Dear Abby, You've Been Served

 A judge in Polk County has done what the Republican Party and its lawyer, Alan Ostergren, wanted. Judge Scott Beattie, a 2018 appointee of Gov. Kim Reynolds, has ruled that former Congresswoman Abby Finkenauer can not be on the Democratic primary ballot for the US Senate, overruling the state board that ruled differently. Thanks to a change in the rules about what makes a candidate qualified passed by the Republican legislature in 2021, Finkenauer needed to have 100 eligible signatures from at least 19 Iowa counties by the deadline date, something that the other two candidates Michael Franken and Glenn Hurst cleared the bar of (or at least were not challenged about). Due to missing or incorrect dates in at least 2 counties which cost the campaign the needed required signatures, Finkenauer's ruled ineligible petitions disqualify her name from appearing on the primary ballot.

Barring the Iowa Supreme Court intervening quickly or an unprecedented write-in campaign (such as a primary version of Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's unlikely re-election bid), this ruling almost assures that Finkenauer's campaign for the US Senate has been scuttled. In the meanwhile, the Republicans pat each other on the back and say "the rules are the rules" (because they revised them). The Democrats, once again, are put on the defensive as they have to find a way to spin a seemingly rookie mistake of not collecting more than enough valid signatures for the "front-running" candidate who was beginning to make a dent in the lead of the long-time incumbent in the Senate race. 

While it is true that Team Finkenauer fumbled, the fact that she is not likely to be on the ballot serves to tell Iowans to what length Republicans will go to preserve their current lock on this state's politics. While it is considered better to hate the game and not the players (even when the players are also the rule makers), in this case, the opposition played for keeps. Just as they did in the 2nd Congressional District vote recount that enabled Rep. Miller-Meeks to be elected by 6 votes, they lawyered up and used the rules to their advantage. The lesson to every non-Republican running for statewide, local, or federal offices should now be--don't leave room for a squeaker. In this case, if you fail, you may not make it to the starting line.  

Iowa's Republicans Don't Care What You Think

 This week Republicans in our state decided that you don't need unemployment insurance for 26 weeks and that 16 weeks is plenty unless your company packs up and leaves. Also, they don't care if you have to work for less than you did before you were laid-off as you'll have to accept a job that pays as little as 60% of your former earnings or be cut off from your benefits at 8 weeks. You see, Iowa has 50,000 jobs that need to be filled and only about 29,000 people who are seeking work. Oh, and no they did not raise Iowa’s minimum wage to $15, or restore collective bargaining rights, or prohibit asking about criminal history on a job application, or even invest in affordable housing which Democrats tacked on as amendments. Republicans rejected those amendments.

What else don't they care about? They don't care if you are told if the well on your property is safe to drink. They passed a bill telling landowners that it is perfectly dandy to sell a property without having groundwater hazard statements. Nitrites, they're what's for dinner!

Republicans also think that junior and senior college students should only get $12 million in scholarships for studying what they see as "in-demand" jobs and universities can expect no additional funding. They ain't paying for no darn Liberal Arts degrees.

Republicans also don't care who the governor appoints and are planning on ending the Senate approval of many of the governor’s appointees.  Their philosophy is "Let the Executive do the Executive thing."

The Notable KBJ

 

To hear it, you'd think that Ketanji Brown Jackson was CRT incarnate instead of a well-qualified nominee for the US Supreme Court. You'd think that a person sitting on the second-highest court in the land with a decade of judicial experience could be expected to be questioned about her legal qualifications rather than the amount of time spent in church or (on a scale of 1 to 10) what her level of "faith" is.

But this is the nature of US politics where every high profile process has to be slathered in political rhetoric and shape the issues that the next election will be the battlefield for. A sane person or a sober judge might find this laughable unless they are sitting in the presence of these political provocateurs seeking their blessing to adjudicate law at the highest level in the land. Also knowing that both sides are trying to bend the will of the court to their POV does not make it easier to sit there and get the good cop/bad cop treatment.

To her credit and patience, this notable judge who is a Harvard Law School product has handled herself with aplomb and dignity when asked about her faith, Judge Brown Jackson said "Personally, my faith is very important, but as you know, there is no religious test under Article six and it is very important to set aside one's personal views and the role of judge." Responding to Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa "about a speech she had delivered citing Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., she told the senators how one generation could go from the racially segregated schools her parents attended in Florida to her sitting before the Senate, nominated to the high court. "The fact that you can come that far was, to me, a testament to the hope and the promise of this country, the greatness of America," she said."

233 years is more than enough of time for a Black woman to be seated on the Supreme Court and Judge Brown Jackson is highly qualified to join the ranks. As always, Senate hearings may be about many things, but they are always about the preservation or expansion of power. It is my servant hope that despite the theatrics and the playing to the camera, that ultimately the votes will fall in favor of her confirmation based on the content of her character and her ability to adjudicate.

There Is No Such Thing as Gunplay

 One of the weirder things about guns is the colorful vocabulary that accompanies them. Among these, the word gunplay is actually a misnomer. There is nothing playful about a gun. Merriam-Webster defines gunplay as "the shooting of small arms with intent to scare or kill." You tell me, is that playful? Nonetheless, each year children find their parents' or siblings' firearms lying about and horrible things either happen to them or to their family members. For instance, this weekend in Dolton, Illinois, a three-year-old got ahold of a firearm and while playing with it, accidentally shot and killed his 22-year-old mother from the back seat of their van in a parking lot of a grocery store. In Nashville, another toddler shot himself in the head with his mother's handgun he got out her purse. Fortunately, that toddler lived. Similarly, a sibling shot another sibling in Louisiana while playing with a gun.

