The End Of The World As We Know It!

zombie-apocalypse-from-overclockersYou know those apocalyptic movies where the world is near extinction because we are being overrun by Zombies?  They became Zombi-fied from a virus that is circumnavigating the world at an exponential rate.

The movie will go back in time, briefly, to show us the unnoticed, seemingly insignificant, event that first sent monkeybrainthe virus airborne into a lethal chain reaction.  It’s usually something as benign as a pet chimp sneezing into their new owner’s cereal bowl.  The intent is to suggest that it’s something so unforeseeable that it could be happening as we sit in this very theater.

What if we are at the beginning of one of those sequences of events right now?  Could we implode from a cacophony of conflicting nuances, divergent political agendas, contradictory rules, extended punishments, threats, insults, and misunderstandings?

I’m not an alarmist, by nature, but my interest in politics compels me to look for patterns in current events.  As a writer, I translate those observations into common analogies to grasp what is going on.  Make sense?  No?

Well…. in America, our solutions to problems, historically, are comparable to an antiquated idea Punished Boy --- Image by © Roy Morsch/CORBISof child rearing.  If there is a behavior that alarms us, punish the culprit and the problem will go away because no one likes to be punished.

So we castigate, eliminate, or incarcerate everything and everyone that had anything to do with anything or anyone who might have said, done, or listened to anything or anyone that might have misconstrued, misjudged, misappropriated or misbehaved.

What happens in reality, however, is the behavior is simply displaced and moves somewhere else or is transposed into a different, but equally poor, behavior.

We have come to a very precarious place where many people think that banishment, chastisement, punishment, censorship and walls can replace education, understanding, compassion, diplomacy and bridges; silence the protest and we eliminate the problem.  Censor the protester, politician, pundit, satirist, musician, writer, parent, teacher, or student…and the conflict is corrected.

In reality, however, we create a more frightened and more fragile society.  And I’m concerned.  We cannot silence of voices who hold our leaders accountable because they are the narrators of our story.  They are the ones who can illuminate that sequence of events before it’s too late.

Can you excuse me for a moment?  My chimpanzee has a cold.

Sullied by every breath

When I was 10 years old my family took a vacation to the east coast to visit Colonial Williamsburg, Monticello, Mount Vernon, and our nation’s capital. Like so many others of my generation, my consciousness was awakened 5 years earlier by the assassination of President John F Kennedy and I became obsessed with everything that had anything to do with Presidents, American government, our founding, the colonies, and Congress. I was fascinated by figures in powdered wigs, with ruffled shirts, who wrote eloquent tomes with giant quills.

I bought into the American myth, hook, line and sinker. And I still do. While the flaws in our history that have belied our promise, like slavery and the denial of women’s suffrage must be viewed askance, I forgive our forebears within the context of their time, not to lessen the atrocities of prejudice, but to believe in the higher purpose of representative democracy to be the agent of justice and change.

In 1968 when we walked up the steps to the Capitol the marble and sandstone glistened with what I perceived at the time to be the collective wisdom of all of the great men and women who passed before. I still remember the echo of hushed voices in the Rotunda as others toured with the same reverence for the history of our government.

When we drove past the White House I imagined President Johnson inside signing some document or another. We drove past the Jefferson and Lincoln Memorials and my impression was that they were as huge as they should be to commemorate the great men inside.

We walked the cobblestone streets of Colonial Williamsburg and I decided that I might be a reincarnation of an 18th century blacksmith; I felt so completely at home.

Upon our return to Iowa I immersed myself in American history and the workings of government. I ran for Student Council, took humanities classes, and devoured social studies. I admired the people who ran for office, and for our elected officials, even when they failed. Richard Nixon became president soon after our Washington adventure, but I never hated him. I drowned myself in Watergate news, and concluded that President Nixon was not an honest man, but— I never disliked him. I believed, and still do, that Richard Nixon was awed by the office he held.

President Reagan was, too. So were Presidents Bush, Clinton, Bush and Obama and every President who came before. I think that American history, with all of its flaws, conquests, challenges and promises granted or missed, has worn the coat of greatness, and it has been our participation in that noble myth that has held our nation together.

Which brings this long windup to its conclusion: President Trump has no such allegiance to the divine grace of democracy; to the sanctity of social justice; or to the awe inspiring mechanism of American government. Never in my life, or in my perception of life before me, has the power of the office of President of the United States been so sullied. But, today, as I read Mean Tweets from the man who carries the torch of our highest office, and watch his insincere directives that separate, subjugate, and suppress, I feel exactly that way.


