Do you know your home’s radon level?

As I’ve written, my family and I completed a major home renovation this fall. Specifically, we had our farm house, where I grew up, lifted and the old, brick, tile foundation and dirt floor basement replaced with a new-poured concrete foundation and basement. We also addressed a number of other issues like the roof and heating and cooling systems.

But the new foundation was the main event. It wasn’t just the cracks, bowing and moisture. Ever since we moved back into the house, we’ve had questions from some important elders in our life about the radon levels in the house. You see, both my parents developed cancer – pancreatic and colon – after living in that home for nearly 30 years. And radon is a known carcinogen, although it is usually linked to lung cancer.

Never heard of it? Well, it’s a naturally occurring element released into the soil, and it’s related to radium and uranium. Although it may be released anywhere, Iowa has high occurrences of it. So, all buildings should be tested. I had long suspected a problem, given the anxiety of my dad’s brother Bud and Dad’s friend Pastor Bob, not to mention the cancer history in my corner of Montgomery County. So as we made plans to renovate, I picked up a do-it-yourself test kit at the hardware store.

After leaving the test packet in the old basement the allotted amount of time, I sent it to the laboratory in the envelope provided, with instructions to e-mail the test results. About three days later, I received my e-mail. At 4 picocuries per liter (pCi/L), the lab tells you to FIX YOUR HOME (their emphasis). Our results were 12 pCi/L. Consequently, I e-mailed my architect and contractor the results and asked them to include a radon mitigation system in our plans. Seeing those numbers in black and white got us all moving.

And I thought about them a lot as I waited during that late June/early July heat wave for the work to begin. My family had gone on to stay with relatives in Illinois, and I was left alone with two of our cats to finish the plans. Every day I sat in that closed house with the air conditioning running made me wonder about my exposure. It was a relief to sleep at night upstairs with open windows, even if it wasn’t air conditioned.

I felt better when we moved back in over a solid foundation and basement floors, but I wasn’t completely at ease until after the radon mitigation system was installed. I can hear it now, running just outside the corner of the house where my computer sits.

It’s my favorite thing to show off when we tour the basement, even when I get jaw-dropping reactions to the new space like those of my nephews, who visited during Thanksgiving. And it’s a good thing I do include it on the tour, because too many people are unaware of this silent danger.

Most states now require radon testing for real estate transactions. But if your home hasn’t been tested, you should do it now. And I recommend you learn more about radon; the Environmental Protection Agency’s site is a great place to start: http://www.epa.gov/radon/index.html.

Trust me, you’ll sleep easier.

What is the right to work?

Last week as my usual Christmas baking frenzy got underway, the mailman delivered a small box from my brother in Texas. Inside was a stack of CDs — or as I termed them, “music to bake by.”

One of the CDs was Americana artist Dave Alvin’s Eleven Eleven, which includes a song called, “Gary, Indiana 1959.” Written from the viewpoint of a former U.S. Steel employee, the middle of the song reflects much of Middle America today.

“Now the years disappeared in the blink of an eye.
And I feel like a stranger in a world that isn’t mine.
Now my dear wife died, and my kids all moved away
‘cause there ain’t nothin’ here to make ‘em want to stay.
‘Cause the factories are in ruins; decent jobs hard to find,
and you can’t get a break no matter how hard you try.
‘Cause the big boys make the rules; tough luck for everyone else,
and out on the streets it’s every man for himself.”

This song echoes events in Michigan as Gov. Rick Snyder attempts to destroy unions via a “Right to Work” law. Like so many Corporate Conservative maneuvers, Right to Work laws are deceptively named. They have nothing to do with workers’ rights. Instead, they are designed to protect corporate political power and profits by gutting unions.

How? These laws do away with unions’ right to ask non-union members to help pay for the collective bargaining unions conduct to benefit ALL workers — union or non-union. Because the bottom line is, all workers at an organization benefit from the pay, benefits and protections union contracts provide. Employees who do not wish to belong to the union don’t have to pay union dues, simply the portion that covers the cost of bargaining. It’s only fair.

But throughout the years, via corporate control of media and campaign financing, efforts to demonize unions and collective bargaining have paid off. By and large Americans have fallen for these efforts. Union membership has declined, and not coincidentally, worker protections and wages have too. As Colin Gordon, professor of history at University of Iowa, writes on his blog for the Economic Policy Institute: “The wage effect alone underestimates the union contribution to shared prosperity... And unions not only raise the wage floor but can also lower the ceiling; union bargaining power has been shown to moderate the compensation of executives at unionized firms.” [http://www.epi.org/blog/union-decline-rising-inequality-charts/ ]

Many worker protections were won because of hard fought union battles, and today, we take most of them for granted: the 40-hour work week, employee benefits, paid vacation and safety regulations, to name a few. Unfortunately, after years of Corporate Conservative political influence, these benefits are no longer guaranteed.

Snyder’s lame-duck passage of a Right to Work law in Michigan follows a similar drive by Scott Walker in Wisconsin a year ago. In both cases, the initiative has been tied to the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Americans for Prosperity, two organizations funded by the Koch brothers and other wealthy corporate moguls. [http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/12/michigan-right-to-work-unions.php]

These are the “big boys” Alvin sings about. Their goal is protecting their power and profit, not workers. So we’d best follow Alvin’s protagonist, who sings:

“I still remember where we marched side by side back in Gary, Indiana 1959.”

Because united we stand; divided we fall.

School kids aren’t the only bullies

As one of my Facebook friends noted, October wins the prize for “Awareness” month; among a long list of causes is bullying. Public service announcements, news broadcasts and school events all encouraged us to protect our children from bullying and teach them it is unacceptable behavior. Many programs added it only takes one or two dissenting voices to stop bullies in their tracks.

Fast forward to the election and events following, and I’m hearing an adult voice in my head sneer, “Do as I say, not as I do!”

In case you missed it, prior to the election, a number of corporate CEO’s threatened to lay off employees or cut hours if the president was re-elected. Such intimidation is bullying. And as an aside, such behavior is exactly why unions were formed.

But I digress. Now that President Obama has been re-elected, these same CEO’s are pledging to carry out their threats in public temper tantrums that demonstrate they have zero compassion for employees and customers – the very people who allow them to make a living.

Let’s start with Murray Energy CEO Robert Murray, whose company mines coal. As this Washington Post article outlines http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/after-obama-re-election-ceo-reads-prayer-to-staff-announces-layoffs/2012/11/09/e9bca204-2a63-11e2-bab2-eda299503684_story.html, he blames his decision to lay off employees in Ohio and Utah on voters’ decisive re-election of President Obama. However, as the article also notes, Murray’s business faces fierce competition from other energy suppliers, and his business practices have led to environmental disasters and charges of coercing employees to support Republicans.

Murray also cloaked his decision to fire employees in religion, reading a prayer before discharging them. In it, he slams the U.S. as a “country of redistribution” and selectively quotes scripture to support his action, a practice known as proof-texting. This allows Murray, and many others, to ignore Biblical calls for economic justice, from Moses through the prophets to Jesus and beyond. In fact, Jewish law in Leviticus 25 specifically calls for the return of wealth to the poor every 50 years via a festival termed the Jubilee.

But Murray isn’t the only CEO throwing a tantrum. Papa John’s pizza CEO John Schnatter previously railed against the Affordable Care Act and worked as a supporter and fundraiser for Romney.

This week, Schnatter announced ACA’s requirement for him to insure employees working more than 30 hours per week will require a 10-14 cent increase per pizza. Either that or he’ll be forced to cut employees or their hours, a practice already widely used by retail and service corporations to pad their profits.

Yet Caleb Melby at Forbes Magazine http://blogs.forbes.com/calebmelby/ crunched the numbers and concluded Papa John’s math is off. “So how much would prices go up, under these 50/50 conditions, if they were to fairly reflect the increased cost of doing business onset by Obamacare? Roughly 3.4 to 4.6 cents a pie.”

Melby lays out the entire picture by examining Papa John’s profits, dividends to shareholders, and Schnatter’s salary for the last few years. It left me wondering if Schnatter’s actions are simply an excuse to increase his profits by scapegoating Obamacare -- a business plan cloaked in politics.

So I ask, “How much is enough?” Does corporate America really need the profit margins they’ve been demanding to keep doors open and people working?

And how much intimidation and twisting of figures will citizens take before demanding facts and fairness? I don’t know about you, but I’ve had enough.

Post-election: Where do we go from here?

Regardless of the outcome of this election, Americans need to unite if we expect to solve our collective problems. I have been thinking about that a lot as we approached Election Day, in large part as a consequence of get-out-the-vote canvassing.

Knocking on strangers’ doors to ask them a series of questions and hopefully move them to act is not an easy task. But what strikes me is the difficulty we have in engaging in conversation. I don’t think I have a threatening persona, so I am always bemused by people who refuse to open their doors to me.

I am also curious about the people from the other end of the political spectrum who flatly refuse to speak me. Are they so certain they are correct that they won’t waste time trying to change my mind? Or are they so afraid I might have some valid points they refuse to risk confronting that possibility?

