| December 2004 |
| Sun |
Mon |
Tue |
Wed |
Thu |
Fri |
Sat |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
Tuesday, December 28
John Drury: So What Does The Politician Do Now?
by
John Drury
on Tue 28 Dec 2004 07:09 PM CST
 So What Does The Politician Do Now?
by John Drury
Over Christmas dinner with my family, my father looked at me and said,
“So what does the politician do now?” That question and variations of
it are becoming very familiar to me these days.
I told him that one of the things I will be doing is staying on top of
and commenting on the issues that are important to north Iowa. I
mentioned that with only two weeks to go for the start of the Iowa
legislature, I am anxious to compare campaign promises with actual
votes taken and legislation introduced. We talked about letters to the
editor that could be written and other things that I could do to keep
my name out there and to hold our elected officials accountable. I
mentioned this weekly column as one of the ways to do this.
And as we talked, my father and I agreed that these were things that
everyone should be doing. We elect our officials at least partly based
on what we hear during the campaigns. We then expect them to represent
us and our interests, to take their oath of office seriously, and to
not necessarily follow the party line if it isn’t in their
constituents’ best interests. While voting is our duty, it is also our
duty to make sure that we get what we are voting for. My dad and I
agreed that often politicians get caught up in doing what their party
wants them to do as opposed to what the people want them to do. We
agreed that our government is too far removed from the people and that
it is a problem that needs fixing. My father and I often argue
politics. We usually have to agree to disagree—but on that day we found
agreement. Perhaps our conversation that day was a gift to the rest of
our family.
We should all be watching our elected officials to make sure they truly
represent us, not their own or their party’s special interests. A good
example of this happened a couple of weeks ago. Educators and business
leaders around north Iowa presented their concerns and ideas to
legislators in a “Jobs Summit” held at North Iowa Area Community
College. I was surprised when I noticed that Senator Gaskill was
missing from the list of legislators who attended. I remember one of
his campaign ads said he wants north Iowa to be a “haven for good
jobs.” It seems to me that he would have wanted to attend; it would
have been a perfect place to discuss that “haven” concept. Senator
Gaskill will get a letter from me asking why he wasn’t in attendance.
Perhaps I should ask him for his plan to create this haven.
In order to be politically active or even just actively engaged in
one’s community, one needs to pay attention to what the government is
doing. Get involved in the decisions being made and don’t be shy to
voice your opinion. Write letters to the editor, attend city council
meetings, and compare the campaign promises you heard to votes and
actions taken by your representatives and senators in the upcoming
legislative session.
We need to do these things to remain true to the idea of “government of
the people, by the people, and for the people.” Without the people’s
active participation, those words become an empty shell, just something
you memorize in Civics class.
Pay attention to your representatives, write letters, agitate for
change if you don’t like the direction our government is taking. Join
me in being We, the People.
Sunday, December 26
Naughty and Nice 2004
by
Linda Thieman
on Sun 26 Dec 2004 04:44 AM CST
 Naughty and Nice 2004
American Progress
The Progress Report
makes this year's holiday list and checks it twice
Naughty: Merck, for
spending millions to market the pain-reliever Vioxx to consumers long after
the company knew it was unsafe.
Nice: Dr. David Graham, of the
FDA's Office of Drug Safety, for fighting to keep
dangerous drugs off the market.
Naughty: Bernard
Kerik, for turning an apartment donated for weary Ground Zero police and rescue
workers into a
love nest for his adulterous affairs.
Nice: Miramax Films, for putting the kibosh on Kerik's
summer blockbuster biopic.
Naughty: Congress,
for underfunding the Low-Income
Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP). allocating "$164 million less than
needed to cover the expected 24 percent increase in home heating costs" this
winter.
Nice: Richard
Hamann and his wife, Donna, for paying the electricity bills for the entire
town of Anthon, Iowa, because they wanted to give something back to their
community.
Naughty: NRA
Radio, for broadcasting anti-gun-control propaganda and calling it
legitimate news.