The Emperor Has Designer Clothes

Disclaimer: Anything in this article pertaining to President Donald Trump has been written by someone who does not admire the aforementioned president. The views contained here are of a person pre-disposed to believing that the character of Donald Trump is based in a malignant narcissism and devoid of empathy, and therefore Donald Trump’s motives are not in the best interests of America. Offer expires 1/21/21. See dealer for details.

Yesterday, President Donald Trump gave a speech in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, not far from where I live. I did not attend the rally, and instead went to see Ann Wilson (of Heart) perform. When presented with the choice for the evening I opted for the entertainer who sang “Crazy On You” instead of the one who IS crazy on you (please refer back to disclaimer). Besides, I knew that I would get an earful from people who attended the Trump Rally and from numerous reports from the Fake Media.

Okay…I got that out of my system.

I am riding the fence here because I am very vocal about making the plea to all of us to become more civil and to reduce the hostile rhetoric that fans the ire of those among us with weaker ethical constitutions. Even for those who delineate between right and wrong, the conversations often become arguments and create lines that separate us from our better selves. But, my “plea” did not mean (nor should it) that we lay down our ideological arms and acquiesce to impertinence.

Donald Trump is, to me, the embodiment of the problem created by a narrow view of America’s promise of freedom and justice. In my view this is the most dangerous presidency in the history of the United States because it is a culmination of controlled information, lack of access to the free press, and plutocratic leadership. We have been inching toward an oligarchy for 40 years, but now we are fast-tracked by an authoritarian who is seduced by theocracy.

Hyperbole? To some (perhaps, to many) that is how my thoughts here will be judged. Yet, I am not prone to hyperbole in such matters and so I am going to give myself the benefit of reasonable doubt; I sincerely fear for the health of the nation I love. I honestly believe that if we allow Donald Trump’s fascist tendencies to become the New Normal, the country my children and grandchildren will inherit will be at risk of collapse. Not just another deep recession, or even a catastrophic depression, but actual collapse.

John Adams wrote in 1814: “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. It is in vain to say that democracy is less vain, less proud, less selfish, less ambitious, or less avaricious than aristocracy or monarchy.”

Adams WAS prone to hyperbole, but nevertheless, his caution led to safeguards within our Constitution to protect us from a tyrannical majority. We can see the wisdom from his prognostication in the creation of the Bill of Rights and it may be the only thing that gives us a fighting chance.

I watched video of the President’s speech in Cedar Rapids. I heard the cheers when he made his case for “loving America” and for caring about “all Americans.” He recited a new phrase, “We’ll have to see,” as a pardon for controversial policies, in order to proclaim that his aim is true. It was received by the sizable crowd with thunderous applause. I know people who were there, who previously did not trust Trump, but became new believers after an hour of this well-crafted speech, designed to assuage that very mistrust.

“I don’t want poor people in top economic positions,” said President Trump. He went on to defend his appointments of billionaires to his cabinet: “Because that’s the kind of thinking we want…because they’re representing the country. They don’t want the money.”

That will make sense to a lot of people. It seems logical. But it is the very core of what is wrong with this Trump presidency. It is exactly how a plutocracy is sold to the general population; a false proposition that claims that the wealthy will hold, at heart, the interests of the less well-to-do in their policies, rather than pander to increasing their holdings.

No load of BS was ever put forth that was closer to actual bull s#!t.

Yet, people buy into it with the same optimism they feel when they buy a lottery ticket, and also with the same chance of winning. It is the same Supply Side economic sale that has been winning the hearts amd minds of hard working Americans for decades: Give the wealthy more of the money that was created by their investments (which did not actually create a product, but was money spawned by money) and they will invest more in the expansion of businesses to create more jobs….more jobs, more income, more spending, more economic growth and prosperity.

It is a perfectly logical paradigm. Except that it doesn’t work. It never has and it never will. It never will because of the very flaw espoused by Trump’s reasoning that wealthy people will be less motivated to create more personal wealth and will, in fact, be more inclined to increase opportunity for the rest of us. What happens, in reality, time and time again, when supply-side (Trickle Down) principles are implemented, is that the wealthy become wealthier, the divide between the haves and the have-nots widens, wages remain flat, and expansion doesn’t occur because the truer economic principle is DEMAND.

When the working class does not have any disposable income (or, in fact, sinks from mounting bills) to stimulate the economy, the bottom falls out and we have what we saw (as a result of Trickle Down) in 2008: a bottomless recession.

What does happen, however, is the creation of plutocratic government where wealth determines the rules by which we are all governed.

“Trump truly loves America and cares for all of us” was the takeaway from one rally attendee on Facebook. But in the very same speech, Trump derides those silly (stupid) Democrats for being so foolish as to put a 30 year old who “doesn’t even live in the district” on the ticket in Georgia. A head scratcher, for sure, on the part of Democrats, but is this how Trump expresses his deep, abiding faith in all of us? Aren’t Democrats Americans? I’m not feeling the love.

