Why am I so angry?

After the 2016 election, I had a long conversation with one of my Trump-voting friends. “Why are you so angry?” he asked. I’ve heard it again since then.

Why am I so angry? Because for nearly 40 years – or my entire adult life – I’ve watched friends and family fall for economic and policy bunk to vote against their own best interests. I’ve struggled alongside them and had to listen to their puzzlement about why their lot keeps getting worse. Yet when I try to share facts and information that explain it, I am tarred as “liberal” and written off. Or I see their eyes glaze over, leading next to a shrug and the excuse that nothing they do will make a difference.

Meanwhile, we’re all working harder for less. So why do they think I’m angry?

I’m angry because these voters’ willful ignorance – whether because they refuse to acknowledge facts they deem “liberal” or because they find politics boring – costs us all daily.

This week Robert Reich came out with a column that explained this 40-year-plus marketing blitz. Salon Magazine published it under the headline, “The Big Economic Switcheroo.” In it, Reich explains how the rich have swindled Americans by lowering tax rates.

He writes: “The rich used to pay higher taxes to the government. Now, the government pays the rich interest on a swelling debt, caused largely by lower taxes on the rich. Which means a growing portion of everyone else’s taxes are now paying the rich interest on those loans, instead of paying for government services everyone needs.”

While Conservative Republican messaging has convinced voters that poor, black, brown people and anyone else they can tag as “Other” are robbing us, they are passing policies that increasingly strangle services we all rely on.

Paul Krugman at the New York Times described the problem more pointedly as “Trump’s Big Libertarian Experiment,” and he asks in the article’s subhead, “Does contaminated food smell like freedom?”

In the article, Krugman points out the division between the libertarian-leaning GOP base, that bought Reagan’s rhetoric about government being the problem, and the GOP establishment, whose goal has been shoveling money to the rich. As he concludes, “If a party is going to claim, year after year, to believe that government is the problem, not the solution, then complain bitterly when the government stops handing out checks, attention should be paid.

“And if you have libertarian leanings yourself, you should ask whether you’re happy with what’s happening with government partially out of the picture.”

During Reagan’s 1980 presidential campaign, I saw all this coming, thanks to a politically astute father. I’ve paid an economic price for Reagan's election. I paid more for my college education and loans, joined the workforce when starting wages were lower, and may be forced into retirement earlier while continuing to work part-time to make ends meet. So, is it any wonder I’m angry?

A willfully ignorant citizenry swayed by cheap and easy taglines and myths, created this mess. First, they fell for broadcast media distortions via cable news and talk radio pouring lies into their ears. Now they are falling for messages swirling through the world’s biggest grapevine aka the Internet.  

So yes, I’m angry. I may even be angry at you. But what I really wonder is:  Are you angry with yourself yet? And if so, what are you going to do about it? Because we’re the only solution to this mess.

Miner Queries: Sharpening your pitchfork yet?

As we prepare to begin week three of our federal government shutdown over 45’s border wall tantrum, I’d love to know where individuals’ heads are. While we struggle, living paycheck to paycheck, our out-of-touch legislators seem to think we have unlimited savings to tide us over.

And when I say legislators, I’m talking at the state level, too. In Iowa, we’ve continued to elect Republicans to the statehouse who blindly support the agenda of corporate America. This includes stripping many Iowans’ health and mental health care via our Medicaid debacle, strangling funding for public schools, and cutting corporate taxes and thus shifting the tax burden to individuals and local property owners. I suspect many of these state legislators don’t even realize they’re working against the interests of their own communities and constituents. They simply follow the party line without questioning what they’re told.

Years ago, as a school board director, I was engaged in conversation at the statehouse with a former Iowa senator. We were chatting about education and her work as a senator, and she began to tell me about a fabulous retreat she’d been to out of state at a balmy resort. As she was “educated” about various policies, she had plainly been bedazzled by the setting. Her enthusiasm struck me at the time and stuck with me.