Nice: Ed
Schultz, Arnie Arnesen, Tony Trupiano, Thom Hartmann, Wendy Wilde, Al Franken,
Katherine Lanpher and the rest of the Air America crew, for showing
progressive radio can be thought-provoking, hard-hitting and fun.
Naughty: Department
of Homeland Security, for omitting
"major sites" like chemical plants and dams from its unfinished national
database of potential terrorist targets.
Nice: Department of Homeland
Security, for including
"water parks and miniature golf courses" in the national database. At your
local putt putt, the terrorists never win.
Naughty: The
Environmental Protection Agency, for using
camcorders to bribe parents into offering up their toddlers as guinea pigs
for a study about the dangers of pesticides on children…sponsored
by the chemical industry.
Nice: The Natural Resources Defense
Council, for fighting to protect kids from the harmful effects of pesticides
and chemicals.
Naughty: Right-wing
conservatives in the House of Representatives, for changing
ethics rules so Tom DeLay (R-TX) could one day be their indicted
leader.
Nice: Whistleblowers like Bunnatine
Greenhouse, Richard
Foster and Paul
O'Neill, for holding our government to a higher ethical standard.
Naughty: Medicare
head Tom
Scully, Rep. Billy
Tauzin, Rep. James
Greenwood and trade representatives Ralph Ives and
Claude Burcky, for using public service for personal benefit, taking
lucrative, top-dollar jobs with the pharmaceutical industry they had formerly
regulated.
Nice: Rep. Henry Waxman, for using public service for
public benefit, compiling reports on everything from the Halliburton to undue
secrecy in the White House.
Naughty: EPA
administrator Mike Leavitt, for blaming pollution on
poverty.
Nice: The Union of
Concerned Scientists, for giving us the facts about global
warming, pollution, clean
energy and the Bush administration's ideological
approach to science.
Naughty: Sinclair
Media, for planning to run an
hour long anti-Kerry screed as "news" just before the U.S. presidential
election.
Nice: Media Matters and the
blogosphere [and Rapid Response!], for forcing Sinclair to change its plans. (And continuing to
demand that Sinclair stop broadcasting one-sided political spin.)
Thursday, December 23
Socially Responsible Investing
by
Linda Thieman
on Thu 23 Dec 2004 12:32 PM CST
 Socially Responsible Investing
Union of Concerned Scientists
Many
people do their part for the environment by driving a fuel-efficient
car, buying organic foods, or using energy-efficient appliances. You
can also promote environmental values through socially responsible
investing (SRI), also known as “green” investing. SRI gives
corporations an incentive to improve their environmental stewardship
and can also provide investors with a more secure financial future — a
“double bottom line.”
Though
socially responsible stocks have a reputation for poor performance,
recent data from Lipper, a fund tracking and research firm, show that
returns from SRI funds are now competitive with — and, in some cases,
have even outperformed — the overall stock market.
Here are a few things to keep in mind when you’re preparing to become a socially responsible investor:
Mutual Funds
Mutual
funds pool the money of multiple shareholders and invest it in the
stocks of corporations that meet certain criteria; investors then share
the fund’s gains and losses. In the case of green investing, the
companies chosen to make up the fund have been screened according to
environmental, social, and/or political criteria.
The
success of mutual funds is measured against an index — a collection of
stocks meant to represent the overall stock market or a specific
segment of the market (SRI in this case). Mutual funds known as index
funds simply attempt to duplicate the performance of a particular
index; the Calvert Social Index, for example, is a socially responsible
index fund.
Screening Criteria
When
selecting a socially responsible mutual fund, it is important to know
the business sectors in which the fund invests and the method it uses
to screen corporations. Negative screens, for example, exclude
companies that behave in an unacceptable manner or develop products
that investors do not wish to support, such as tobacco, casinos,
alcohol, weapons, or nuclear energy. Positive screens give recognition
to companies that engage in issues such as conservation, civil rights,
labor relations, or animal rights.
One fund
might choose to invest in renewable energy corporations exclusively,
while another might invest in any company except those that produce
weapons. The Pax World Balanced Fund uses both positive and negative
screens to invest in businesses that provide life-supporting goods and
services such as health care, pollution control, and education.