Or is this a Christian-influenced principle where we accept that God loves us and only asks for our love in return? If so…well…something just made a lot more sense with regard to how Trump views himself.

Trump had LGBT support removed from the White House website. Is that because he loves them? Are his proposed policies that lend themselves entirely to the theocratic ideal of the Christian-right, his way of showing his love and support for the gay community?

Is this what we parents call “tough love”?

Public school teachers are Americans, too. Is marginalizing their impact on our children, reducing their budgets, and eliminating their bargaining rights his way of showing love?

I am receptive to Trump’s position against NAFTA and TPP, but is that his love of workers or his love of populist politics? Perhaps, I am being too cynical here, but if Trump truly loved American workers how come his policies don’t support unions and collective bargaining, and instead push to privatize as much as possible? Is it in the interests of the working American to put their health care, pensions, and working conditions into the hands of shareholders whose preeminent interest is in profit?

Don’t people who need health care qualify as “Americans”? Why then has ACA been demonized when it was exactly what Republicans proposed 28 years ago? It needed work and changes, but to eliminate the availability of insurance to over 20 million people, to reduce Medicaid, and threaten Social Security, is that an expression of how much he cares about the 98% of us who need such things?

Children born in America to illegal immigrants are Americans (read the 14th Amendment). Where is the compassionate concern within his immigration mandates that will deport their parents? Go ahead and buy the false argument that purports that these illegal immigration “criminals” are raising our taxes by suckling off our welfare, that they are taking our jobs and committing a high percentage of crime (all untrue), and that still doesn’t spell “compassion” for the children.

And speaking of children…does Trump love the children, outside of the womb, who have seen the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program reduced; reduced because their parents are perceived as freeloaders?

I suppose one can argue that green lighting oil pipelines will reduce energy dependence and create a lot of temporary jobs, but is that a genuine expression of caring for our country? To bleed carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, ignoring the warnings from the scientific community, and to reduce the funding (that creates jobs) to create a greener and more sustainable environment?

This is a strange kind of love in my book. It is a strange kind of love for America when I see the free press restricted, when information is guarded, when transparency in government becomes opaque, and when wealth populates the administration of “the people.”

I have no wish to create hostility with this article. None at all. But dissent; a redress of grievances; the expression of free speech (and entirely civil) is the function and responsibility of this great nation. It is not only necessary, but if the First Amendment goes on life support (and I believe it is dangerously close), there will be no more America to love.

Christians, Deists, and Atheists, Oh My!

200 years is a long time to keep anything going. Consider the world 200 years ago and you won’t find much that resembles the world today; not in the United States, anyway.

200 years ago the War of 1812 rocked our newly won sovereignty to its core as residual resentments between our Union and Britain remained, and a bloody, 32 month conflict was ended only after Washington was burned to the ground.

State of the art transportation was a horse drawn buggy, candles and oil lamps lit rooms and hallways, armies fought with muskets, slaves comprised the manual labor of agrarian states, and agreements were honored with just a handshake to bind them.

A Declaration of Independence and our Constitution, drafted from a Revolution, were still relatively new, and America, although growing more powerful from that promise of freedom, was still considered an experiment in Democracy; no one was absolutely certain that it would work.

Central to the theme of this great republican trial was religious freedom, arguably the cornerstone of all the freedoms our founding fathers envisioned and designed in their documents to uphold a constitutional government.

It was nearly 200 years before the revolution when immigrants from England made the treacherous journey across the Atlantic to escape the Church of England seeking freedom from persecution. Over time they, themselves, exercised their own forms of persecution between settlers of other denominations, but central to the cause of the immigration to America was a concept of freedom.

It was amorphous and roughly drawn from their sense of dignity coupled with desperation, but it was nevertheless the motivation for their adventure to an unknown land and was the premise by which they would form new laws, and begin to resist a King.

By the mid-18th century colonial farmers and tradesmen still carried the torch of the original pilgrims adventure, but now these Americans were turning their collective spirit toward the tyranny of a British Monarchy that demanded from them what their innate sense of justice told them was unfair.

10 years after the implementation of The Stamp Act in 1765, the colonists declared war against Britain on the grounds of unfair taxation, and from the historic winds of change rose a rag tag collection of Christians, Deists, and Unitarians who transcribed the calling of human beings toward freedom and justice into words of action.

Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” published in January of 1776, is regarded as the original primer that put this aggregate spirit of freedom into the context of a new government and to fan the populist flame of revolution. Only 6 months later Americans read the Declaration of Independence for the first time and now a document existed to eloquently express a noble purpose.