Whatever the reason, I am saddened and disappointed at our society’s inability to converse honestly about our situation.

And yes, I’ve heard it’s “not polite to talk about politics or religion.” But you know, I think that’s flat out wrong. We can only learn and grow when we confront new or different ideas and grapple with them. We wouldn’t have a Constitution if members of the Continental Congress had been unable to meet, discuss (or argue) and negotiate a document for a new government for these United States.

No matter what the shouting talking heads on talk radio and political TV tell you, I’m willing to listen to your point of view. You just need to be prepared that I will ask you lots of questions and expect you to hear out my perspective. You might even be surprised to find we agree on points. This is how we make progress.

Contrast this to our Congress, particularly Conservative members, during the last four years. The entire Republican agenda has been to block the Democratic President at every turn; no negotiating. That is not governing.

Whether you are a Republican, Democrat, Independent or something else, tomorrow we will need to stand together to demand our new representatives work for citizen interests, not corporate dollars. If we expect to get anything out of our government, and the fourth estate of the press (corporate media especially), we are going to have to demand and protest for changes.

Because a citizen’s job doesn’t end with the vote — that’s where it begins. And I think the last 30 years demonstrate clearly my school superintendent friend’s belief “if you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”

I think that’s what Ben Franklin meant when he responded to the woman who asked about the results of the Continental Congress’ deliberations and the kind of government the new nation had.

According to the story, he responded, “A Republic – if you can keep it.”

Will we vote for corporate capitalism or the common good?

As a business communicator, I admire a good marketing plan. For example, when Nike’s “Just Do It” campaign developed their ad targeting women, I was impressed. “I believe there’s an athlete in everyone,” one woman says in the signature ad. It helped move me off the couch to start jogging; I still buy Nike shoes. And it’s helped Nike weather troubles with athlete endorsements and factory conditions in Asia.

Since I’ve written a few marketing plans myself throughout the years, I’ve learned to spot them in action. And I’d been saying, “There has to be a marketing plan for conservative political interests somewhere,” when I stumbled across an article in August 2011, acknowledging the 40th anniversary of something called the Powell Memorandum. (Read the document here: http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/The-Lewis-Powell-Memo/) This memorandum, penned by former Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell, is the blueprint for American political history during the last 40 years.

Written in 1971 when Powell was working as an attorney and sitting on the board of 11 corporations, it outlines for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce an extensive list of tactics to protect the interests of America’s largest corporate citizens. Paranoid about liberal activism in the 60s, Powell believed corporate America should exercise much more political influence. His tactics include shaping the political environment within higher and secondary education via: staff appointments, speakers, textbooks and curriculum, especially in graduate schools of business.

With regard to the wider public, Powell suggested developing think tanks to craft research and messages designed to favor big business. To disseminate them, television, radio, print publications, books, journals and paid advertisements should all be used. Consequently, today most major media is owned by corporate conglomerates.

Finally, Powell suggested corporate powers turn their efforts to the political and judicial arenas. The key to this strategy was money – to both parties, with efforts targeted to wean Democrats from union influence. Yet over time, more dollars began to flow to conservative political challengers.

In a web article about the Powell Memorandum, Bill Moyers and Company posted an excerpt from Jacob S. Hacker and Paul Pierson’s book Winner-Take-All Politics: (http://billmoyers.com/content/the-powell-memo-a-call-to-arms-for-corporations/2/) “By the end of the 1978 campaign, more than 60 percent of corporate contributions had gone to Republicans, both GOP challengers and Republican incumbents fighting off liberal Democrats. A new era of campaign finance was born: Not only were corporate contributions growing ever bigger, Democrats had to work harder for them. More and more, to receive business largesse, they had to do more than hold power; they had to wield it in ways that business liked.”

The height of this plan’s success was the current Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, unleashing loads of corporate cash into the current election.

Great American businessmen have long understood that a business cannot survive without customers. Henry Ford made sure to pay his employees a wage large enough to allow them to buy the cars they helped make.

But unfortunately, current corporate leaders (And I’m talking about large international companies, not small Main Street businesses.) have lost sight of their place in the American community, squeezing larger profits via staff cuts, government subsidies, tax breaks and public contracts without giving back via taxes and living wages to employees. Their leaders do not acknowledge responsibility for the common good.

As Hacker and Pierson’s book points out, this corporate agenda provides money to both political parties. Yet the majority now flows to Republican politicians, represented at the top by Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.

So no matter what you may feel about President Barack Obama, if you’re part of the 99 percent, following the money means you have a better shot with the incumbent. That’s your choice – corporate capitalists or the common good.

Will we make an informed choice?

Ok, I admit it. I’m ticked off about the debate. Why?

Not because media pundits, who live for a good figurative shoving match, gave Round 1 to Romney. I’m angry because I see an unengaged citizenry refusing to acknowledge this stuff matters.

What set me off? Facebook.

Yeah, I know it’s a social networking site. People routinely post stupid things. I annoy people by sharing articles with an alternative perspective on politics and religion. I’m well aware most are probably ignored. But as one of my college professors used to say, “Even a blind pig occasionally finds an acorn.” Sometimes I get a person’s attention.

But I blew a gasket the morning after the debate because too many intelligent people I know refused to watch. Really, you’re going to opt for Honey Boo Boo?

Is it any wonder the American people get nothing from their representation in government?

The whole idea of a democracy is citizen involvement, but when citizens refuse to do their work, they have no right to complain about the product. Americans only want to show up every four years for the main event – the election of the President. And then the best we bring is some vague impression of who is “likeable” or “presidential.”

If we know anything about policy or the issues, it probably comes from an ad – TV or direct mail, like the one I received from the Romney campaign recently.

In the past year, both my husband and I were inexplicably registered as Republicans. The only response I got when I marched into the auditor’s office to correct that error was a shrug and a “wishful thinking, I guess.”

As a consequence, we now get Obama and Romney campaign literature. I tend to toss both, preferring to use my own research to evaluate records. However, this flier caught my attention, first, with a large photo of president Obama.

Next came the headline: “President Obama will continue to grow government. More runaway spending. High taxes. More jobs lost.”

That stopped me before I made it to the trash can because these claims are wrong.

First, let’s take the claim President Obama has grown government with runaway spending.

As Factcheck.org notes: “The truth is that the nearly 18 percent spike in spending in fiscal 2009 — for which the president is sometimes blamed entirely — was mostly due to appropriations and policies that were already in place when Obama took office.” http://www.factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-spending-inferno-or-not/ Yet this article goes on to explain at length the complexity of government spending and our current situation, making it clear no one party is to blame.

Second, will taxes increase under President Obama? Well, as this article on Think Progress notes, income taxes under Obama are at an historic low. http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2012/07/11/514384/taxes-30-year-low-obama/?mobile=nc%C2%A0 Factcheck backs that up. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/tax-facts-lowest-rates-in-30-years/

And in the future? Well, the Romney flier didn’t specify which taxes, but I’d guess they are including the cost of the Affordable Care Act. Again, I’ll defer to Factcheck: http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/biggest-tax-increase-in-history/. Brooks Jackson writes: “In short, there are too many moving parts in both the ACA and in earlier tax laws to make simple comparisons that are valid for all purposes. . . . Despite all these uncertainties, one thing is abundantly clear. There’s no way the ACA’s tax and other revenue increases come close to being the largest in U.S. history.”

Finally, declaring President Obama will lose more jobs denies reality given reports this month that indicate he may finish this term with net job creation, as this Bloomberg article outlines: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-27/payroll-revisions-signal-economy-has-created-jobs-under-obama.html The Romney ad’s claim also makes no reference to the horrible economic conditions President Obama inherited. To deny his efforts to prevent greater economic turmoil is to deny reality.

But then acknowledging reality would mean admitting policies under the previous Republican administration led to the current economic uncertainty.

As Stephen Colbert once said, “It is a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.” Unfortunately too many citizens pretend what they do won’t make any difference, so they can watch crappy reality TV without guilt.

If you plan to vote, do your homework.

Are the Hunger Games in our future?

This has been the year of the Hunger Games at my house. First, my 11-year-old daughter read the book, discovering it’s the start of a trilogy. So she read the second and third books and began watching movie trailers online. Then she reread the entire trilogy.

Next, we ordered tickets for the first night of the movie – for her, a friend and me. Finally, she added the movie to our Netflix queue. She waited patiently through our summer of itinerancy until we were home.

So last Wednesday night, we watched the movie again; it was the first time for my husband. For those who don’t know the story, Hunger Games is a futuristic morality tale by Suzanne Collins. In it, the nation of Panem is divided into 12 regional districts ruled by the wealthy and brutal Capital. As punishment for an uprising 75 years earlier, each district must submit two youth, male and female, to an annual competition called the Hunger Games. The children range in age from 12 to 18, and they must compete to the death, with one victor emerging. The games are broadcast throughout Panem, and all are forced to watch the slaughter. For the Capital it is sport; for the districts, it is torture.

As the plot unfolds, it becomes apparent the Capital relies completely on the districts to supply the labor and natural resources to support its lavish lifestyle. So the intimidation, fear and division the games sow help maintain the Capital’s power.