Several years later, I began to read about the work of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). This group, funded and led by the Koch Brothers, works to write legislation called “model bills,” which they introduce to federal and state legislators at swanky conferences. Although ALEC works to influence legislators of both parties, over the years they’ve determined the Republican party fits their agenda best. The Center for Media and Democracy has researched and published about ALEC’s work at https://www.alecexposed.org/wiki/ALEC_Exposed. Suddenly, a light bulb went off over my head. This legislator, a Republican, had been attending ALEC conferences.

Do we want state laws written by corporate attorneys from who knows where? But that’s what’s been happening. Much of Iowa's recent legislation bears a striking resemblance to ALEC's body of model bills. And thanks to corporate media outlets and shrinking independent media sources, citizens don’t know.

How did this happen? Back in the late 70s and early 80s, Terry Branstad was involved in the initiative to build ALEC. Then, Iowans elected him governor. Iowa’s ability to fund schools and other services for the common good have been shrinking ever since. We’re on the road to Kansas.

Meanwhile at the federal level, in 2016, underinformed Americans were scammed into voting for the current occupant of the White House. And what has the 45^th president done for them? He’s alienated our trading partners and allies, wrecked our markets, and now he’s left thousands of federal workers with no income. Congressional Republicans have been no help.

So, I’m ready to get my pitchfork out and protest. If you want to see any progress, you better, too. Because until GOP politicians can feel our pain, I don’t think they intend to move.

I'm resurrecting Miner Queries online

because I never stop asking questions.

For several years, I wrote a column called Miner Queries for our local paper. When the editor who recruited me moved on, the new editor decided it was time to let my contract run out. By then, being the leading local liberal Democratic voice in a blindly Republican county was becoming a grind. So I was OK with the change. But after 18 months, I'm ready to start 2019 by raising my voice again. And I want to begin with a column I wrote in March 2017. I think it's a good place to start.  

Did we elect the Siberian Candidate?

I was having flashbacks last Monday morning. It started after my husband left for an appointment, leaving the basement TV tuned to the House Intelligence Committee hearing. As I loaded laundry, I began to hear the testimony of FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Michael Rogers.

Suddenly, I was 10 years old again, listening as my parents watched the Watergate hearings unfold. And like my parents then, once I began to listen, I couldn’t turn off the TV.

Much of what I heard was not new to me. As a political junkie, I have been tracking Trump’s ties to Russia for months. I’d read about campaign surrogates’ public relations efforts on behalf of Russian actors. A steady trickle of information has been building as reporters follow the money, digging ever deeper into Trump and associates’ business history.

But what was startling about last Monday’s hearing was the potential enormity of this web of relationships, which includes numerous Trump appointees. Additionally, it was illuminating to learn the FBI’s investigation began well in advance of November’s election.

As Howard Fineman wrote on The Huffington Post, “Not since a White House aide named Alexander Butterfield told the Watergate committee in 1973 that President Richard Nixon had bugged his own Oval Office has an investigative hearing made it so clear that a presidency was in serious legal jeopardy.”

Fineman notes many countries throughout our history have meddled in our politics; however, no country before aided a presidential candidate, especially one who became president. And he adds: “If Team Trump is found to be complicit in any way, leading figures in the campaign and in the White House would indeed become targets of law enforcement.”

And developments continue. While Republican House Intelligence Committee members tried to turn the conversation to the leaks revealing Russian ties, former Watergate principals were noting determined efforts to bury this story.

On Monday evening MSNBC’s Chris Hayes concluded All In by interviewing former Nixon White House Counsel John Dean. After showing clips of the Watergate and House Intelligence Committee hearings, Hayes asked Dean his reaction.

Dean responded that he was most surprised by the White House’s reaction to the hearing. He said, “In fact, they are in a cover-up mode. There`s just never been any question in my mind about that. I`ve been inside a cover-up. I know how they look and feel. And every signal they are sending is we`re covering this up. Experienced investigators know this. They know how people react when they`re being pursued.”