Comparing Funds
Several
websites can help you compare mutual funds and choose which ones are
right for you. Calvert’s “Know What You Own” service lets you run the
holdings of various funds through the screens used by its Calvert
Social Index. The nonprofit Social Investment Forum lets you compare
the screens used by different funds and presents the distinctions in an
easy-to-follow chart.
Please note: The
fund names and services mentioned in this article are used for
identification purposes only and do not imply endorsement. UCS is not
responsible for any investments made as a result of the information
provided in this article.
(For further information on socially-responsible investing, click here.)
Wednesday, December 22
A Christmas Carol: Perspectives
by
Chad Thompson
on Wed 22 Dec 2004 10:57 AM CST
 A Christmas Carol: Perspectives
Today is
a rather unusual day - rather than posting from a desk cluttered with
books, papers "to do" notes and a ringing telephone, today I am posting
from my kitchen table, complete with a fresh cup of coffee and a warmed
piece of Kringla. (Ahh... Norwegian pastries.)
Yes,
today is the start of a Christmas vacation. It's complete with
all of the usual last minute chores - cleaning, cooking and wrapping
the last few little presents to put under our tree.
Over the
past few weeks there have also been the usual airings of
"Christmas-themed" programming, on television and on the radio.
(Four Des Moines radio stations have taken on the "All Christmas Music
All The Time" format.)
One
thing that I never miss this time of year is either a performance - or
television airing - of Charles Dicken's "A Christmas Carol".
(Better yet, of course, is reading the novel.)
Dicken's theme in "A Christmas Carol" is one of confronting the
inequity - and morality - of the English class system and the attitudes
that inequity breeds.
One passage from "A Christmas Carol" is particularly haunting:
They
were a boy and a girl. Yellow, meagre, ragged, scowling, wolfish; but
prostrate, too, in their humility. Where graceful youth should have
filled their features out, and touched them with its freshest tints, a
stale and shrivelled hand, like that of age, had pinched, and twisted
them, and pulled them into shreds. Where angels might have sat
enthroned, devils lurked, and glared out menacing. No change, no
degradation, no perversion of humanity, in any grade, through all the
mysteries of wonderful creation, has monsters half so horrible and
dread.
Scrooge
started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried
to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather
than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
'Spirit, are they yours?' Scrooge could say no more.
'They
are Man's,' said the Spirit, looking down upon them. 'And they cling to
me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is
Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware
this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the
writing be erased. Deny it!' cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand
towards the city. 'Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your
factious purposes, and make it worse! And abide the end!'
'Have they no refuge or resource?' cried Scrooge.
'Are
there no prisons?' said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time
with his own words. 'Are there no workhouses?'
Dickens
was attacking the inequity of the class system of Victorian England -
where the difference between the "haves" and "have nots" was
particularly striking.
Dickens
drew that line quite strongly between Ebenezer Scrooge and his
employee, Bob Cratchit. However, Dickens did not draw a line
between the relative status of the "Good Nephew" Fred and the poor Bob
Cratchit.
Dickens,
in fact - seems to be a product of the system that he lived in.
His solution for the inequities of Victorian England? That the
upper class people be "nice", just like the Good Nephew Fred.
George Orwell in later years would find that notion to be particularly frustrating:
The
truth is that Dickens’s criticism of society is almost exclusively
moral. Hence the utter lack of any constructive suggestion anywhere in
his work. He attacks the law, parliamentary government, the educational
system and so forth, without ever clearly suggesting what he would put
in their places. Of course it is not necessarily the business of a
novelist, or a satirist, to make constructive suggestions, but the
point is that Dickens’s attitude is at bottom not even destructive.
There is no clear sign that he wants the existing order to be
overthrown, or that he believes it would make very much difference if
it were overthrown. For in reality his target is not so much society as
‘human nature’. It would be difficult to point anywhere in his books to
a passage suggesting that the economic system is wrong as a system.