(Note: While I forgive our revolutionary forebears for the context and complexities of their time, I cannot overlook that human bondage was a legal practice that took another hundred years to abolish).

The Declaration makes it clear that governments created by humanity derive their powers from the consent of the governed, and it served as the adumbration for the Constitution which followed. It is not a legal document, but a statement of purpose to define and to defend the Inalienable Rights of Men (human beings) in the pursuit of Life, Liberty and Happiness.

When the Revolution was won and a Constitution was drafted, the framers very carefully constructed its First Amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

There is no mistaking what these words mean. They are the very definition of our hard won Republic and they frame the security upon which it rests.

“No law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof” specifically and clearly outlines that we cannot fall under the auspices of a national religion, and that any religion can be freely followed or expressed.  If there is any leeway for interpretation it would only regard the freedom from religious practice, as well, but no free nation, founded on inalienable rights, can exclude non practicing agnostics and atheists.

Freedom of speech is a broad concept in terms of what it entails, but it is specific at the same time as it means that government cannot legislate to curtail the free expression of ideas.

This would again, logically, include the expression of religious beliefs, but as we have the right to express them, they cannot become the law of the land.

This Grand Experiment in Democracy is now a third of a century past 200 years, and while we can rest assured that we are stronger today from the fruits harvested from freedom, the conviction of some of our constitutional principles are fading or forgotten.

The modern interpretation of the original rebellion that calls itself “The Tea Party” has carried into its vague (yet dogmatic) agenda, theocratic ideas that are contrary to our founding purpose.

tea-party-300x182They, and many others with an extreme conservative philosophy, believe that we should be a Christian nation; that the Founding Fathers constructed and fought for a nation with exclusively Christian principles; that the “natural God” and the “Creator” referred to in the Declaration of Independence was specifically the Christian God.

It is almost on a daily basis that I will read or hear someone state the belief that our Founder’s design for America was born exclusively from Christianity.  But, when we look critically at the story of our nation it is clear that such an exclusionary religious concept is contrary to all of our freedoms and would be, in fact, un-constitutional.

It is irrefutable that Christianity was a primary influence on the creation of our nation and that Christianity embraces many of the moral directives that define our ideal Republic, but it is also irrefutable that one doctrine cannot be the sole proprietor of such virtues.

And to secure our freedom for the next 200 years we must be vigilant toward understanding that distinction.

“And freedom tastes of reality”

Do you know that I can find out what you’re driving, what you pay every month, and when your lease expires?  Do you own your car?  I knew that already and I know what your trade-in totaled and what bank you got a loan from and at what interest rate.

IBig-Data know your house payment and if you like red shoes.  I can have a banner appear when you go online that promotes your favorite brand of coffee and I know the name of your first pet.  And I’m just in marketing.

Imagine what the government can know.

The 4th Amendment is under fire and so is the 5th and the 1st and they have been for a long time.  But, here’s the really troubling part:  We’ve been all too happy to let them know whatever they want to know.  In fact, we expect government to know as much as possible about everyone– just so long as it isn’t us.

The NSA eavesdrops on our conversations when their software reveals that we have been using suspicious language or communicating with nefarious people, and our texts, emails, Tweets and phones can be targeted for investigation.

So what are we going to do about it?  Most likely….very little.

557184_f260Perhaps, Col. Jessep sums up our self-imposed ignorance best in “A Few Good Men”:  You have the luxury of not knowing what I  know… And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives…You don’t want the truth.  Because deep down, in places you don’t talk about at parties, you want me on that wall.  You need me on that wall!

Because, we are afraid, and because we want to be protected from terrorism and from every unknown threat.  Because 9/11 scared the living crap out of us and weve allowed, if not downright begged, the government to analyze all the information that is available regarding terror networks and suspect operatives, whether they are known Al Qaeda or as pedestrian as the guys in the apartment next door, because, who knows….?

And when government law enforcement misses; when a bomb goes off because not enough secretive information was processed – we tear them down for not protecting us.

If every other nation, every terrorist cell, every business, marketer, and hacker has access to Big Data, with information about our individual habits and preferences that creates a 3 dimensional, real time, map ofDundas_Data_Visualization_Sales_And_Marketing_Digital_Dashboard society and every imaginable microcosm therein, how can we limit our own government from processing the same information in the interest of our protection?  That is, after all, a primary function of governance.

Can we really expect our government to stand down when Proctor and Gamble has all of the same information?

I posted some thoughts a little while back that I called “The Price of Freedom” where I posited that freedom isn’t free and it isn’t necessarily safe.   We can choose freedom or we can choose security, but we cannot necessarily have both.  The laws which protect our freedoms can also leave us vulnerable to what the government doesn’t know.