As analysis continued, related stories emerged. On Tuesday, Reuters reported, “U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson plans to skip a meeting with NATO foreign ministers next month in order to stay home for a visit by China's president and will go to Russia later in April, U.S. officials said on Monday, disclosing an itinerary that allies may see as giving Moscow priority over them.” Of course, we know Tillerson has ties to Russia through Exxon Mobile.

Wednesday morning, an Associated Press (AP) report documented former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort’s business ties to Russian aluminum magnate and Putin ally Oleg Deripaska. As part of this relationship, Manafort engaged in lobbying for Deripaska’s businesses. However, Manafort did not disclose these lobbying efforts to the Justice Department during that period as required by law.

By Wednesday afternoon, House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes was running interference for Trump by delivering to the White House previously unreleased intelligence he claims vindicates Trump’s claims Obama wiretapped him. Nunes also held two press conferences to deliver that message, completely ignoring responsibility to his committee colleagues and the investigation he leads.

As Bill Moyers and Michael Winship wrote: “Earlier in the day, Schiff [deputy chair of the House Intelligence Committee] told reporters that Nunes “will need to decide whether he is the chairman of an independent investigation into conduct which includes allegations of potential coordination between the Trump campaign and the Russians, or he is going to act as a surrogate of the White House, because he cannot do both.”

This is just the beginning. FBI and congressional investigations continue, as does investigative reporting. No one knows where this will lead. But I have to wonder if we elected the Siberian Candidate.

How many ways can we say NO?

The Keystone XL pipeline has been in the news again. Last week, a judge overturned a law that allowed Governor Dave Heineman to approve the pipeline route through Nebraska.

The decision was a victory for environmentalists concerned about potential devastation to water supplies and land if the pipeline leaks. Existing northern Keystone XL pipeline has already suffered leaks.

And coincidentally, last week another Canadian pipeline sprang a leak. According to Ned Resnikoff’s story for msnbc, “A leak in one of the pump stations along Enbridge Energy’s Line 67 pipeline caused about 125 barrels to spray across a rural area of Saskatchewan, Canada, the company reported on Saturday.” As the story points out, both the Enbridge and Keystone pipelines are being evaluated for expansion.

In addition, last week I came across the story of Alain Labrecque and his family. A logging contractor working with oil companies on tar sand extraction, Labrecque and his family were forced to abandon their 160-farm in Alberta after the entire family developed serious health issues.

Their farm was near Baytex Energy, which was releasing unregulated emissions the family says caused their headaches, popping ears, growths and other symptoms. According to the Salon story, the company “was willing to help them get out — so long as they stayed quiet: ‘You are just a small, little bolt in this huge robot, and you don’t matter,’ their doctor told them, according to court documents. ‘Move.’”

The product of Baytex’s process is what Keystone XL pipeline will be transporting across our aquifer and agricultural lands. Do we really want to risk our water supply? As the original impact study for Keystone XL noted: “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.” We can see the consequences of a tainted water supply in the reports about the January Elk River spill near Charleston, W.V.

And in November 2013, the non-profit group Public Citizen issued a report on Keystone XL’s southern pipeline titled: “TransCanada’s Keystone XL Southern Segment: Construction Problems Raise Questions About the Integrity of the Pipeline.” The report documented numerous incidents of damaged pipe, shoddy construction and repair, and destruction to agricultural property. It concluded: “This raises the specter of history repeating itself, with toxic crude leaking or even gushing from damaged pipe. Given the stakes – the looming potential for a catastrophic spill of a hazardous crude along a pipeline that traverses hundreds of streams and rivers, and that comes within just one or two miles of some towns and cities – it would be irresponsible for the federal government to allow tar sands crude to start flowing through the southern leg without ordering a complete hydrostatic retesting of the line and a thorough quality assurance review.”