Watching this movie a second time, I was reminded of events in our country recently: the teachers’ strike in Chicago and Mitt Romney’s fundraising speech, describing 47 percent of America’s populace as refusing to take responsibility for their lives. No matter whether you support Romney or not, you can’t deny he sees America divided between the worthy and unworthy.

Former Bush aide Mark McKinnon writes in a post at The Daily Beast: “This is a deeply cynical view of America. Not to mention wrong. And it’s a long way from the compassionate conservatism that welcomed more Americans into the Republican Party under President George W. Bush.”

Similarly, in Panem after the heroine has created a stir of hope for her poor coal mining district, President Snow tells the Hunger Games’ producer if he saw the people in District 12, he would not root for them or any underdog.

I wonder who really feels “entitled” in that culture – and in ours.

In Panem, Snow uses division to keep these underdogs down, which brought to mind the teachers strike in Chicago and Wisconsin’s battle over collective bargaining last year. Pit union workers against non-union workers to keep all wages low and to whittle back worker benefits and protections for all. Pit Democrats against Republicans so they don’t realize the 1 percent is developing policies to increase the wealth of corporations and the super-rich while overloading the middle class; never mind the poor. Divide and conquer.

The underdogs in Panem watch 23 children die each year for 75 years. And as my daughter reminds me, on every 25th year they added special features like doubling the number of competitors. So many children lost before the people begin to stand up to the fear and manipulation.

And it leaves me asking, “What will it take to unite us; what’s in our future?”

Do we want government run like a business?

One of my nephews posted a clip on Facebook last week from The Daily Show’s coverage of the Republican National Convention. In it, the Daily Show decides to streamline America, running government like a business.

Hilarity ensues as Daily Show correspondents confront delegates from states receiving the most federal budget assistance while paying the least in federal taxes. As they tell a delegate from Mississippi who opines the market should decide if an organization succeeds or fails: “Whoa, dead last in per capita income — you are costing the government $20 billion!”

“Suddenly, when actually faced with the numbers, running America like a business didn’t seem like a good idea after all,” deadpans Daily Show correspondent John Oliver. “And it was every state for themselves.”

The final scene pitted Minnesota, Wyoming and Mississippi against each other to “keep their job,” with one of their delegates making the pitch to stay in the union.

This comic theater asks a serious question. Do we really want our government run like a business? Because the goal of business is profit.

As an example, let’s take schools. Our schools were developed to educate our children. Is this goal compatible with making a profit?

I know as a former school board member that schools make business decisions: from which vendor to purchase milk, bread and gasoline or how to cost-effectively air condition a building. But the first and foremost concern is providing the best education for kids. Do we really want to sacrifice that goal for profit?

Do we want to hire the least expensive teachers i.e. the least experienced, less educated teachers and perhaps fewer of them – to ensure a profit? Because that is the choice we’ll make if we run a school like a business.

And that’s one of the problems with some of the new privatized educational models being pushed, such as online schools. In states like Iowa, where school is financed on a per pupil basis, online schools will receive the per pupil amount. But any money they save by cutting expenses will go directly toward their profit. See how that works? From taxpayers’ pockets to private profit – instead of to educating students.

Results for online schooling to date are mixed at best, certainly indicating a need for at least more research. In an article last December titled “Online Schools Score Better on Wall Street than in Classrooms,” Stephanie Saul of the New York Times wrote of the leading online education company, K12 Inc.: “Instead, a portrait emerges of a company that tries to squeeze profits from public school dollars by raising enrollment, increasing teacher workload and lowering standards.”

I’d note the same business model is used plenty of other places. Again, google “Iraq no-bid contracts.” Google Enron. Or, MF Global. Heck, read George W. Bush’s resume, and check out Matt Taibbi’s latest Rolling Stone article titled: “Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital.”

In fact, the last few years have given us one example after another of businesses run into the ground, yet we’re still insisting business operates better than government.

Americans have lost sight of the social compact we make to act in community for the benefit of all – or at least as many as possible. Certain things are too important to be driven by something as mercenary as money.

Do we dare to look in the mirror?

Note:One of my various jobs is serving as a worship leader -- either in a 7-point charge in Paige county or as fill-in for vacationing or ailing pastors. Following is my sermon for Sunday, Sept. 2, 2012.

When preparing for this morning’s message, I was struck by the epistle reading from James, which included this illustration using a mirror:

“For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets, but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.

Mirrors are fascinating objects. They bend and reflect light. We look into them to see ourselves, seeking truth. But as this passage notes, we may forget what we see. We should also ask if we see clearly what’s reflected.

This mirror illustration brought to mind a number of stories, including the old familiar tale of Snow White. As we know, Snow White’s mother died shortly after her birth. Soon after that, her father, the king, married another woman who was beautiful, proud and cruel. The stepmother had studied dark magic and owned a magic mirror, of which she would daily ask, “Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?”

For many years, each time this question was asked, the mirror would answer, "Thou, O Queen, art the fairest of all." Of course, this answer pleased the queen as she knew her mirror could speak nothing but the truth.

So it came as a shock when one morning after asking, "Mirror, mirror on the wall, who's the fairest of them all?" it answered: You, my queen, are fair; it is true. But Snow White is even fairer than you.

That’s when things became really difficult for Snow White. Most of us know the rest of the story – how the queen sent Snow White into the woods with the huntsman, who was charged with killing the girl. How she escaped, begging for mercy, and fled until she found refuge with the seven dwarves. How the queen discovered her via the mirror and disguised herself as the old woman selling apples. How Snow White was deceived and took a bite of the poisoned fruit. How she lay as dead until her final rescue.

Throughout this tale, the mirror reflected beauty and evil; its truth was complicated and perilous for both the queen and Snow White.

Likewise, I think the Pharisees in our passage from Mark this morning had similar trouble with what they saw in the mirror of the law. Although they question Jesus about the practices of the Jewish law and tradition among his disciples, Jesus holds that same mirror up and asks them to take a longer look, saying, “You leave the commandment of God and hold to the tradition of men.”

And Jesus clarifies further, saying, “Hear me, all of you, and understand: There is nothing outside a person that by going into him can defile him, but the things that come out of a person are what defile him.”

Later in Jesus’ ministry, the rich young ruler said, “I have done everything the law has asked. I am one who can look in the mirror and see a perfect reflection of the law.” Then Jesus said, “look through the looking glass -- through the mirror, and give all you have to the poor and come, follow me.”

But the man replied, “I just can’t see myself doing that. That is not a reflection of what I do.” So he walked away for it was more mirror than he cared to see. And let’s be honest, how many of us in his shoes would have done the same?

And so we should ask: “Do we dare to look in the mirror?”

The writer of James makes that question personal and the encounter with the rich young ruler a matter for you and me: “Religion that is pure and undefiled before God, the Father, is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep oneself unstained from the world.”

In the Iowa Methodist Church’s weekly Memo to Preachers, Rev. Bill Cotton asks how one goes about staying “unstained” in the face of service to world. And to wrestle with that question, he writes that he consulted his old friend Tex Sample, who touched a nerve by citing the example of America’s wealthy, who want low taxes while demanding high military spending. Tex shared with Bill that the Society of Friends or Quakers, who are pacifists, track American military spending at 59% of our national budget.

Tex continued noting that it’s not wealthy kids who serve in the military, but poor and working class young people. And they end up fighting not to defend their families, but the assets of transnational corporations that send jobs abroad and hide profits to avoid taxes.

And Tex concluded: “This is not only wealthfare, it is also the sacrifice of poor and working young people on the altar of supply-side economics. For anyone who is formed by the biblical prophets and by Jesus, such wickedness will finally bring judgment.”

All this led Rev. Cotton to write:

“I can’t say it better. To remain silent in the face of such evil is to give the appearance of consent. Evil does have a way of rubbing off onto us. I think we need to heed the Book of James and become doers of the word—speak up!”

And so . . . the echo of this day is, “Do we see clearly in the mirror? Do we dare? Do we recognize that to much of the world, WE are the 1 percent?”

Remember that James uses the mirror as an illustration of the law. Do we see God’s law of love clearly in all aspects of our life? Are we living it?

As our United Methodist Church worship planning resources note: “. . . in James and in early Christianity generally, to keep oneself unstained from the world (James 1:27) did not mean seeking to live entirely apart from the world in some kind of ascetic withdrawal. Rather, it meant not allowing the way the world treats others -- especially the poor, the widow, the orphans, and the marginalized -- to mar the way we treat all people as disciples of Jesus. The world's way keeps them stuck or channels them off to one side. The way of Jesus and his disciples is to come alongside as advocates with the vulnerable and voiceless. . . .”

The Rev. Jim Wallis of Sojourners also wrote this week about advocacy and justice in a weekly blog post entitled, “Caring for the Poor is Government’s Biblical Role.” Drawing from the texts of Paul, as well as the prophets, Wallis lays out the Bible’s mandates for the role and purpose of government:

“So the purpose of government, according to Paul, is to protect and promote. Protect from the evil and promote the good, and we are even instructed to pay taxes for those purposes. So to disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.”