The 4th Amendment provides us with freedom from illegal searches and seizures by law enforcement officers:  “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.”  That can logically be extended to technology that didn’t exist at the time; cell phones and computers.

The Constitutional Framer’s intent was to secure individual rights and freedoms from government overreach, even in the pursuit of security.

I bristle at anything that offends the 4th amendment or suspends habeas corpus, because I believe that the Cause of Protection and Security will lead to Abuse of Power and ultimately to Tyranny, whether government, corporate, or both.  I believe that we must take the risks that come with an adherence to the Bill of Rights and from “not knowing everything” so that we can protect the only thing that truly keeps us free:  the Freedom of Thought.

50 years before the Revolution began Benjamin Franklin proffered:  Without Freedom of Thought, there can be no such thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of Speech.

But, I am a minority.  Many people, on the left and on the right side of the aisle, are appalled by the invasion of privacy and that infringement upon our personal liberty, whether it was by the administrations of President Trump, Obama or Bush…or Clinton or Reagan….or Nixon or Johnson…or Lincoln; but, nearly everyone still chooses to be safe rather than sorry.  It’s a cliche that resonates to our core.

Living without freedom, or freedom without living?  Tough call.


Though Love and Life make tearful intercession…

dc82853e7904b0731f4e903e56980211Theologian, A H Strong, defined the human will as “the soul’s power to choose between motives and to direct its subsequent activity according to the motive thus chosen.”

No more apt description of the duty of a politician has ever been written. Such reflection strengthens our moral purpose; the convergence of ideas and motives should reveal to voters what kind of a public servant they will be.

Strong continues his description of will as “The soul’s power to choose both an end and the means to attain it.”  Within our soul is our moral purpose.

The journey I am on has led me to biographies of political leaders to learn more about their motives and recently I have been drawn to biographies about Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and James Garfield.

universe-wallpaper-20It would be easy to develop a fatalistic point of view, considering that each of these men were assassinated, but my belief is that life is a series of capricious events orchestrated by our capacity for reason; we attach meaning to stories drawn from the collision of our will and forces outside of our control.

My point of view does not deny the existence of God, it only admits that I cannot define God any more clearly than I can define love for my children; the concept transcends the confinement of words.

Lincoln, Kennedy, and Garfield each seemed destined, yet their demise was the result of careless mistakes; a lack of attention when they should have been more aware of their vulnerability.  As purpose and fate comingled in my mind, I began to think about my own mortality.  Not in a morose “Oh-my-God-I’m-past-the-halfway-point-and-the-last-half-includes-incontinence!” way, but in a reflective “What-is-the-sum-of-this-journey-so far?” kind of way.

Life will always reveal a lesson when our awareness is heightened.  I was on a flight from Chicago to Cedar Rapids in pitch-black darkness, zero-visibility cloud cover, andplane-lightning-100610-02 buffeting crosswinds from a huge storm system passing through.  I fly a lot, but this was one of those flights where the wings tilt dramatically side to side and simultaneously hit air pockets where the plane drops several feet, and I’ll admit that I said a prayer.

It wasn’t a fear of dying at that moment, but I thought to myself, “What if I did?  What was the sum of my life?  What would people say?  Would I be remembered as a good man?  Did I remember to pay the cable bill?”

I try to tame the tendencies of self-indulgence by mediating such thoughts, but I think it’s a primordial human desire to want to be worth something to others.

Suddenly a moment with my father entered my thoughts.

The memory was from an evening only two months before he passed away and he asked me if I was happy.  Not willing to accept that my father wouldn’t be here for years to come, I replied, “Yes…why are you asking me?”

GE DIGITAL CAMERA“Because I’m not going to be around forever and I want to know my family is happy. I can believe I had something to do with that.”

I asked him if he was scared and he said, “No.  I raised good sons and that’s how I want to be remembered.  And maybe you’ll tell your children that there was once this man named Glenn Kroeger…”

I found solace in his words because I already knew that my memories of my father would always construct a story about a good man, who was kind, wise, intelligent, and who loved his family. It would be the story of a man who achieved great success by giving his children the safety, comfort and dreams his own childhood was denied. His flaws would be as forgiven in death as they were in life; they were not the measure of the man.

On this flight I asked myself, “Will my children feel the same way about me?”

There was an unsettling vibration under the fuselage as the plane banked against the wind to land.  But as we touched down softly and safely, it occurred to me that the answer lies in the question itself.  In these moments of perceived peril that turn into the fortune of living, our vanity is arrested by reality.

