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.

The Trouble with Trillions

 Have you noticed the National Debt increased by over 7 trillion dollars under Trump and now another 2.1 trillion under Biden? As of January, the National Debt was slightly above $30 trillion which means in the last five years or so, the debt has ballooned by roughly 30%. Granted the last three years have been extraordinary due to the global pandemic, but nonetheless, it shouldn't be a wonder that people are asking questions like "Will I be able to retire?", "Will I be able to get out from under student debt?", and "Will be able to afford to take care of a family?"--All reasonable things to ask. As it stands, there are only a few ways this can go. 1) We can allow/encourage immigrants to come to our country to help grow the domestic economy. 2) We can pay higher taxes to pay down the debt. 3) We can have a higher percentage of wealthy individuals and businesses pay a higher percentage in taxes. 4) We can ignore it and treat it as Monopoly money that will never be repaid.

Taking these one at a time. Realistically, our population will have to grow (or at least maintain) over time to accommodate the global diaspora from wars, climate change, reduced child-bearing in the US and so on. However, because of the politics of nationalism versus globalization, how we do this is anybody's guess. Certainly, those displaced by war and internal instability are generally regarded to be more welcomed, but the untenable situation along the southern border can only really resolve itself by either Draconian, undemocratic means, or by increasing the number of immigrants received into the country and helping other countries to create stronger economic development zones near and away from the borders. If we don't, we can look forward to a continued existential threat by those nations whose populations far exceed our own.

The idea of paying higher taxes has worked in socialized countries that also provide benefits far in excess of our own. The ability to provide that level of support to US residents is highly constricted by the wars we've waged, the borrowing/robbing of the Social Security savings account, and the activities of the Federal Reserve. Taxes on the middle class are likely to appear in the form of higher sales taxes and other fees rather than an increase in either state or federal income taxes. One way or the other, revenue will be raised, but not in a progressive way.

The third option is a political football that will be kicked down one side of the field and up the other. Those who Congress depend on for large PAC and other contributions do not like to watch their vast fortunes fall, but may not have the luxury for much longer if there are few options left to lessen the debt. The threat is always that rats may choose to leave a sinking ship.

The last option is not hard to imagine as who holds the debt is the same organization that created the debt. When you consider that as long as the interest is being paid, there will never be demands to call in the loans--and who would call them in anyway? 

As we trepidatiously look toward the future, it is likely to create some heretofore unheard of tensions as we figure out what to do and who will bear the brunt when the piper wishes to be paid, even if that piper is us. 

Wynn Allen Bruce: Canary in a Coalmine

 

Wynn Allen Bruce was a 50-year-old climate activist and practicing Buddhist from Boulder, Colorado. On Saturday, he set himself on fire on the steps of the Supreme Court. While no one may understand fully why he did it, it is thought that his frustration over governmental inaction on global climate change legislation was why he chose to end his life in such a dramatic way after about a year of planning for it. Martyr for a cause, a person with psychological problems, a true believer, whatever he was, he is no longer. 

We have a long history of canaries in the coal mine that remind us that it is only through action that the politics are pushed to make a change. People like Bruce sacrifice their own lives to make a difference in a world that can be largely indifferent to the obvious. Every day, we see the evidence of our changing climate, in small and large ways. The sacrifice of a life to live a purposed life is the stuff of saints. It is only necessitated because we ignore the obvious when it suits us. Certainly, we can point to all kinds of atrocities to make that point. Thich Nhat Hanh wrote that “to burn oneself by fire is to prove that what one is saying is of the utmost importance. There is nothing more painful than burning oneself. To say something while experiencing this kind of pain is to say it with utmost courage, frankness, determination and sincerity.”

In honor of this man's struggle, a man I did not know but now feel I owe a debt, I ask you to take a moment and reach out to your members of Congress. Say his name when you write your email or letter and ask for action on global climate change in whatever way it moves you. Let us all be canaries today. 

Happy Earth Day To You, But Don't Drink the Water

 It may come as a limited surprise that this Earth Day presents many of the same unresolved problems as the first Earth Day in 1970. According to the Earth Day organization: 

Groups that had been fighting individually against oil spills, polluting factories and power plants, raw sewage, toxic dumps, pesticides, freeways, the loss of wilderness and the extinction of wildlife united on Earth Day around these shared common values. Earth Day 1970 achieved a rare political alignment, enlisting support from Republicans and Democrats, rich and poor, urban dwellers and farmers, business and labor leaders. 

Since the first Earth Day, thousands of Iowa's private wells have dangerous levels of nitrites and bacteria, nitrogen pollution flowing out of Iowa to the Gulf of Mexico have grown by close to 50 percent over nearly two decades, and over 700 Iowa waterways are impacted. What is behind much of this? Lax enforcement of existing law as it applies to agriculture particularly as it relates to mitigating animal (mostly hog-related) waste.

In a state where the leadership cuts the budget for the Department of Natural Resources and relies on guidance from the Farm Bureau to make policy, there is a good reason why we are walking backward,. The problem is when will we say "enough already"?