Wallis describes how throughout Biblical history the prophets spoke up about injustice to the poor and forgotten, and that God held both church and government leaders accountable. For even before Jesus, James and Paul, God’s law required the care of the least in society. And I think for both Rev. Cotton and Rev. Wallis, this election season has them looking in the collective mirror to ask if we are living out God’s law.

I would also note that James states clearly that when we act to help others; to live out love, we are the ones who receive the grace of God.

I receive it on Wednesday afternoons when one of the children in Grant’s after-school program asks, “Can I sit on your lap?” Or, “Will your read me a book?” Or when I simply listen to their stories about their day, letting them share the disappointments, laughs, frustrations and surprises they’ve experienced. And I am learning to speak up and share their stories and their needs -- for education, health care and even food, using my voice with my representatives in government as well as with my vote.

My friend, the Rev. Jim Campbell, writes about the blessings of faith in action in his Wonder unto Beauty blog post, “Lost in Wonder:”

“We are not called to simply love those who are in need,
but dare to believe that those we serve
are the face of Christ coming to us
in how WE are to grow.
It is the Benedictines who greet each stranger at the door
with the words, “We have been expecting you.”
Faith into action is a riddle.
It is knowing that in serving God that we find God,
that in caring for others that they help us touch
our own hidden brokenness and fears.

"It is in the face of the least of these our brothers and sisters
that we discover the face of Christ in the street,
the glory of the Lord,
the necessary wonder unto beauty of the goodness of God.
Here, the jazz of God pulses into a freedom dance
in the alley mud for all concerned,
that the imprisoned, the thirsty, the naked and the hungry
include ourselves
yearning for our own re-conversion
beyond the limits of faith in action in a box,
to the lost-ness of WONDER, love and praise set free.”

So look in the mirror, remember to do, and be blessed.

Amen.

Will we choose wisely this election?

Recently, we've been re-watching the Indiana Jones movies. In the third film, “Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade,” Indy sets out to rescue his Biblical scholar father who has been captured by the Nazis and the adventure turns into a quest for the Holy Grail or cup of Christ.

This quest has been the lifelong dream of Jones, Sr., while the Nazis seek to possess the Grail for its supernatural powers.

This race for the Grail converges in a cave in the North African desert, where an ancient Knight Templar guards it. In an inner sanctum, this knight waits with a collection of goblets and a spring of fresh water to be relieved of his guardianship.

But as the Nazis’ and Jones' parties vie for control, Indiana is faced with a difficult choice -- choosing from among the collected cups to save his wounded father. Just seconds before, Indy had watched a Nazi, who desired the Grail for his own wealth and power, choose incorrectly, drink and evaporate to dust.

“He chose . . . poorly,” concludes the old knight, who watches these events calmly.

So Indiana Jones passes his gaze across the cups and asks, “Which is the cup of a poor carpenter?” And when he sees a rough, unadorned water goblet, he grabs it, fills it and drinks.

“You have chosen . . . wisely,” declares the knight slowly. But will we?

This story came to mind as I was preparing a sermon (I serve as a worship leader in a 7-church charge in Page County) based on Solomon's request for wisdom. In my preparation, I spent time reading about Proverbs and found my study Bible described that book as representing “the democratization of wisdom.”

In this election season, that phrase stuck in my brain. In other words, wisdom is offered to all people. It's not just a gift; it's a pursuit you can choose.

Or not.

With regard to the election, I think too many of us have given up pursuing knowledge to make wise choices. Instead, we simply react to whatever's presented - either getting mad or blindly accepting messages repeated so often we don't question their truth.

I think the best example of the latter is Reagan”s quote: “Government is not the solution to our problems. Government IS the problem.”

Great sound bite, but was it true?

Not if you like your armed forces or Social Security or Medicare or public school or student financial aid or Veteran’s Administration benefits or farm program or public roads or post office or police and fire departments or flu shots or hosts of other government services.

Meanwhile, this meme was repeated until it became accepted truth. Through both Republican and Democratic administrations we’ve been told private entities (like Wall Street banks) operate more efficiently than government. Yet does history bear this out?

Google “Iraq no-bid contracts” and read how private contractors bilked our government out of millions of dollars by overcharging for services military personnel used to perform. Why?

Because under the government-is-the problem argument, we've repealed regulations that protect the public and downsized or dismantled agencies responsible for oversight. Another is the “America's failing schools” meme. Many accept education reform is needed, yet polling shows most are satisfied with their own school. We never question the meme or those promoting it. Yet American school children are taught reading and other concepts at earlier ages than ever. And all American children are educated and tested; even developmentally disabled students have plans to help them reach full potential. Other nations do not do this, so test score comparisons touted in media compare apples to oranges.

These are but two examples. It’s not difficult to find others if you are willing to look - to pursue the knowledge. That’s our job as voters; it's how we arm ourselves to make choices like the one in November. So I can’t help wondering, will we choose wisely?

What do we take for granted?

Until this summer, I didn’t really understand the anxiety, stress and complexity of living without a fixed address, a.k.a. homelessness.

My family and I are temporarily displaced due to a major home renovation. So once work is done, we’ll move back in, and life will proceed normally. But during the interim, our life has been turned upside down.

First, we had to determine what to do with our pets: three house cats, one dog and barn cats. Two cats found temporary foster homes, and our neighbors have helped feed and water the barn cats. The dog and one house cat have traveled with us to a couple of relatives’ homes.

But as school approaches, my teacher husband and student daughter both need to be close to home. So we’ve checked into a local retreat center and have boarded the dog and cat with our vet, where we make regular visits.

Additionally, we’ve had to figure out where to store possessions and pick up mail. We’ve had to plan and pack every essential for maintaining household business as well as back-to-school. Since I work out of a home office, I had to be sure I traveled with information and items I need for current projects. It takes extra energy to complete the usual tasks simply because we have no fixed location and no routine. It has been a logistical nightmare.

But I have an end in sight. What if I didn’t?

Since the financial crisis, homelessness in America has increased. Financial security for many working families has become tenuous at best, and many of us are only one emergency away from disaster. Are we honest with ourselves about that?

A recent article by Jeff Tietz in Rolling Stone Magazine, “The Sharp, Sudden Decline of America’s Middle Class,” profiles several homeless individuals living in Santa Barbara, California under the city’s Safe Parking Program. This program offers overnight parking permits to people living in vehicles.

The people Tietz interviewed were formerly middle class working men and women like Janis Adkins, who owned a nursery business in Moab, Utah when the Great Recession hit. With business declining by 50 percent and land values dropping drastically, she needed to refinance to keep her business. But no bank would work with her, and she lost everything. Now living out of her vehicle, she seeks work having 40 years of experience on her resume. Yet employers learn of her homelessness and assume it’s her fault; there must be something wrong with her. Such discrimination is common and resembles attitudes about welfare recipients.

Adkins and the other people profiled also brought to mind attending Griswold Community School’s annual Veterans Day Program last November when my neighbor, who works for the Veteran’s Administration, mounted the stage to accept a collection of donated paper products and toiletries for homeless veterans. It was a revelation to learn the large numbers of homeless veterans living across the country. Perhaps most disturbing was her suggestion that as we drive through the Omaha metro, we look beneath clusters of trees because such protected areas were likely home to some veterans. How can these people live so openly among us, yet be unseen?

So as I temporarily wrestle with “homelessness” I wonder when we’ll understand it could be any of us. And when will we quit judging and begin fighting for policies and programs that support all of us.

Personal liberties and public good: Where’s the balance?

Last weekend’s horrific massacre in Aurora, Colo. has reopened questions about gun control in America. With 12 people dead and 58 injured after a gunman fired assault weapons inside a movie theater, media are asking what legislation, if any, has been passed to protect the public.

The gun control debate has been around for years. In fact, 30-plus years ago, I wrote a research paper on it for my government class.

As the daughter of a farmer, I grew up with guns in the house. My father was never a hunter or gun enthusiast; he simply used the weapons to take care of dangerous or unwanted animals.

My brother, on the other hand, became interested in hunting as a teenager. He learned to use Dad’s guns to hunt with the neighbors.

So I grew up with an appreciation for guns’ usefulness. But I was also taught healthy respect for them and their power to take life. They were a tool used in necessity. And when I conducted research for my paper, I looked at both sides of the issue – from the dangers guns posed to people in communities struggling with violence to the needs of rural residents for hunting and protection.

But even 30 years ago, the number one force blocking any and all forms of gun control was the National Rifle Association (NRA).

Today, the NRA is the nation’s largest lobbying force. Most recently, they successfully blocked extending a ban on assault weapons, which most Americans, including NRA members, support.

NRA leadership, including NRA President Wayne LaPierre, successfully trots out two canards to block any gun control measures: that they will take away citizens’ 2nd Amendment rights and that “guns don’t kill people, people do.” Both arguments oversimplify a complex issue and completely ignore public safety.

They also divert attention from the organization’s business goals. For the NRA is nothing more than a business whose nominal mission is to represent and protect the interests of gun owners. But like many other large organizations, leadership manipulates the organization to empower and enrich themselves.