The present is a moving target that passes seamlessly into the future and instantaneously becomes the past; and it was within that infinitesimal space where my lesson found words:  To live the best of my life from each moment on.  Value is not measured by quantity, but quality. The number of years, the amount of wealth, or the accumulation of things, have no bearing on the value of a life.

As I serve the purpose of being a father by sharing with my children the best that I have to give, I hope that we can all choose to serve our communities, large and small, with the same resolve.

As my father could have proffered:  “We are immortal when our sincerest motives live in the memories of those we’ve loved. And served.”


In Public Education We Trust

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos is expected to offer details about the Trump administration’s vision for a federal investment in school choice in a major policy speech. The School Choice and Charter School initiative she and the administration supports is based on the idea that they will create a competitive market and thereby improve all schools.

They argue that if there are charter schools in a region, they will lure away sufficient numbers of students (and therefore money) from the existing public school system so that “the system will be forced to make positive changes, or cease to exist.”

It is based on the competitive market principle that corrections are in the control of each entity and in the case of failing public schools it assumes they are failing because they aren’t motivated to succeed; or are too stubborn to make the necessary changes. But, it is shortsighted as it does not consider if those “positive changes” are reliant on funds. And moreover, impeded by socio-political hurdles. What if the burden of certain public schools lies in the fact that its student population has unique challenges inherent to their location?

What happens when failing schools cannot make those “positive changes”? What happens to the students who couldn’t go to a choice or charter school? What happens when the charter and choice schools are full? What happens to the spill over students? To the teachers? To the community around those schools that have closed?

And what happens to the choice schools when they absorb underachieving students? Won’t they be faced with the same challenges the public schools faced? What then has been “fixed”?

Are they underachievers because they just aren’t motivated enough? Or maybe they have to hold down a job? Maybe some of them support their family. Maybe some of them live in abject poverty and have succumbed to the pathologies that come with it.

A spinning wheel of competition is not an educational paradigm. Public Education was founded on the principle that DeVos espouses today in support of school choice, and that is the reality that students are of different abilities, capacities, learning curves, and myriad differences in growth and maturity. In our public schools this was attained from class sizes conducive to such attention and by giving teachers and schools the best materials with which to administer to those differences. Competition existed against one’s own progress, not a standardized criteria designed to follow a winner-takes-all directive from politicians.

School Choice can be part of the system, but as the framework for the system itself it will be the undoing of Public Education. I believe that is ultimately the true intention of those supporting the program (and to direct tax dollars to parochial schools). Struggling schools will lose students, lose funding, and be closed. Students that needed those schools will be lost because the new system is not designed to absorb all of them. That is what the Public School system accomplished.

That old Public School was their best “choice.”

What We Pray For

Two years ago I was in the Democratic primary to unseat Representative Rod Blum in Iowa’s 1st district. Along with businessman Ravi Patel and Cedar Rapids city council member Monica Vernon, I ran on progressive values and we strengthened each other’s resolve by engaging every single day with constituents and with each other.

By late summer, Mr. Patel left the primary race and former state representative, Pat Murphy, joined. By the following spring (the race was so long I saw seasons change 7 times), I bowed out to support Monica Vernon because I felt that she had the best chance of winning. I went on to run for the Iowa House and Vernon gained the nomination to run against Blum, but incumbents are hard to beat and political intangibles were not in our favor and we both lost.

I’m not pointing this out to re-live the narrative of defeat, but to re-vive the spirit on which we all ran. It was the conviction that we, as Iowans, and as Americans, can do better. We each ran in our respective races because we believed that a dramatic course correction was necessary. Rod Blum rode a wave of Republicans that swept the 2014 midterms, and signaled a significant redirection in American policy. The Blum-Ernst-King trifecta in Washington, the Walt Rogers-Branstad couples-dance in Des Moines, and the Grassley about-face away from Iowans and toward lock-step party interests; caused us to move into action.

Each one of us felt the calling to stand for the middle class, collective bargaining, public education, a cleaner environment, and better access to health care. Today, as Americans are beginning to see where their inattention to details have led them; as health care is being threatened, as Medicaid is privatized and mental health marginalized, as teachers in Iowa can no longer negotiate for benefits they deserve, and budgets are being redirected to pad the pockets of a few at the expense of many—-certain Republicans may be more vulnerable than they ever have been before.

Fool me once, shame on you….you know the rest.

I am not going to run this cycle, I believe that I can help elect good people by helping with messaging and by keeping the pipeline full with topics to discuss. With that in mind, I also want to help recruit great people. One of the most rewarding aspects of running for office was meeting and working with dedicated, bright, energetic, passionate and informed people. Some were elected officials, some were running for office, and many were the people working for candidates and political organizations. One such person is Stacey Walker. This may be a surprise to even Stacey, but I am hereby, suggesting that he seriously considers putting his hat into the ring to run against Rod Blum in 2018.

