately decide what to do as it relates to our own choices. 

With regard to Mr. Jefferson and his thoughts on the consent granted to the government by the governed, I think he'd find our lawmakers to be rather self-aggrandizing and corrupt in their efforts to legislate around morality for the sake of power. I think Jefferson would wonder why we have allowed our government to have so much say with regard to personal rights and liberties and perhaps, wonder why we put up with "despotic" state governments as our "Safety and Happiness" count on it?

SCOTUS Failure May Lead to System Failure

Greek philosopher and Skeptic, Arcesilaus said "Where you find the laws most numerous, there you will find also the greatest injustice." With the conservative swing to the Supreme Court evident and with a preponderance of statehouse and governor seats in control by Republicans, in 2021 alone, 22 states passed new laws to limit safe, legal abortions in the US. At least sixteen states restricted access to abortion in some way while six states expanded access to the procedure. All this while reported abortion rates are actually decreasing over time owing to access to preventative contraception,  and non-surgical means to end possible pregnancies. Some would say that we have plenty of laws, but not a good way to support women who are making these difficult, personal decisions.

With the leaked draft report from the Supreme Court essentially letting the proverbial cat out of the bag and allowing Americans into the headspace of the majority of Supreme Court justices, it is clear that precedent is being rejected to put more power back at the state level to decide state-by-state what the "law of the land" will be where access to abortion is concerned. Of course, at the federal level, a law enshrining the legal right to access to abortion could be forthcoming, but it is also true that pro-choice advocates will also have to go toe-to-toe with pro-life advocates who will have the upper hand where current state lawmakers and governors are concerned. 

What pro-choice advocates have going for them are numbers. Polling suggests that the vast number of Democrats and about 49% of Republicans support abortion rights for a variety of reasons. Second, the history of abortion tells a darker tale of women unnecessarily dying from seeking out dangerous procedures and the cost to society for the care of unwanted lives, and the limitations of enough adoptive parents, particularly for older children of color. Third, the strange bedfellows of Moderate Republicans, Libertarians, Liberals, and Progressives who agree that freedom includes freedom of choice.

Whatever happens in the days ahead, it is a battleground, and therefore, every state is a battleground state. Ultimately must be won by those who stand to lose the most and their allies.

Iowa's Farm Harm

 

For those of you who are not from Iowa, some of this will seem small-minded, for others, it will seem all too familiar. Iowa used to be a more reliable "purple" state than it has been for the last ten or so years. However, thanks to an adrenalized hard right and right-leaning, non-partisan think-tanks, industry groups, and policy groups, we are also in the money laundering business as out-of-state dollars are converted into land grabs, enterprise zones, and people deserts in smaller communities. As a result, Iowa may be further right-leaning now and into the future. Some reasons are fairly obvious, Iowa derives a lot of its income from corporate agriculture to make the things the rest of the country and world want and need like high fructose corn syrup, ethanol (though not as popular in oil-producing states/lobbies), sillage, chickens, eggs, and, of course, all things pork and cow.

Farmers and those who work for them, know they have a pretty tough job, but do it because it is necessary work. After all, America Needs Farmers--as the Farm Bureau likes to say. Thanks to guaranteed income through farm subsidy programs, it can be a practical choice and, if you absorb your competition and integrate into the supply chain, you can make a buck or two. That is likely why farms of less than 100 acres continue to shrink and farms from 1000 acres up continue to grow. Also while family-owned farms are the vast majority of farms, family farms being farmed by family are about half that.

The cost to all Iowans is dirtier water, air, and areas in our state that stink to high heaven (in fact the odors are so noxious that workers die while working in manure ponds). Beyond the loss of life with an average of about 80 farm workers or self-employed farmers losing their lives between 2011-2020 (and have ranged from a high of 110 in 1992 to a low of 54 in 1995), Iowa's rural communities are shrinking as automation steadily creeps into the fields and seed genetics make for more predictable outcomes. And yet, the political power of Iowa's rural areas is outsized in terms of right-leaning, pro-business political influence.

Iowa's basic political philosophy about the effects of farming has been pretty much been it's a downstream problem. As many likely know, one of those downstream problems has been the Gulf of Mexico where there is an ever-enlarging "dead zone" caused by agricultural waste that is killing off aquatic life and causing hardships for coastal fishermen. Other downstream problems have resided with urban areas having to pour money into better water filtration systems, rural well-water that is dangerous to drink, and so on. 

Is farming essential to Iowa's overall health, it would be hard to debate otherwise, particularly as so much real estate is tied up in it. But, as much of the land is owned by farmers, it does not always mean it is being farmed which has led to the cost of existing land rising and making it harder for working farmers to grow. There is lots of room for blame about policies, but perhaps farm subsidies programs have had the unintended effect to allow farmers to profit from being land barons rather than farmers. In addition with farms that are handed from family member to family member, there is the prospect that agricultural land, particularly closer to urban areas will be continually peeled off the support the outward sprawl and the profits to be made by land development.

The future of farming is likely to pit farm operations against farmer barons who hold land and sell when the price is right. What that likely means to all of us is continued inflation on food, fuels, and real estate, as well as continued contamination up-and-down-stream. It sort of stinks like a CAFO.