As Alan Berlow relates in the first of a three-part series on the NRA in Salon Magazine (http://www.salon.com/2012/07/24/nras_doomsaying_sham/), the NRA’s leadership is happy to sell products (including concealed carry hoodies and liability insurance for shooting someone) and to e-mail alerts to solicit donations to their political action committee. Yet research shows these same leaders, who draw six-figure or more salaries, don’t donate themselves. As Berlow writes:

“Former NRA lobbyist Richard Feldman has suggested one reason NRA big shots are happy to sit on their wallets. In his book ‘Richochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist,’ Feldman calls the NRA a ‘cynical, mercenary political cult … obsessed with wielding power while relentlessly squeezing contributions from its members.’ According to Feldman, NRA leaders ‘weren’t interested in actually solving problems, only in fueling perpetual crisis and controversy’ because ‘that was how they made their money.’”

Meanwhile, the NRA blocks compromise on gun laws that could protect the public.

As Edith Honan notes in a Reuters article recent polling by Republican pollster Frank Luntz shows gun owners, including NRA members, favor some ownership restrictions.

“Seventy-four percent of the current and former NRA members and 87 percent of the other gun owners supported criminal background checks of anyone purchasing a gun, according to the poll.” The results showed support for other checks as well.

In the wake of the Aurora massacre, we need to get beyond black-and-white arguments about guns and explore compromises. I think actor Jason Alexander said it best in an essay last weekend: “We will not prevent every tragedy. We cannot stop every maniac. But we certainly have done ourselves no good by allowing these particular weapons to be acquired freely by just about anyone... but this is not the time for reasonable people, on both sides of this issue, to be silent. We owe it to the people whose lives were ended and ruined yesterday to insist on a real discussion and hopefully on some real action.”

Trying to understand health care act opposition

Last week as we waited for the Supreme Court of the United States to hand down its ruling on the Affordable Care Act, a Reuters/Ipsos poll on the health care reform law was released. It showed, yet again, that while a majority of Americans oppose the law, most favor the individual elements. Does that make any sense?

It is instead a knee-jerk reaction based on ignorance and fear of change. But I have to ask, is our current system really workin’ for you?

Opponents of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) like to rant about government run health care, death panels and denied care.

But after my husband and I went through physicals and an injury during the last 10 months, it seems we already have that with insurance.

Because ACA is not government-run health care; it’s a band-aid designed to make private insurance more affordable and to sustain it for a few more years. Nothing more.

In fact, when polled on individual elements of ACA, people liked the following provisions:

— Allowing children to stay on their parents’ policy until age 26;

— Banning insurance companies from denying coverage to people with pre-existing conditions;

— Requiring corporations to cover employees.

And whether they know it or not, as a result of ACA many retirees on Medicare are already enjoying free preventative coverage and will receive rebate checks for their drug expenses.

What Americans claim they don’t like is the individual mandate – largely because they’ve heard a lot of bunk about how it impinges on their freedom.

Do you rail about your auto insurance, which most if not all states require to own a car? You may split hairs about auto coverage being a state’s right, but that’s all you’re doing – splitting hairs.

The reality is through our private health insurance system, your company may deny you coverage or limit your treatment options. The insurance company may limit which doctors you can see. The insurance company may delay treatment for underwriting. And yet that’s what we say we’re afraid of with government health care?

Instead of parroting media messaging manufactured by health insurance corporations via think tanks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, think about how many forms, co-pays and deductibles it takes to go through a simple physical under the current system. Is it really workin’ for you?

And why is it that during the debate before ACA passed, we heard people crying “Keep your hands off my Medicare”? Medicare is a government-run universal single payer insurance plan, and most people on it like it.

Maybe instead of automatically repeating what we hear on television and radio, we should look at reality and start asking some questions. Like, “Why should health care be governed by the profit motive?”

If we want something better – like a health care system instead of a profit-driven payment system, we have to educate ourselves and speak up.

Too many of us sit at the kitchen table and complain without actually doing anything.

It’s not enough to vote. You have to know what you are voting for. And the six o’clock news is not going to give you the information you need.

Start with the Reuters/Ipsos poll results: www.reuters.com

Then visit the Kaiser Family Foundation’s Health Reform site to learn about ACA’s provisions: healthreform.kff.org

And finally, the government offers easy-to-use resources and information: www.healthcare.gov

Learn what the law actually does. Then use not only your vote, but your voice.

What do we get with corporate-backed politicians?

Recently, I’ve had an old Tennessee Ernie Ford song rattlin’ round in my head:

You load 16 tons, what do you get
Another day older and deeper in debt
Saint Peter don't you call me 'cause I can't go
I owe my soul to the company store.

I think that pretty well describes working America – a country I often feel like the masters of the universe in Washington D.C. (and our state capital) have forgotten.

And then I live through periods like this first week in June and I have to wonder, “Do working Americans recognize themselves in Ford’s song?”

Of course I am referring to Wisconsin’s recall election, in which voters retained a governor who made it his mission to break state public employees’ unions.

Never mind these unions had already conceded to pay a larger share of benefit costs and to limit pay increases. Walker’s goal was not to ease Wisconsin taxpayers’ burden, but to do away with collective bargaining and worker protections for public employees, and thus for all workers.

Walker’s efforts were bankrolled by a handful of multi-billionaire business owners, led by the Koch brothers.

And they outspent Democrats by a ratio of 7-1 to retain Walker.

Their funds allowed saturation advertising and publicity designed to question the democratic nature of a recall election petitioned for by hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin voters.

Yet by the time the election rolled around, voters suddenly felt recalls should only be held in the case of criminal wrongdoing.

John Nichols outlines events in “Framed: How Redefining Direct Democracy as Anti-Democratic Won Wisconsin.” http://www.thenation.com/blog/168335/framed-how-redefining-direct-democracy-anti-democratic-won-wisconsin?rel=emailNation#

I’ve never been a big believer in advertising, but I’m disappointed to say it worked this time. Walker’s corporate funders managed to manipulate voters into keeping their man in office.

Why? Because big business profits when workers can’t organize. It is no coincidence that since President Reagan broken the air traffic controllers’ union, workers’ wages in this country have stagnated.

And it’s ironic for those Wisconsin voters who cast their vote for the principle that recalls be held only for criminal wrongdoing. They may get it yet because investigations of Walker continue.

But what capped a strange confluence of events was the death of Ray Bradbury the same week. Bradbury was the author of Fahrenheit 451. This prophetic science fiction novel tells the story of a future in which firemen no longer put out fires. Instead, they start them – to burn books.

In this futuristic America, people sit enthralled to their interactive television screens, now three full living room walls.

Meanwhile, the government sends firemen to destroy books and historic documents that would encourage free thinking.

But, one day the book’s main character opens a book perched on the pile for the next bonfire. And it changes his life.

He begins to read and discovers radical texts like the Bible and our founding documents, and he finally questions what he is doing.

He sees his wife mesmerized in front of her TV screen and walks away from his old life.

I keep wondering when we will. Americans must wake up to the fact that government is our responsibility.

Until then, the company store owned by the Koch brothers and their colleagues will continue to buy our government and own our souls.

As they did in Wisconsin and are already doing in the general election, they are flooding the airwaves with ads and appearances by paid representatives for their candidates (chiefly Republican) who will blindly push through policies to benefit them.

So unplug the TV and radio. And before it’s too late, start reading and asking questions. It’s our job, and if we don’t do it, that sixteen tons will never get any lighter.

What matters more: Objectivity or transparency?

I write a lot about the media because I have some insight from my public relations experience.

And as an artist I’ve studied perception. So I’ll tell you what I recently told a group of pastors during a workshop on social advocacy: it is not “objectivity” that’s important. Honesty and transparency are.

Objectivity is an impossibility. Why? Because everyone has a perspective. And no matter how carefully you work, it affects what you produce.

Consider a still life set up in a drawing studio. Students come in and take their places around the still life. Yet with one still life, 20 students produce 20 different drawings – all true from their perspective, although not equally well done or accurate.

So with news and information, transparency or honesty about an outlet’s perspective is what’s important. Unfortunately, most broadcast media try to lay claim to the ideals of “objectivity” and “balance.”

Additionally, in an age when most media are profit-driven and owned by corporate conglomerates, newsrooms have cut researchers and reporters. So the remaining overworked staff often uses pre-packaged stories, photos and news videos delivered to them via the newswires and public relations people like me. And because they all use the same sources, you get the same stories from the same perspective repeated on all the channels.

It’s an echo chamber.

In this environment, advertisers also play an unhealthy role in determining program content. Owners don’t want to deliver content critical of the advertiser. Take for instance, Sunday morning news programs. First let’s look at ownership.

FOX News is owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation, an international conglomerate that also includes The New York Post and The Wall Street Journal, among others. (FYI, News Corporation is under investigation for illegal news-gathering tactics and bribery in Great Britain.)

NBC is owned by General Electric, hence all the energy company commercials during Meet the Press.

ABC is owned by The Walt Disney Company.

CBS formerly owned by Viacom, is now owned by CBS Corporation.