Nowhere, for instance, does he make any attack on private enterprise or
private property. Even in a book like Our Mutual Friend, which turns on
the power of corpses to interfere with living people by means of
idiotic wills, it does not occur to him to suggest that individuals
ought not to have this irresponsible power. Of course one can draw this
inference for oneself, and one can draw it again from the remarks about
Bounderby’s will at the end of Hard Times, and indeed from the whole of
Dickens’s work one can infer the evil of laissez-faire capitalism; but
Dickens makes no such inference himself. It is said that Macaulay
refused to review Hard Times because he disapproved of its ‘sullen
Socialism’. Obviously Macaulay is here using the word ‘Socialism’ in
the same sense in which, twenty years ago, a vegetarian meal or a
Cubist picture used to be referred to as ‘Bolshevism’. There is not a
line in the book that can properly be called Socialistic; indeed, its
tendency if anything is pro-capitalist, because its whole moral is that
capitalists ought to be kind, not that workers ought to be rebellious.
Bounder by is a bullying windbag and Gradgrind has been morally
blinded, but if they were better men, the system would work well enough
that, all through, is the implication. And so far as social criticism
goes, one can never extract much more from Dickens than this, unless
one deliberately reads meanings into him. His whole ‘message’ is one
that at first glance looks like an enormous platitude: If men would
behave decently the world would be decent.
So, what does that mean to me, as I putter around these few days before the Christmas holiday?
Simple -
particularly when I think about what it means to be a member of the
"Democratic Party", and the tussle that will likely occur over the
direction of the leadership and members.
Will we
stand for the "Good Nephew Fred", who was as comfortable in life and
profit as his Uncle Scrooge - or will we stand for the "Bob Cratchits"
of the world, who suffer under long hours, low wages, no health
insurance and the deterioration of economic security in 21st Century
America?
The answer to me is rather obvious.
One Senator Needed for January 6th Challenge
by
Trish Nelson
on Wed 22 Dec 2004 06:51 AM CST
 One Senator Needed for January 6th Challenge
pdamerica.org
We all
remember that early scene in Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, where
one African American after another stands up in the well of the House
of Representatives to challenge the 2000 Florida vote, only to be ruled out of order
due to the lack of a single signature from a single Senator.
Not this time.
On
January 6, 2005, the House and Senate will once again meet to consider
the electoral vote count. And once again, that vote count is likely to
be challenged by a group of progressive House members, who will make
the case that the misallocation of voting machines (especially in
Ohio), the abuse of provisional balloting in numerous states, and the
refusal and/or inability to conduct the recount in an open and
auditable manner in Ohio, in Florida, and in so many other key states,
mean that the certified electors should not be seated.
This
time, we want several U.S. Senators to join with them, to make a
serious voting rights challenge that the entire world will hear. This
time, we want so much polite-but-firm grassroots contact from
progressive voters beforehand that a whole group of Senators will
choose to stand up and fight for the voting rights of
African-Americans, Latinos, and youth voters that the Republican Party
targeted for disruption and disenfranchisement in the 2004 election.
Some who
need to hear from us are new, such as Barak Obama of Illinois and Ken
Salazar of Colorado. These new Senators could use cover from the new
leadership of the Senate, especially Dick Durbin, who also hails from
Obama's home state.
Some
Senators depend on African American and Latino votes to be elected, and
thus could be expected to stand up tall when voting rights issues are
on the line, including Joe Biden of Delaware, Carl Levin of Michigan,
Bill Nelson of Florida, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Jeff Bingaman of
New Mexico, Barbara Mikulski and Paul Sarbanes of Maryland, Jon Corzine
and Frank Lautenberg of New Jersey.
Senator
Byrd of West Virginia was once a Klansman; but his eloquent leadership
against the Iraq War has inspired us all, and he has the courage and
fortitude to cap his career with an outspoken battle on behalf of
abused African American voters. Senator Lieberman of Connecticut
rightfully brags about his youthful efforts to register voters in the
Old South in the 1960s; on 1/6/05, he will have the chance to
demonstrate that his youthful idealism still survives.
There
are Senators who are safe, and could do the right thing - like Chris
Dodd of Connecticut, Daniel Inouye of Hawaii, Charles Schumer of New
York, Jay Rockefeller of West Virginia, and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.