Stacey Walker is serving his first year as a Linn County Supervisor, and while I know that he is committed to that job, he is exactly the kind of person we need and who, I believe, can unseat Blum. Stacey….if you’re reading this, and assuming we haven’t already spoken, I am going to offer my case for you to run for the 1st Congressional district.

I met Stacey Walker in 2014 while he was working on the Anesa Kajtazović campaign for Congress. Stacey was born and raised in Cedar Rapids, but needed a crash pad in Waterloo and I offered him a room in my house. Over that summer we would take advantage of the rare moments of down time and we’d sit on my back patio to talk politics. His knowledge of issues on every level; local, state, national, and world was impressive. Even more impressive was his personal connection to them.

He is an activist of the most passionate and informed variety. He sincerely wants to help people of all walks of life to succeed and to contribute to the prosperity of a great nation. Even then, I thought to myself: “This guy would be a great representative someday.”

Stacey went on to run Ravi Patel’s campaign and we saw each other at committee meetings, fundraisers, dinners, meet and greets and other Democratic party functions. Even though we were, in fact, running against each other, we benefitted from the honest and positive exchange of ideas. We were not rivals, but friends with a common purpose; to give voice to the needs of working families, the middle class, workers, students, the elderly and infirm.

When Ravi came to the conclusion that his business activities could provide better opportunities for young Iowans than he could as a Congressman, he bowed out and Stacey continued to work behind the scenes for others. That is until he ran for Supervisor. He won on the substance of his ideas, his engaging presentation of them, his passion for people and the community, and his charisma.

All of the qualities we, as voters, pray for in a candidate.

Stacey, someone will surely have sent this to you by now (or I may just give you a call), but I hope that you are seriously considering this. You are a young Iowan with experience and expertise that America needs in Washington.

Fiscally Full of S#!t

People hate being labeled. Or at least being labelled by others. Every one of us bristles when we are summarized within restricting parameters, especially when those parameters are defined by someone from the “other side.”

Yesterday I was called a “far left liberal.”

I countered, “Far left of what? I just try to be right.” (pun intended)

I prefer to categorize myself, thank you very much.

We often create broader categories to define ourselves and one another, perhaps, as an answer to our aversion to being ideologically pidgeon-holed.

“Left of moderate,” or “Moderate-Right,” are bandied about with regularity, but the most common it seems is “I’m socially liberal but fiscally conservative.”

Even the great Chair Whisperer himself, Clint Eastwood, labels himself that way.  Several conservatives that I converse with call themselves “socially liberal” while being “fiscally conservative.”

Basically, what that means, I think, is that they don’t care whether or not gay people get married, but when it comes to finances they are ultra conservative.

When it comes to voting, however, they are conservatives across the board.  Social issues, like gay marriage, civil rights, health care, environmental policies, consumer protection, workers benefits; go out the window at chad-punching time.  When it comes down to choosing ethics or the bottom line, socially-liberal/fiscal-conservatives vote Republican all the way.

Fiscal conservatism means the avoidance of deficit spending and the overall reduction of government spending and national debt, as well as ensuring a balanced budget.  Nothing ignoble about any of that.

Yet…. fiscal conservatives voted twice for George W. Bush who increased deficit spending by reducing revenue while entering two expensive wars.  He spent like a drunken sailor (Clint’s term, not mine), even increasing social spending with ill-fated programs like No Child Left Behind and his Prescription Drug program.  He was the exact opposite of a fiscal conservative.

But…do you know who WAS fiscally conservative?

Bill Clinton, who balanced the budget and created a budget surplus. 

The fiscal conservatives, however, hated him.  “He was a stain on Washington” was the oft quoted refrain.  I thoroughly enjoy revisionists I encounter today who say, “I liked Clinton.  I did well under Clinton.”

You HATED Bill Clinton! Tens and tens of millions of tax payer dollars were spent to topple Clinton!  It was the beginning of hate-media.

Strap in or strap on for this one, but Federal government did not grow under President Obama. In fact, there were less federal workers under Obama than under many past administrations. The “increased spending” under Obama is the result of policies in place regardless of who is President, and discretionary spending, relative to previous presidents, actually rose the slowest under Obama. The truth is that our National Debt and Deficit has less to do with increased spending than with lowered revenues. 35 years of tax cuts, largely for the wealthy, saw to that.

Which begs for us to go back to the beginning of organized, government-led, Trickle Down Economics. Back to President Ronald Reagan who is considered in the history of conservatism to be the Fiscal Messiah.