Guns are deadly and are intended to be that. They are not toys. Can we at least recognize that treatin them as anything less than the instruments of death that they are is making them that much more lethal in the hands of those they should never be in--kids. Kids should be able to play and play safely. They can't be held accountable for the laxness of their family members who are playing with the devil by not securing their firearms. Anyone who is as careless as to leave their gun unsecured is a person who really ought not to have one. Like all rights we have, we do risk losing them by acting in less than responsible and, I would add, criminal ways. Can we agree that the 2nd amendment does have one important limit, people who are not responsible or lack the mental capacity to take care of securing their guns should not be given a pass when someone ends up dead due to their irresponsibility.

Standing with Ukraine While the World Stands Watching

 

It is a terrible time to be a human being on this planet unless you are a despot or oligarch with the world or regional domination on your mind. If you are a decent human being, you would never choose to unleash military might on your neighbor. And if you aren't one, you'd not do so unless it was for the sole purpose to bend them to your will. As I and many of us watched in disbelief as the Russian army began its assault on Ukraine a few days ago, I was happy to see the Russian people in the streets protesting their nation's siege -- something that these people do at great peril given their government's totalitarian and punitive nature. At the same time, I admire the tenacity of the Ukrainian leadership as they defend themselves against this assault with support mostly through economic sanctions by observing nations, support for their infrastructure, and armaments provided by the same. 

Certainly, this is a difficult situation. Russia has made overtures before, but with it threatening to use its nuclear capabilities, what sane leader is going to escalate that threat? While the US and its NATO allies are lending support and placing troops in neighboring countries, the Russian regime is banking on them letting Russia decimate Ukraine to achieve their goal of regime change and perhaps, reunifying another piece of the former Soviet Union. 

Thankfully, the leadership of Ukraine is not kowtowing to that sentiment and neither are its people. They are engaged in a war they did not choose, but they are engaged to show the world and Russia that they will not be stepped on so a madman can seize power. And they are doing this risking it all. Lives hang in the balance and it doesn't help to know that there is no cavalry coming. One might even say this is so Ukrainian. 

Perhaps, this is something that free nations should keep in mind. Even in a fractured place like the US, I hope we still believe that freedom is only possible with true democracy. Nationalistic tendencies are categorically ill-advised, except in the rejection of imposed other-nation pressure. We are only as good as what we are willing to defend. So far what we are willing to defend is having the US and its NATO partners being pulled into a war that would likely be like a Molotov cocktail, an incendiary device where world peace is concerned.

Conventional Wisdom

 Last evening, Iowa Republicans and Democrats got together for their annual caucuses leading up to county and later, state conventions. In my county, I understand 270 Democrats met on Zoom to deliberate about the fate of the party and use Zoom filters. I am not a fan of caucuses of any size, but understand that conventions are important to the loyal faithful. At one time, you couldn't get elected dogcatcher without the convention nominating you. 

I have been to a handful of these convention gatherings in the past, and like religious organizations, found them happy to see new blood (if for only that the longer-in-tooth could get off of a never-ending committee assignment). I mention this because I worry about the future of political parties if conventions are their go-to for sparking interest in the more youthful.

In my college job, I witness the younger generation up close. They are an interesting lot and they do seem to like to travel in packs. You'd think that would be a draw for convention going. Also, they like to feel important, again good for political gatherings. Finally, they seem to enjoy the sound of their own voices--it would seem that political convention would be like hitting the trifecta for these youngsters. But alas, you'd be so wrong. Because they also don't care much for conflict or gravitating too far from campus, and unless there is a keg or keto, they aren't coming.

No, party conventions are largely an older person's thing, especially the countywide ones. Sure a stray college student who is part of the campus party student org and a handful of others may try it out as a lark, but they aren't coming back next year (probably because they are graduating and moving back home or to the closest large city out of state).

So for those of us who think the future belongs to the young, we better think of a better way to engage the young. Kounty Kegger and Keto Konvention, anybody? 

Protecting the First Amendment, Kind Of

 As a public employee, I received a note from my employer stating that I would need to comply with their command that I understand the limits of free speech at my job and complete a training module to that end. Given that I work at a post-secondary institution, I do not have a problem with additional learning and set aside the required 15-20 minutes to complete the module so that I will be "in compliance" of whatever I am in compliance of--basic knowledge of the US consitution's Bill of Rights, I suppose. While it makes sense to me to meet the legal compliances that are required of me, like complying with FERPA so I'm not data mining student information or completing anti-harassment training to do my part to keep the workplace less creepy, I do object to the idea that my employer's boss is afraid that we are not doing free speech right and that we all have to take a crash course to keep ourselves operationally efficient in that respect.

For the record, I am fond of the 1st Amendment and exercise it frequently. I am not a constitutional scholar but have not yelled "fire" in a theater ever in my life. I know that my free speech has limitations. Apparently, one of the limits is that I have to be tested on my understanding and certify that I do understand. Comically, I also had to take a quiz consisting of 3 questions and needed to have a score of at least 80% to be in compliance. I am not a mathematician, but I do know that a 3 item quiz cannot bear a score of at least 80% unless you answer all the items correctly.  But, somehow, I don't think that was the point--and from an assessment vantage point, we are going to look really good and overperforming in our compliance as most, I expect will score 100%.

I completed the training in 15 minutes. I'm not sure how my taxpaying neighbors will feel about me being a newly minted expert on the 1st Amendment. I'm pretty sure that they will be counting the cost of me and my public employee counterparts who took it and wonder why they had to foot the bill for something that most of us already studied in middle school or high school social studies. Rightfully, they may feel duped by lawmakers and bureaucrats who score political points by double charging them for such things.