And with regard to providing balance or a variety of viewpoints, a recent study by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (a non-profit organization challenging media bias and censorship since 1986) examined the content of ABC’s This Week, CBS’ Face the Nation, NBC’s Meet the Press and FOX News Sunday. To quote study author Peter Hart, “Evaluating the guest lists for the eight months from June 2011 through February 2012, FAIR found a distinct conservative skew in both one-on-one interview segments and roundtable discussions.”

Other findings from the study included:

“In the eight-month study period, partisan-affiliated one-on-one interviews were 70 percent Republican—166 guests to Democrats’ 70.”

Guests were overwhelmingly male and homogenously white.

In roundtable discussions, Republicans and/or conservatives made 282 appearances to 164 by Democrats and progressives.

“Middle-of-the-road Beltway journalists made 201 appearances in roundtables, which serves to buttress the argument that corporate media’s idea of a debate is conservative ideologues matched by centrist-oriented journalists.”

Only 29 percent of roundtable guests were women, and only 15 percent were minorities. Read about the study here: http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=4514 So if these are your major news sources, you’re only getting one perspective. Consider yourself lucky this local paper you’re reading works to provide a variety.

Is your news really news?

Do you assume your news sources present unbiased facts and information? Do you trustfully consume this news without ever questioning where it came from and who decided what to include and what to leave out?

If so, you’re probably being manipulated.

According to Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR), a non-profit organization challenging media bias and censorship since 1986: “But mainstream media are increasingly cozy with the economic and political powers they should be watchdogging. Mergers in the news industry have accelerated, further limiting the spectrum of viewpoints that have access to mass media. With U.S. media outlets overwhelmingly owned by for-profit conglomerates and supported by corporate advertisers, independent journalism is compromised.”

But I don’t just take FAIR’s word for it. I’m speaking from my experience as a public relations practitioner. I help shape news by sending out news releases and contacting media to use them as news stories. And at the end of April I saw the poster-child for how the public relations industry shapes broadcast news.

One of my favorite Omaha news programs ran a story complete with video footage and interviews of a UNL coed who’d been robbed. She and friends had been enjoying a few beers, Pabst Blue Ribbon to be specific, when they were threatened by a thief with what they thought was a knife. After swiping the beer, he ran off only to be apprehended later. The news coverage continued with a PBR representative swooping in to save the day by delivering a new supply of their product to the student – all on camera. The PR person in me says, “Kudos to this PR guy for taking advantage of the situation and leveraging it into a free commercial.”

But the news consumer in me was screaming at the TV – “You call that news? Where is the coverage of the Unicameral, Omaha City Council or, God forbid, our Congress? Where is the editorial judgment?”

This two-minute story summed up for me the current state of our mainstream media. Instead of reporting from our centers of government and researching legislation affecting our common life, they pulled the easy-to-cover press release from the fax machine or e-mail. If you’re going to drive to Lincoln to do a story, why not cover the Unicameral?

It’s been so long since we’ve seen relevant, transparent reporting, based on research, facts and interviews, from our mainstream sources, most of us don’t recognize it anymore. We simply regurgitate whatever is presented, no questions asked. How can people vote responsibly when they don’t know who their representatives are and what legislation they passed?

And I’m serious. When people ask me which party controls each house of Congress, as happened recently, I get worried. I wonder how many people know their state level representatives. Without real information, voters will continue to make choices via fact-free campaign advertising and stump speeches – emotional reactions that will likely do nothing to actually help their situation.

So demand better. Tell media to report on relevant issues like government policies; ask for interviews, research and facts, including sources. And probably not for the last time, I’m telling you – quit reading and forwarding those chain e-mails. My PR colleagues have been creating those for clients, too.

What about that deficit?

I’ve heard a lot about the deficit and our national debt the last five years. And I’m tired of people trotting out the canard about how irresponsible we’d be if we “ran our household budget like the government budget.” Even President Obama has made this terrible comparison. It’s apples to oranges, to use another cliché.

First and foremost, do we get to print money and set interest rates? I think not. Yet our government can do these things to respond to economic conditions.

Second, how many of us can make it through life without acquiring debt to pay for an education, automobile or house? I congratulate you if you have the resources to simply write a check. But for most of us, this type of debt is reasonable and manageable if we are employed and sensible with our dollars.

But government debt is a completely different beast because government controls monetary policy and government spending is actually independent of government debt. Counterintuitive, isn’t it?

Next, look at history. Deficits simply reflect current economic activity. Because our economy is depressed, our deficit is larger. When economic activity increases, we’ll see the deficit drop.

How to increase economic activity? Well, employing people would help, but we’ve not seen our “job creators” pony up money to expand and hire. Instead, they’re hoarding their money or investing elsewhere.

History shows that in situations like the present, government spending to support people via employment and social programs helps get the economy going. Of course in the 30s, direct employment programs were also effective. And for all you folks who believe World War II, and not FDR’s social programs, ended the Depression, I’d note the war created government spending -- just on the war effort.

Right now Europe is tumbling into a double-dip recession because in their single-minded focus on debt, they have cut spending to the bone. Austerity rules, and it’s creating instability, not growth.

America, particularly our Congress, needs to take note. To keep our economy moving, government is the only entity large enough to take appropriate action.

And as Robert Greenstein of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities notes, stabilizing our economy involves other factors, most notably rising health care costs. “In the long run, the single largest contribution to deficit reduction will need to come from slowing the rate of growth of health care costs throughout the U.S. health care system, in the public and private sectors alike. A slower rate of health care cost growth will produce substantial budgetary savings in areas ranging from Medicare and Medicaid to the tax exclusion for employer-based health coverage,” he writes.

So the whole thing is complicated and simple sound-bite solutions like a balanced budget amendment or cutting social programs or cutting taxes won’t work.

Develop a better understanding of government debt and the deficit by reading -- instead of listening to TV talking heads.

Start with “Deficit Dogma Debunked” by Marshall Auerback at: http://www.salon.com/2012/04/19/deficit_dogma_debunked/. Then dig deeper with Greenstein’s article, “A Framework for Deficit Reduction: Principles and Cautions” at: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=3435.

What's changed since 2008?

As a 2008 volunteer, I get mailings from Obama for America.

Last week, the mailing envelope was a 12x18-inch poster headlined: CHANGE IS.
Beneath that was a black and white portrait of President Obama. And under the photo was a list of eleven accomplishments. They included:

Equal Pay for Equal Work

Saving the U.S. auto industry

Credit card reform

Hate Crimes Prevention Act

Affordable Care Act

Student loan reform

Wall Street reform

Middle-class tax cuts

Repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”

Raising fuel efficiency standards

Ending the war in Iraq

Since I track the president’s record, I’d add the destruction of Al-Quaida and its leader Osama Bin Laden.

Overall, the list just hits the highlights.

How many items were you aware of? How many of these items have made a difference in your life? I’d venture a guess that most of us have seen benefits from almost all of them, whether we’ll admit it or not.

Unfortunately, our mainstream corporate media has failed to cover the actual policies this administration has championed – mainly because they do not overwhelmingly benefit corporate media owners’ interests. Citizen ignorance is their friend.

Why? If you do not understand the Affordable Care Act, maybe you won’t support it – even though it allows your college graduate to stay on your insurance plan while he or she searches for a job.

If you’re ignorant, you won’t support it even though now your insurer can’t cut you off when you hit a certain dollar amount spent to cover your pre-existing condition. Ignorance will allow you to oppose it despite the fact your premiums would have increased more drastically had ACA not been passed.

The fact is that with a higher number of U.S. citizens insured, many of them healthy young people, ACA is already bending the cost curve down. But even with ACA, we’re barely making a dent in rising healthcare costs. We could more effectively control costs and care for people with either a single payer system (like Medicare) or socialized medicine (like the Veteran’s Administration), both of which could be expanded.

Yet, as journalist Chris Hedges points out in a recent column on healthcare, “. . . as long as corporations determine policy, as long as they can use their money to determine who gets elected and what legislation gets passed, we remain hostages.”

Plenty of people I’ve met are also unaware President Obama cut middle class taxes during the worst of the recession. Media didn’t report it that way; instead they reported he wants to “raise taxes,” even though he only wants to raise tax rates on wealthy individuals and large multinational corporations. He’s also decreased the deficit and cut more government spending than his predecessor.

This president has a long list of accomplishments, but listening to media reports you’d think we have seen no change. Where is this “liberal media bias” I hear about?

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again -- the first step to deciding who to vote for is to do your homework. Quit voting on emotion, turn off the TV and radio, and read. And know who pays for your sources. Otherwise you’re just a cog in the corporate machine, and nothing will change.

Because change is not just up to the president; it comes down to us.

Do we fear the wrong things?

Do we fear the wrong things?

The killing of Trayvon Martin, an African American youth on an errand to buy candy for his little brother in Sanford, Florida, opens up many questions, mostly about what we fear. And does our fear make us vulnerable to other dangers?

I ask because Martin’s death spotlights Florida’s Stand Your Ground Law, which allows anyone who feels threatened to use deadly force. In other words, fear rules. Some version of this law has been passed in 16 states and debated in even more.