But, was he?


By reducing overall revenue by 1% yet increasing military spending 40% the United States had to borrow heavily both domestically and abroad.  He raised the national debt from just under $1 trillion to nearly $3 trillion; percentage-wise, the largest increase in history.  The United States went from being a Creditor to a Debtor Nation for the first time.  You could almost say he invented deficit spending.

Yet…the fiscal conservatives loved him and his name is spoken more reverently today than it was even then.

Between the fiscally unsound Reagan and the fiscally responsible Clinton there was George HW Bush.

The conservatives didn’t like him very much and bailed on him when he ran against Clinton.  I don’t think they ever forgave him for going toe to toe with Reagan during the 1980 primaries and coined “Voodoo Economics” to define Reagan’s Trickle Down version of Supply Side theory.  But, GHWB was a true fiscal conservative.  He tried to curb Reagan’s deficits by cutting government spending without raising taxes.  His failure was due to a Democratic Congress that he could not cajole into believing his formula.

This is when I like to start sewing things up by reaching some sort of conclusion.  I have one, but I’m reluctant to share it.  I don’t want to label people with my own restrictive parameters.

Here goes anyway….

Fiscal Conservatism is an honorable, logical, sensible, and viable economic discipline. No resource, including money, is unlimited; we should all weigh priorities before making budgets. Fiscal Conservatives, however, are historically, full of…

Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood

Allow me to show you a classic example of disingenuous political rhetoric. Known also as “mumbo jumbo” or more precisely as “lying.” It is language cleverly designed to appear as thoughtful, truthful, even generous. In reality, however, it is a dishonest form of communication because often a sinister objective has been disguised as compassionate, and in the best interests of all concerned.

I pause when Rep. Walt Rogers is the subject of my scorn, because he defeated me and my criticisms may appear as sour grapes. And, in fact, if that is the case, then I am guilty of the same manipulative rhetoric that I am illuminating here. But, the simple the truth is, I don’t have that axe to grind. The statements that Rep. Rogers makes are exactly why I ran against him in the first place. His position on the following issue, and a host of others, are anathema to what I feel is the better course for our state.

Rogers defends HSB 93 which would instigate voter verification processes in the state of Iowa. The sub heading of HSB 93 is: “Election Integrity and Modernization.”

Rogers writes in his newsletter:

“Iowans should have confidence in their elections. Measures like voter verification and election modernization give Iowans assurance that our system is fair, clean, and ensures eligible voters aren’t disenfranchised. House Republicans have been working with Secretary of State Paul Pate on changes to Iowa’s election process, including voter verification, that make it easier to vote, harder to cheat, and ensures no one is turned away.”

I’m going to respond to this as a letter to Representative Rogers.

Dear Mr. Rogers,
Let’s cut to the chase. Why is there a legislative act to minimize a “problem” that has been shown to be 10 fraudulent cases out of 1.6 million votes cast in Iowa? That’s a fraud probability of 0.000000625%. You are more likely to be hit by lightning while winning the lottery. You are willing to spend the millions it will require to set up and maintain a system to fix a problem that barely exists, but you can’t budget more money for our school children?

Take a big gulp of Truth Serum so we can hear you say: “This is really about voter suppression because a higher percentage of Democratic voters are the ones who have hurdles toward getting such verification.”

I’ll even give you more information for your serum-induced, revealing regurgitation of truth: Many eligible voters will lack the necessary documents and getting them can be difficult. Even expensive. Many will be older voters who can no longer drive and have long lost other documentation. And polls have shown that many poorer voters are hesitant to give more information that can lead to inquiries that aren’t welcome. You can judge that as harshly as you’d like, but whatever their reason may be, it does not mean they aren’t eligible to vote. Voting is a RIGHT not a privilege.

And since, as a Republican, you are a devout Constitutionalist, I’m sure the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits laws that have a disproportionate impact on minority voters, is relevant to you. The requirement of voter ID’s is most challenging to voters who are more likely to be poor and undereducated, and that is traceable to the effects of discrimination in areas such as education, employment, and housing. And so….that would be un-Constitutional.

Serum has worn off? Okay, go back to the BS-Double-Speak-Mumbo-Jumbo that has become your MO. Bear in mind, I don’t dislike you as a person, in fact, I think you just might believe what you say. But that would mean that you are falling for the BS-Double-Speak-Mumbo-Jumbo you are being told. Either way, Iowans lose.

The Guy You Beat

p.s. HSB93 certainly isn’t smaller government, it’s bigger. And smarter? Only if it’s smart to spend valuable tax dollars fixing a problem which is 0.000000625% of…nevermind, you won’t go off script.