We can’t let ourselves be swayed by public relations messages that promise jobs and cheap gas, both of which have been refuted. A state department study ball parked the final count of permanent jobs from the pipeline at 35. And the pipeline’s purpose is cheap transport of oil to Houston, where it will be shipped to foreign markets.

In an agricultural region with a growing renewable energy industry, we should be ready to say NO to big oil.

Why shouldn’t work provide the dignity of a living wage?

As I was flipping through TV channels after church on Super Bowl Sunday, I happened to pause long enough to hear the lead story on PBS’ Religion & Ethics Newsweekly. It was a brief overview of religious groups’ reactions to President Obama’s State of the Union speech, noting mixed responses, especially to his call to raise the minimum wage.

“But others, including religious conservatives, argued this would hurt businesses and lead to more unemployment,” the announcer said. Disgusted, I flipped the channel.

“Since when,” I wondered aloud, “did Judeo-Christian traditions mandate care of business? The charge is to care for people.”

Make no mistake -- this as a moral issue. If people work, and in today’s economy some are working two or three jobs, they should earn enough to supply their basic needs. In other words, they should earn a living wage.

Instead, more Americans have become victims of our Wall Street economy that measures success via the annual financial statement’s profits and shareholder dividends. Long hours, benefit cuts and wage freezes have become accepted means to increase corporate profits. Workers are simply resources to be exploited.

As David Cooper reports for the Economic Policy Institute in “Raising the Federal Minimum Wage to $10.10 Would Lift Millions out of Poverty and Provide a Modest Economic Boost,” “It is important to also recognize that today’s minimum wage has not fallen to exceptional lows out of economic necessity. Over the past 45 years, the U.S. economy has vastly expanded, and productivity (our ability to produce goods and services for the same amount of work) has more than doubled.”

He also debunks the belief low wage jobs are held by teenagers with no need for an income. He writes: “This is patently false: The workers who would be affected by increasing the minimum wage to $10.10 earn, on average, 50 percent of their family’s total income.”

In an article on the Fair Minimum Wage Act of 2013, introduced by Iowa Senator Tom Harkin, Jared Bernstein and Sharon Parrot of the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities reinforce these findings: “ . . . the vast majority of those who would benefit are adults, most are women, and their families depend on their paychecks . . . . This reflects the fact that the low-wage workforce has gotten older and more highly educated in recent decades . . .”

In fact, as Jim Hightower notes in an article about college teachers last week, “The sorry secret of higher education -- from community colleges to brand-name universities -- is that they've embraced the corporate culture of a contingent workforce, turning professors into part-time, low-paid, no-benefit, no-tenure, temporary teachers.”

The real reason for low wages and temporary jobs is to exponentially increase profit for a few, not add value to products and services. If Americans truly value the dignity of work, we will demand all workers are paid fairly for their labor.

Can the House move beyond horsefeathers?

Last weekend, my husband mentioned the cold weather was making him hungry for duck soup, something we’ve been anticipating since we carved up a duck for Christmas dinner.

“Now why does that always make me think of the Marx brothers?” I asked.

“You know they made a movie with that title,” he said. “It includes the song ‘Whatever it is, I’m Against It.’”

I shook my head, noting I could remember seeing Groucho perform the number he described. “Are you sure it was in Duck Soup?”

Sure enough, after searching online, he found the song in the 1932 movie “Horse Feathers.” Groucho Marx plays Quincy Adams Wagstaff, the new president of Huxley College. In the opening number, Wagstaff and other college professors sing and dance in full academic robes and mortarboards:

I don't know what they have to say
It makes no difference anyway
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
No matter what it is
Or who commenced it
I'm against it!

Your proposition may be good
But let's have one thing understood
Whatever it is, I'm against it!
And even when you've changed it
Or condensed it
I'm against it. . .

As my husband played the clip for me, we heard our 13-year-old daughter stirring in the next room. “What is that?” she asked. “It sounds just like the Republicans!”