Yet I wonder if it’s in the public interest to have an armed populace. Are we safer? And if a family member is killed, you may watch helplessly, just like Martin’s family, as this law allows the killer to walk free without charges or even an investigation.

In addition, the law is based on model legislation, called the Castle Doctrine Act and developed by the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). ALEC is a secretive corporate-financed organization (Think Koch brothers, Exxon Mobil, and not coincidentally, the National Rifle Association.) that writes corporate-friendly legislation and pushes it through state legislatures nationwide.

The Center for Media and Democracy has done extensive research to expose the work of this influential organization. You can view their work at: http://alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed (Check their list of ALEC politicians for your federal and state representatives.)

Are groups like ALEC using our fears to manipulate us? Fear, or any strong emotion, causes humans to stop thinking and react irrationally. When that happens, we are easily led . . . or misled.

For example, do you fear the government? But in America, aren’t we, ultimately, the government? Don’t we elect and monitor our representatives? Or have we abandoned the process and let corporate and special interests take over without a fight?

Which leads me to ask who really benefits from the Stand Your Ground Law and these other corporate-written model bills? Are they being written as part of some corporate business plan to increase market share and corner public contracts?

For example, will the Stand Your Ground Law help gun dealers and manufacturers sell more guns? Another irony of the Trayvon Martin case is the kerfuffle by Geraldo Rivera over Martin’s hoodie. If, as Rivera claims, only crooks and thugs wear hoodies, why does the NRAstore.com sell a Concealed Carry Hooded Sweatshirt? Check it out for yourself at: http://www.nrastore.com/nrastore/ProductDetail.aspx?c=11&p=CO+635&ct=e

Instead of fearing the young black man or the non-English speaker or the stranger in our community, maybe we should be paying closer attention to the legislation being passed as law in state capitals. Perhaps we should be reading the bills our representatives are debating and demanding our newspapers, TV and radio stations report on the substance of said bills. Maybe we should be looking at where our elected officials get their campaign contributions.

Instead of parking in front of our TV sets, maybe we should be meeting on our front porches and talking. Instead of watching The Bachelor and YouTube videos, maybe we should be reading books, especially history, and daily newspapers or news sites. And we should definitely be asking lots of questions.

Instead of running into our separate corners in fear, we should be meeting and sharing information. Because as the saying goes, “United we stand, divided we fall.”

Are we a civil society?

Recent news events have me pondering this question. Feb. 27 brought us a school shooting in Chardon, Ohio. Immediately, questions about bullying arose.

In our search to explain the death of three students and the arrest of another, we cast a wide net. Were there signs the killer was violent? Was he bullied? Did the school address bullying?

Within the next week, we witnessed Rush Limbaugh’s vitriolic attack on a relatively powerless individual, Georgetown Law student Sandra Fluke, who testified before a congressional delegation about contraception as healthcare.

Fluke simply shared stories of real women whose inability to get contraception was risking their health, livelihoods and life.

Enter Limbaugh whose coverage of Fluke’s testimony descended into the realm of schoolyard bullying. Although Fluke had not referenced contraception as birth control, Limbaugh proceeded to call her a slut and implied female Georgetown students wanted birth control only for promiscuous sex.

Throw into this news mix the sudden death of Andrew Breitbart, a right-wing Internet media mogul who built his career enthusiastically tearing down organizations and people with whom he disagreed. For example, he selectively edited video footage of U.S. Department of Agriculture employee Shirley Sherrod, speaking about her effort to overcome her own biases when working with white farmers.

Breitbart’s misleading video clips destroyed Sherrod’s career, leading to her early retirement and to a lawsuit against him. But for Breitbart, any means justified his endsand anyone could be collateral damage, including himself. Breitbart’s Internet vitriol and public tantrums are his legacy.

As expected, Breitbart’s sudden death at 43 prompted responses from all sides. Rolling Stones’ Matt Taibbi, who shared Breitbart’s love of inflammatory language, but uses it in service of the liberal perspective, wrote a blog post the title of which I won’t repeat here. However, in Taibbi’s own distinct voice, he paid tribute to Breibart’s relentlessness. Yet Taibbi, and his family, were bullied with threatening phone calls, e-mails, texts and posts.

So in an update to his original article, Taibbi responded to Breitbart’s fans: “But I guess no homage is complete without a celebration of the whole man, and the whole man in this case was not just a guy who once said, ‘It’s all about a good laugh,’ but also someone who liked to publish peoples’ personal information on the internet, hack into private web sites, tell lies in an attempt to get his enemies fired, and incite readers to threats against his targets and their families, including death threats.”

Add to this news mix tales of NFL managers paying players to hurt opposing teams’ key players and our consumption of reality TV shows that promote name-calling, back-biting and humiliation, and I don’t think kids bullying should be any surprise. Instead, I wonder how we can be surprised about it at all.

If we want schools to be safe places, we can’t expect educators to carry the burden alone. We need to ask what behavior the rest of us (parents, grandparents, neighbors) model, too. Do we speak respectfully to and about those with whom we disagree? Are we civil?

And maybe we need to turn off the TV and radio, limit Internet use, and talk through our disagreements. Because last week made it obvious to me our media makes a mockery of civil discourse, and I’m ready to pull the plug.

Is education really a priority with the state?

“It’s like déjà vu all over again,” said Yogi Berra. Once again Iowa school finance is caught on the political football field of the Iowa legislature. And education’s cause is not helped by our governor pushing his own version of education reform.

As a former school board director, I know we’ve been down this road before – and relatively recently. Each year, local schools plan their budgets, including setting local tax levies. This requires the state legislature to determine allowable growth (the percentage increase per pupil they can expect from the state). Due to the economy, schools are coming off of a year of 0% allowable growth and hoping to see 2-4% for 2014.

However thanks to the governor’s education reform plan, which includes a study of teacher compensation, Governor Branstad is proposing a delay to setting allowable growth. The governor wants to wait a year to see what the study proposes before he sets allowable growth. This presumes the task force will not only have proposals, but that they will be adopted and effective on July 1, 2013.

Iowa law requires the legislature to set allowable growth within 30 days after the governor submits a budget proposal. Although the Senate met that deadline, passing legislation with 4% allowable growth, the House instead passed a bill to set allowable growth for two years on odd numbered years.

“What’s the problem?” you may ask. Well, by Iowa law, schools must issue contracts and certify their budgets by April 15 each year. And I’ll give you one guess which governor set that policy. Yup – Governor Branstad in his first round as Iowa’s governor.

But how can schools develop a budget and set their tax rates without knowing how much funding they will receive?

If education is really a priority, shouldn’t we be allocating the resources for schools to improve student achievement, implement the Iowa Core Curriculum already underway and prepare Iowa’s kids for the 21st century? These kids are already in school; how do they benefit if we cut funding for these programs midstream? And with Iowa’s economy showing signs of improvement, shouldn’t our children benefit?

Improving student achievement has less to do with making legislative policy changes than with providing the resources to make it happen. In point of fact, public officials’ job is taxing and spending – first and foremost. So I’d like my state legislature to get busy and fund our schools.

Because as a parent, while my daughter is in school, I want the legislature to make sure funds are available to keep her school operating. And before the legislature and governor go making radical changes to how my school operates, I want them to listen to my local teachers, principals and parents. We know our kids and our community, and we have been working together to develop a quality program.

And we’re not alone. Schools across Iowa have been working hard to improve their programs and meet the requirements of the last big school reform plan – No Child Left Behind.

So I think it’s time for the governor and legislature to pony up and put their money where their mouth is. Pass allowable growth, and make sure our kids’ education continues uninterrupted.

Are abortion and contraception health care?

I’ve had two abortions. Shocked? I certainly was when I learned D & Cs (dilation and curettage) are often coded as abortions for insurance purposes. Suddenly, abortion became a very personal issue.

When my husband and I were ready for a second child, I went through what was diagnosed as “recurrent miscarriages.” At one point, my body was expelling embryos so fast, the doctor could barely document the pregnancy.

And I carried two babies 12 weeks only to lose them. In both cases, our doctor recommended a D & C to prevent infection and future complications. I credit her care for the eventual birth of our daughter.

These memories come flooding back whenever abortion and contraception re-emerge as political footballs. Both are health care issues best left to individuals and their doctors. And their complicated nature is illustrated by personal stories.

For example, I read an account in Salon Magazine several years ago by a Catholic nurse whose family wanted a fourth child.

However, when they learned (after 20 weeks) their much anticipated daughter had a fatal condition that would precipitate her death shortly after birth – and one in which she would suffer – they felt they must make an unwelcome decision.

As a nurse, this woman did research to locate a facility that would perform a dilation and extraction to allow her family to bury their child and say goodbye.

But the pain didn’t end there. At a time when this family needed love and support, they were ostracized by friends, some family and their faith community.

Even the birth later, of a healthy fourth child, could not ease that pain.

So lately with the manufactured outrage over the decision to require all employers, including faith-based organizations (hospitals, charities, universities) to cover contraception as part of health insurance benefits for employees, I have been remembering all the women I know whose doctors have prescribed contraception to treat conditions like endometriosis or to prevent pregnancies that would endanger their lives due to other chronic conditions.