There is
Jim Jeffords of Vermont, an Independent who was brave enough to stand
up to the Bush White House once before. There is Senator Lincoln
Chafee, a Republican in a solid Democratic state, the namesake of
Lincoln, a moderate caught in a far right party.
And, of course, there is John Kerry.
To
remind them why they're in Washington, click here. Ask them to stand
for every American's right to vote (and have it counted.)
Go to pdamerica.org to take action.
Thank you for forwarding this action alert to your networks.
Standing tall in solidarity,
Tim Carpenter
Progressive Democrats of America
email: info@pdamerica.org
phone: (877) 368-9221
web: www.pdamerica.org
 Join your fellow Iowans in the fight to take back the media for ordinary citizens. Click here to join RapidResponse - Iowa.
Sunday, December 19
Recycle 'Til You Drop!
by
Molly Regan
on Sun 19 Dec 2004 02:08 PM CST
 Recycle 'Til You Drop!
Waste Commissions In Your Area
There
once was a girl name' of
ANN
Who'd recycle every jar, every
can
'cycling cartons and
boxes
And papers and
watches
Such a good little example this girl name' of Ann
Did you know the recycled cardboard that your cereal comes in used only
1/4 the energy to make and also only created 1/2 the pollution as a
newly made box?
Besides decreased
energy use and pollution reduction, another advantage is the resultant
pride knowing you are contributing to the welfare of your community and
state. It can also be a chance to create a family project at home or
with your friends. See who can recycle the most as well as
purchase recycled items. List items that you find are made by recycling
means. This can be something we ALL can work on every day of our
lives.
From a recycled garden in Davenport on North
Carey Avenue above 53rd Street, to a Davenport resident winning a car
for her years of recycling, IOWANS are doing their part to make our
state a cleaner state.
So what can recycling do for you and what can you do for
recycling? Park benches, rugs, goggles and fiber for filling ski
jackets are just a few items that can be made from recycled
plastics. Used aluminum and steel have each found a second life
as bikes, cookware, and cars.
Every county in IOWA should have a WASTE COMMISSION. Check out your
government listings. Here in SCOTT COUNTY you can go to
www.wastecom.com to find more
information. Or you can contact them at
WASTE COMMISSION OF SCOTT COUNTY/PO BOX 563 BUFFALO, IOWA 52728/(563)
381-1300/ or FAX 381-1301...Love, Peace, Happy Holidays.... Please,
remember to CPR: CONSERVE, PARTICIPATE, &
RECYCLE.
Tuesday, December 14
John Drury: Why I Love Public Service
by
John Drury
on Tue 14 Dec 2004 04:55 PM CST
Why I Love Public Service
by John Drury
There was an article posted here over the weekend called “Uncle Sam Wants You.”
This article encourages the "average Joe" to run for and hold public
office, saying that “if only the palm-greasers and back scratchers run
for office, what kind of government will we have?” After reading this
article, I thought it would be appropriate to talk about my own love
for public service and also encourage others to do the same.
A little background might help. I served two terms as mayor of a once
bustling, now struggling farm community located 25 miles southwest of
Mason City. Probably one of the biggest hurdles a small town mayor
faces is apathy. You’ve got the CAVE (Citizens Against Virtually Everything) and the BANANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone)
people to contend with. These are the more organized groups of people
that will fight you and your vision for the future all the way to
unincorporation. And in Iowa, you’ve got a state legislature with no
strategy to bring rural Iowa back to life. And, of course, you’ve all
heard the expression that it’s a thankless job.
Despite all of that, we took many progressive steps during my four
years as mayor. Under my leadership, we condemned abandoned properties,
turning one into a park. We got people interested again and sparked
volunteerism. We put tax incentive plans in place that have resulted in
growth, both in residential and commercial. We brought in over $40,000
in grant dollars; using those dollars we replaced our park playground
equipment, upgraded fire-fighting gear, and replaced an aging fire
truck. We now have an economic development plan in place that will
serve the needs of current residents, will bring travelers to our town,
and will attract new residents. It will also serve as a business
incubator sparking entrepreneurism in the entire region.