She’d read my mind.

For the last five years, I’ve been continually amazed at the recalcitrance of congressional conservatives, and House Republicans more specifically. No matter the proposal, if it is supported by President Obama, they oppose it. Even policies based upon conservative blueprints, like the Affordable Care Act which was originally conceived by The Heritage Foundation, have been vigorously attacked.

Last June, when Edward Snowden leaked information about the activities of the National Security Agency, conservatives blasted the administration for potential violations of citizens’ civil liberties. Yet after 9-11, they enthusiastically supported the Patriot Act in the name of national security, arguing some loss of liberty was necessary. Also last summer, after the Senate passed a bipartisan immigration bill, conservatives in the House refused to take up the bill.

In October, this same group felt it was more important to oppose President Obama than to negotiate and compromise their way to a working budget for our government. Before Christmas, they decided that their absolute (and irrational) loyalty to austerity was more important than extending unemployment benefits for workers seeking jobs and funding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance program to feed the needy, including many elderly, disabled people and children.

Elected to govern, these folks have decided to stand in the corner and pout instead of conducting themselves with statesmanship and working across differences to develop working policies.

Time to vote them out. I took the first step last Tuesday when I attended my party caucus, wearing my “Democracy isn’t a spectator sport” T-shirt.

You know what? Governing isn’t a spectator sport either. I want my representation in there talking to the opposition and looking for common ground and workable solutions for the common good. Enough with the horsefeathers.

Gossip much?

My parents weren’t much for gossip or rumors. Mom and Dad might listen to the latest neighborhood news, but they didn’t put much stock in information that wasn’t “straight from the horse’s mouth.” And I don’t remember hearing them repeat anything they heard from others outside our home. I used to think most people were raised that way.

But I’m beginning to wonder because too many good people I know don’t seem to understand they are spreading rumors when they forward chain e-mails or share infographics on Facebook and other electronic media.

Let me give you an example. Thanks to the current national debate on gun control, handy-dandy electronic posters and photos with stories are making the rounds. One that caught my eye used different photos of a young woman paired with a long caption that included the statement of Darrell Scott, father of a Columbine School shooting victim, to a congressional panel.

Although Mr. Scott’s statement is reproduced accurately, the background information and conclusion attached to his words have been altered to politicize his testimony. I easily discovered the inaccuracies and hyperbole via a quick search at www.snopes.com.

Unfortunately, instead of taking a couple of minutes to ferret out the truth, most folks simply hit “Share,” spreading this Internet gossip. Given the power of the father’s words, I think the media manipulators who altered the story have done him a disservice – because the false context overshadows and hijacks his message.

But that’s the point. Public relations/communication companies and political organizations hire people to create and distribute these messages. Through careful word choices, image selection, color, animation and other tactics, they craft these messages to manipulate you.

The goal is to push your emotional buttons so you react strongly without thinking. So not for the last time, I’m going to recommend if you’re not willing to verify the story, don’t pass it on. Because if you do, you are advancing someone else’s agenda – one that may be hidden and malicious. Otherwise, why hide it? Why circulate information anonymously?

I asked that about the last chain e-mail that landed in my inbox. It was a list of symbolic meanings for each of the 13 folds in a ceremonial presentation flag.

After checking it on Snopes and determining most of the e-mail’s contents were harmless (the exception was a rhetorical jab at separation of church and state), I nearly let it go. But then I scrolled to the end to see flashing stripes and rolling stars; the cheap electronic equivalent of a patriotic car magnet. It was just too much for me, so I hit Reply All and sent the Snopes link with a short note.

As one of my Facebook friends noted recently, there are simple ways to verify these items. And he warned if his friends won’t check them, he will do it publicly. Then he signed his post “The Debunking Ba****d.” I swiftly agreed.

So if I’m on one of your e-mail lists or you’ve friended me on Facebook, consider yourself warned.