Republicans Against Transparency (RAT)

As the legislative session has arrived at the magic Day 100--when legislators are no longer paid to do per-diem payments to cover personal expenses like hotel rooms and gas--the knives are being sharpened in private thanks to Republicans Against Transparency (RATs) to deliver as many of the choice budget meats that will satisfy the "Win column" of both the legislature and the governor (RAT-in-chief) who wants to declare victory on education reform as she re-ups for the office that she'd clearly like to hold on to for another four years. Since "to the victors go the spoils," they are working behind doors to figure out what the final policy and budget will look like. Yes, the same party that wants you to believe they are capable of creating elections above reproach also wants you to believe that closed-door politics leads to good things for the working stiffs of Iowa.

While they say they are not there to spend the people's money but creating scholarships for private schools in the form of vouchers is doing exactly that. Picking winners and losers in the still not passed bottle bill is another example of how things work when you have rural interests and corporate interests colliding. The most transparent thing about these proceedings is that the leadership has sent their party members home with the message, don't call us, we'll call you. Once a RAT, always a RAT.

Iowa: Bad Nanny State

Conservatives like to talk up themselves as the bearers of "freedom" but the Republicans in our state are creating a bad nanny state. They are doing it by reducing the kind of local control counties and cities may have around wages, environmental and water quality, and even fireworks saying that they are supporting small businesses. They are controlling what school boards, libraries, and universities may allow students to learn or read or do to ensure inclusion and equity for all students under the guise of giving parents more say. They are even picking winners and losers in the workforce sector by guiding Federal dollars to questionable projects. Also, in true form, they are ratcheting up the limits a woman has over her own body and health by further limiting access to reproductive care saying that they are saving lives. Lastly, they are limiting all of our right to choose by making it increasingly harder to vote by saying they are protecting our elections.

You wouldn't be wrong to say that you are free to do whatever Republican lawmakers in Iowa allow you to be free to do. The party of "small government" is big on law enforcement and bigger on new laws to enforce against your personal freedoms. While they help corporations and the wealthy to profiteer (which, in no small way is a chief reason for inflation and wages that are growing at less than the national average), they are making it harder for people to get back on their feet after the setbacks of the last two years and to care for their children.

Given the differences between Republican policies of the last several years, you'd think that Iowans would see that their freedom isn't so free and certainly is not freeing. And what will Iowans get for their continuation of policies? Republicans want you to believe that they will allow you to keep more money in your pockets. But how is that possible when they keep making it more expensive to take care of your family, your health, and even your livelihood? In their picture, we will only make investments in things that endanger the lives of workers, prop up decaying (and even dying) industries, and increase their personal bottom lines. All politics serves a purpose, a really important question for Iowa voters to consider is who is serving their interests today and tomorrow? 

Funny is Hard

 I was a stand-up comedian once. I really was. I wasn't a particularly good one, but I knew it and stopped doing it. I say I gave it up for love, but I know I gave it up because it was unhealthy for me. Like the song says, looking for love in all the wrong places-- generally is.  Comedy is the art of making the darkness funny. The problem is that sometimes that the darkness outweighs the funny. Funny is hard. I muse about this because some comedians succumb to the darkness and don't know when they cease to be funny. This is harsh, but not everything is meant to be funny. 

Those elite older comedians, many of them, but not exclusively men do not seem to realize that time marches on without them and they come off to their youngers as out-of-touch scolds rather than truthtellers. Worse, they are not funny and they hurt people. Definitely not funny. It may be that I am being ageist or even anti-guy in saying this, but part of writing good comedy is to be in sync with your intended audience. 

On one of my other blogs, I keep my hand in writing jokes. Some are good, some okay, and some are likely deemed as awful--not by me, but by those who run across them. I'm okay with that. I have some rules in their invention. I lean to the silly over the cruel. I try not to be overtly sexist in writing them or racist or ageist, or anything else but my idea of what is funny. Again, I'm not the best judge of what others find funny, but at least I'm not going out of my way to alienate or harm. I just like to write jokes, not perform 'em. That is the lane I stay in and it is definitely not the fast lane (though at my age, it may be my last lane).

Comedy, like Liam Nesson's characters, has a very particular set of skills. To entertain does not always mean that laughter is what you are going for. Cinema and theater prove this quite often. But comedy is supposed to make you laugh--sometimes uncomfortably, but laugh nonetheless. Without laughter, there is just hopeless cynicism. Not funny.

In the darkest of times, we have relied on comedians and musicians to see us and perhaps even to guide us through. It is very serious work, to tell the truth in a way that tears and laughter are all we've got in our arsenal of emotions to react with. It is said that many comedians are broken people. I understand that. Many people who are not comedians are broken too. It is not excusable to use your pain to harm others and it certainly isn't funny. The comedian walks a very specific tightrope when they walk on a stage. Like the tightrope walker, the spotlight is very much on them, and, yes, there are people in the crowd wishing them ill. But, also like the tightrope walker, it is through their skill and guile, their ability to engross and captivate the audience in their craft that by the end of the show, the audience may be as relieved as the comic, even as they clamber to their feet to applaud the effort. The cathartic nature of comedy is that powerful. 

I equate comedy to a religious experience. The late Robin Williams likely channeled that sentiment better than anyone in his frenetic crowd-pleasing way of his. I miss Robin Williams. I thought of him when I wrote this joke: "What's the difference between a comedian and a fool? A comedian knows when to get off the stage."