It might seem like making that much progress in a struggling small town
once on the brink of unincorporation might be enough to illustrate my
love of public service. And while there’s no doubt that it’s gratifying
to put plans in place and see them work, I think a better way to
illustrate why I love public service is in the following story.
Back in 2002 when I was Swaledale’s mayor, I had heard that a former
resident wanted to send a box of softballs to me so that I could give
one to every kid in town. Now, as mayor of a small town, I got used to
hearing lots of different things but this one intrigued me. A few days
later, I received a letter from a Bob Westover from Pinellas Park,
Florida.
Here is what he wrote:
Hi John:
I’m sending this note to let you know I took a box of softballs to UPS
today. You will probably get them about next Thursday, do with them as
you like, but mainly see that the younger boys get a good share. The
balls are an accumulation over a few years when the balls sail over the
fence on night games and the people don’t recover them, I do. Have been
hearing some good reports on what you are doing for the “old hometown.”
You must have grown up while I was gone in the Navy from Dec. ’39 till
Aug. ’69. I knew your Dad, Herschel and your grandparents. They were
very nice people. Have to get this in the mail. Another box will be
coming soon. Regards, Bob W.
 There were 76 softballs in that first box. A few months later, I
received another box of around 35. Early this year, Bob Westover passed
away at the age of 83.
A month later, his wife had a package delivered
to me with about 30 softballs inside. I have handed out softballs to
kids in Swaledale’s annual town celebrations, parades and at other
events. Bob Westover hadn’t set foot in the town since the day he left
but he stayed on top of all the good things we were doing and he
noticed. I knew I was making a positive difference and getting his
letter only reinforced my love of public service.
Public service is not a thankless job; run for office and win or lose, you’ll be glad you did.
A Tribute to Bill Moyers
by
Chad Thompson
on Tue 14 Dec 2004 01:22 PM CST
 A Tribute to Bill Moyers
I was writing up something else to post here this afternoon, when my RSS program put up an article that caught my eye.
Bill Moyers retiring From TV journalism
NEW
YORK (AP) — "I was just in the editing room, working on the last
piece," Bill Moyers says. "I thought: 'I've done this so many times,
and each one is as difficult as the last one.' Maybe finally I've
broken the habit."
Moyers,
who has won more than 30 Emmys and 10 Peabody awards, will turn his
focus to writing a book —once he takes a brief break to catch his
breath.
It
hasn't been so much a habit for Moyers as a truth-telling mission
during his three decades as a TV journalist. But come next week, he
will sign off from Now, the weekly PBS newsmagazine he began in 2002,
as, at age 70, he retires from television.
"I'm
going out telling the story that I think is the biggest story of our
time: how the right-wing media has become a partisan propaganda arm of
the Republican National Committee," says Moyers. "We have an
ideological press that's interested in the election of Republicans, and
a mainstream press that's interested in the bottom line. Therefore, we
don't have a vigilant, independent press whose interest is the American
people.
...
"Judith and I will take several months to catch our breath," says
Moyers during a recent conversation at the soon-to-be-vacated office he
rents at Thirteen/WNET's Manhattan headquarters. "Then I will think
about the Last Act — capital L, capital A — of my life."
...
"You
don't get rewarded in commercial broadcasting for trying to tell the
truth about the institutions of power in this country," he goes on. "I
think my peers in commercial television are talented and devoted
journalists, but they've chosen to work in a corporate mainstream that
trims their talent to fit the corporate nature of American life. And
you do not get rewarded for telling the hard truths about America in a
profit-seeking environment."
(Click for the rest of the article.)
Moyers
is one of those constant voices that I've always turned to if I wanted
to hear a measured, thoughtful commentary. His voice was one that
could clarify your own thoughts and feelings on a subject - be it
politics, religion or society: even if you disagreed with him.
His is also a voice of responsibility: to ourselves and to
others. He used that voice to highlight our similarities and our
differences in a thoughtful, respectful manner - something that we
should all inspire to.
His
last show airs on IPTV Friday night (Dec. 17) at 9:00 - it will be
one of the most memorable farewells in broadcast history.
|
|