These memories prompt me to ask how we can deny that contraception (or abortion) is part of women’s health care?

And how can legislators in good conscience limit or deny access to treatments doctors need to care for patients?

With regard to this latest decision on contraception, it’s not really a controversial issue. As a story on ThinkProgress.org notes, DePaul University, as well as a number of other Catholic institutions, offers their employees a contraception benefit with their health insurance in accordance with state and federal law.

ThinkProgress also notes: “DePaul’s home state of Illinois is one of 28 to have adopted a contraception coverage requirement.

Eight of those states provide no opt-out clause for religious institutions and the administration’s new rule would expand conscience protections to those parts of the country.”

The story also referenced a Public Religion Research Institute poll indicating a majority of Americans, including a majority of Catholics, support the new coverage requirement.

So if the Obama administration is waging a “war on religion,” why did their decision “expand conscience protections to those parts of the country?” In other words, this decision allows more groups an exception to providing contraception.

Once again the mainstream media and politicians are using women’s health issues as a political football – to the detriment of women’s health.

So the libertarian in me wants to know, “Why do ‘small government’ Conservatives want to meddle in my health care?”

Keystone Pipeline: Do benefits outweigh risk?

I was pleased to see President Obama made a decision with regard to the Keystone Pipeline last week. However, he left the door open to continue the project, so I’m not ready to celebrate.

I developed an interest in water supplies after teaching a Bible study on globalization a couple of years ago. From municipalities selling water rights to bottling companies to water supplies poisoned by fracking (the source of Keystone’s oil) and other industrial processes, I learned water is becoming an embattled resource due to growing scarcity.

So the idea of running an oil pipeline across one of the largest water sources in our country, the Ogallala Aquifer, concerns me. And after the Fukishima reactor disaster last year, I am skeptical when ads (paid for by an energy consortium) quote a single geology professor saying, “I guarantee” Keystone’s tar sands oil will NOT contaminate our water supply. I believe the energy company building the Fukishima plant gave Japanese residents similar guarantees. Yet how many times have we seen Mother Nature deliver unanticipated destruction?

I understand the hope that the pipeline will supply jobs, but the few studies conducted show the industry’s estimates are high.

A recent study by Cornell University disputes the industry’s 140,000 jobs (direct and indirect) estimate, noting a number of negative factors including: the temporary nature of the jobs, many of which will be filled by non-local workers, and the possibility of related job losses due to higher Midwestern fuel prices, spills, pollution and costs from climate change. To quantify it further, some estimates ballpark the real job numbers at 2,500 to 4,650 (temporary) jobs.

And did you catch the reference to higher Midwestern fuel prices? Contrary to the pro-pipeline ads, the Cornell report states: “KXL will divert Tar Sands oil now supplying Midwest refineries, so it can be sold at higher prices to the Gulf Coast and export markets. As a result, consumers in the Midwest could be paying 10 to 20 cents more per gallon for gasoline and diesel fuel.” Of course, China is one of the major markets for this oil.

As I watch the rise of wind turbines on our horizons, I wonder which project is creating safer long term energy solutions. And I have to ask again, do the benefits of the Keystone Pipeline outweigh the risks to our water supply and quality of life? Does the potential for 5,000 temporary jobs outweigh the cost of higher fuel prices?

The government’s environmental impact study includes information about leaks in existing pipelines included in the project, specifically Ludden, N.D., so it’s a given leaks will occur. To quote this study: “The Northern High Plains Aquifer system supplies 78 percent of the public water supply and 83 percent of irrigation water in Nebraska and approximately 30 percent of water used in the U.S. for irrigation and agriculture.”

Before we get an answer the hard way, I think we should look for renewable energy sources to replace the oil and study the project further. And perhaps Keystone’s resources would be better spent to research alternative energy sources as well.

In the meantime, read and study for yourself.

Executive Summary: Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Keystone XL Project http://www.keystonepipeline-xl.state.gov/clientsite/keystonexl.nsf/03_KX...

Cornell GLI Study Finds Keystone XL Pipeline Will Create Few Jobs http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/Keystonexl.html

Cornell’s full report: http://www.ilr.cornell.edu/globallaborinstitute/research/upload/GLI_Keys...

Caucuses and Primaries: Do you know the difference between the two?

Hallelujah, the caucuses are over! My phone no longer rings off the hook, we get through meals uninterrupted, and local TV news reporters are back to covering accidents, crimes and sporting events.

But after surviving the latest round of political reporting, I have to wonder how many people really understand our political system? Let me give you a couple of examples.

On the morning of the caucuses, I was watching the early news on one of the three Omaha network affiliates. The reporter interviewing a metro-area Republican Party official asked about the anticipated number of voters attending. However, the caucuses aren’t open to every voter; they are for the political parties’ members.

Those participating must choose which party caucus to attend and must be willing to register as a party member, even if it’s only temporarily.

Generally only a fraction of each party’s registered voters, usually those most active, participate in the caucuses.

Another point to remember is each party’s rules are different.

While the Republican Party uses a secret ballot voting system for caucus goers to choose their candidate, Democrats use a system of conversation, wrangling and consensus to distribute elected delegates to chosen candidates.

Iowa is one of few states still using the caucus system; most have primaries. But even the primaries, in which votes are cast, are a function of the parties.

And rules vary from state to state. Some states only allow party members to vote; others require open primaries that allow voters of any party to participate in the primary of their choice.

I bring it up because the same reporter used the terms “primary” and “caucus” as though they are interchangeable.

But not only do local reporters get things wrong. I was disappointed to hear Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, a political reporter who usually does better research than most, complaining the Iowa caucuses aren’t democratic. Hello? Party function, Rachel.

Which leads me to ask if American citizens know enough about our system and candidates to make informed decisions? It’s a question with which the founding fathers wrestled. It’s why our system elects presidents via both the popular vote and the Electoral College.

For those who don’t know, the Electoral College began as part of the original design of the U.S. Constitution and was established as a compromise between election of the president by Congress and by the popular vote. Citizens vote for the electors who then vote for the President.

However I find low citizen participation the most disappointing part of our system. For a country known for promoting its democracy, too many citizens choose NOT to exercise their rights. I am speaking from experience.

Although I have always voted in state and national elections and advocated on individual issues, I was a registered independent for 30 years.

But having lived most of my life in states with closed primaries and caucuses, I finally got tired of letting others choose my candidates for the general election.

So instead of complaining about my choices in 2008, I decided to participate in the process. I recommend others do the same.

You learn a lot by doing.

Whatever happened to statesmanship?

“I got a lot of problems with you people!” yells George Costanza’s father on Seinfeld during the Festivus Airing of the Grievances.

And that’s how I felt watching our Congressional Republicans during the fight to extend the payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits.

At a time when millions of Americans cannot find work and many families open empty cupboards the latter half of every month, House Republicans were willing to raise taxes on working people and leave the unemployed empty handed.

For what? To protect wealthy Americans and corporate special interests, in this case, a Canadian energy company lobbying to build the Keystone pipeline – an enterprise with no proven long-term benefits and major environmental risks.

It’s like watching a parent with a tantrum-throwing toddler -- on one side is a reasonable willingness to work together while on the other is a determination to obstruct everything that might give the other party and, in most cases 99 percent of voters, help.

That’s about the level of conversation we’ve seen from Congress the last three years, especially since electing a group of Tea Party Republicans in 2010. And it becomes more infuriating the longer this recession lasts.

But most importantly to these Republican representatives, such obstruction prevents a Democratic president from “scoring” what they see as only a political win. I’ve heard some of these public officials say, “It’s a matter of principle.”

I have to question the principles of anyone willing to let the entire country slide off a cliff by shutting down our government and cutting off paychecks – employment, unemployment, Social Security – to the people most in need. Is it principled to deliberately destroy the nation’s financial standing because you disagree with the political philosophy of the democratically elected president and the opposition party?

And is it principled to ignore the voters who elected you to score political victories when these same voters desperately need policies to provide aid and encourage hiring? Is it principled to argue for policies proven, disastrously I might add based on the last 10 years, NOT to work, such as income tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations?

At a time when many Americans would take any work they could get, is it principled to sit on your hands instead of doing the work voters elected you to do?

Perhaps these Tea Party Republicans don’t understand they have been elected as statesmen.

Statesmanship requires conversing with the opposition to find common ground. It also requires a willingness to move, explore options and compromise to pass legislation that benefits as many citizens as possible. (And corporations are not citizens!)

It’s a balancing act because a statesman understands his or her constituents include a variety of interests. But instead, our current Congressional Republicans have decided obstructing everything proposed by the opposition is their job.

That’s the level of “public service” voters get when we elect representatives based solely on political advertisements, campaign speeches and party affiliation.

And let’s be honest, isn’t that what a lot of us do?

Until Americans demand information on policy, track legislation and voting records, and do their homework on candidates for office, it’s all we’re going to get.

Because it’s not the party that matters, it’s the person. And everybody has a history.

So make sure you do your homework before you cast your vote. The information is out there if you choose to access it.