Category Archives: Weekly Updates

Food. Water. Air.

Posted on by

Food. Water. Air. Without them, we’re dead in about three weeks, three days, and three minutes, respectively. This week’s program features a lot of food talk, with criticism of both state (Iowa) and local (Des Moines) government.

Re: the latter … Kathy and I have spoken glowingly of the Des Moines City Council after council members unanimously embraced our proposal to establish a Food Security Task Force in 2020. The impetus behind the task force was to better prepare our community for the inevitable food shortages that will result from a wide range of climate impacts.

The task force was intended to be ongoing, tackling one aspect of food security during each six-month iteration. The initial phase focused on individuals growing food in their own spaces. It wrapped up in August, 2021, resulting in the creation of the FEED DSM website and a handful of code change recommendations.

Nearly two years later, the task force sits idle and the recommendations collect dust. City officials claim to understand the urgency of climate change and the inevitability of widespread food insecurity, yet the lack of action suggests otherwise. Continue Reading →

Interview with a pipeline attorney

Posted on by

I’m a big believer in reaching across the political divide. My first guest this week, Katie O’Harra, seems to fit that bill.

Katie is a recently retired attorney for pipeline companies. You will, no doubt, be surprised to learn she doesn’t sport satanic horns and spew fire (see photo for confirmation). In fact, Katie and I agree on a wide range of concerns unrelated to pipelines.

Not surprisingly, we disagree on the use of eminent domain. Katie defends eminent domain as “a balancing of private rights and the public need,” though she agrees that “the net benefit goes to the producers who are selling and the consumers who are buying — and the people in the middle, not so much.”

And while Katie and I agree that climate change is an urgent matter, we disagree about the speed with which the problem can/must be addressed. Katie says that the company she worked for most recently “sees the writing on the wall and knows that pipelines aren’t the wave of the future.” She explains that the industry understands it has to eventually move beyond fossil fuels. Good, but I’m not convinced the industry (or its supporters within the political class) are willing to evolve at the speed science indicates is necessary. Continue Reading →

Boston Ketchup Rebellion

Posted on by

Fenway Park is the famed home of the Boston Red Sox. One of only nine MLB parks not named after a corporation, Fenway is also the only park named after a natural area, referencing a nearby “fen,” or marsh. How cool is that?

Like most major league sports fans, Fenway patrons love over-priced junk food. Recently, Fenway’s concession vendor, True Made Foods, revamped the park’s ketchup with a sugar-free alternative. Abe Kamarck, the company’s CEO, describes conventional ketchup as “red sugar,” and figured out how to make a decent product sweetened with carrots and squash.

Well, calling it a “decent product” is, apparently, a matter of opinion. A whole lot of Fenway fans beg to differ. Continue Reading →

My name is now a verb

Posted on by

I learned a new verb last week: “fallon.” Apparently, to fallon something means you’re the only “no” vote on legislation. I learned this when I ran into a woman who, introducing herself as a multi-client lobbyist, informed me I had “falloned” her bill years ago. (Yes, lobbyists — the true apex of political power — rightfully claim that legislation is “theirs.”) The bill in question dealt with large-scale chicken confinements. I have no recollection of why I voted “no,” but like most of my solitary “no” votes, I had good reason. 

Rep. Chuck Isenhart and I discuss the lack of climate action at the Iowa Statehouse, which we agree is unconscionable. We also discuss legislation relevant to CO2 pipelines, which we disagree on (Chuck was one of 11 Democrats to vote against a bill to restrict the use of eminent domain). We also discuss the relevance, or lack thereof, of the Democratic Party in Iowa. I’m pretty sure we don’t agree on that either. But, agree or disagree, I respect lawmakers like Chuck who aren’t afraid to come on my program.
Continue Reading →

Trump’s arrest could backfire on Democrats

Posted on by

Like Trump’s followers who compare him to Jesus, Mark and I couldn’t help but notice the irony of Trump being arrested during Holy Week.

Yes, as offensive as it is, the frequency of Trump-Jesus references is astounding. There’s this tweet by attorney Joseph McBride: “President Trump will be arrested during Lent—a time of suffering and purification for the followers of Jesus Christ. As Christ was crucified, and then rose again on the 3rd day, so too will Trump.”

My view on Trump? He’s an unstable, power-hungry narcissist with an unprecedented disdain for civility and honesty. Do I agree he should be prosecuted for his crimes? Absolutely.

Yet legal action against Trump may have unfortunate consequences. Last year, I stated that bringing Trump to trial would help solidify his support among Republican primary voters. That’s happening, and the way things are going, Trump is almost certain to win the nomination.

That makes Democratic strategists giddy. They think another Trump-Biden showdown assures Biden of a second term. Yet that analysis is deeply flawed.
Continue Reading →

Solutions to Iowa’s “red-state” problem

Posted on by

I first met Dennis Kucinich in 2003 when he ran for president. Unlike most politicians, when Dennis took a position on an issue, you knew exactly where he stood. There was no equivocation, no weighing of political nuances, no corporate donors to appease. Refreshing and, alas, rare.

I hope you’ll listen to my discussion with Dennis, which covers the sorry state of the Democratic Party, the Biden administration’s misguided foreign policy, and how “free” trade treaties have eroded the economic foundation of our country.

Here’s a quote from my interview with Dennis: “The Democratic Party used to stand for the small farmers trying to resist monopolies. Now you have agribusinesses that don’t give a damn about the soil, and we see taxpayers’ money helping facilitate the destruction of millions of acres of farmland to create shopping malls for the purpose of marketing goods from China.”
Continue Reading →

America needs a new peace movement

Posted on by

Other than a few persistent, isolated voices for peace, we mostly hear crickets. Thus the question I ask in this week’s program and have asked before: Where is the peace movement?

Forty years ago, the anti-nuclear-weapons movement was broad and vibrant. It embraced every conceivable strategy — from hammering missile silos to volunteering in campaigns of “pro-peace” candidates.

That movement accomplished a lot: The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, START, The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, US-Soviet citizen-diplomacy, and much more. There are still 13,080 nuclear weapons in the world, but that’s down from over 60,000 in 1986.

Change happened, as it always does, because hundreds of thousands of people marched, spoke out, got arrested, campaigned, and made more noise than the lumbering colossus of the federal government could ignore. Continue Reading →

My St. Pat’s Day reflection on fairies and fracking

Posted on by

Stopping the abuse of eminent domain has become the defining issue in Iowa this year. A recent Des Moines Register poll found 78% of Iowans across the political spectrum oppose using eminent domain to build CO2 pipelines. That’s an astounding preponderance of opinion on one side of a very important issue.

Seventy-eight percent oughta be way more than enough to compel politicians to take action. To quote Senator Zaun from our conversation, “If Republicans don’t protect property rights, they’ll be on the road to being in the minority.”

Zaun believes the House and Senate will pass eminent domain legislation this year. That’s encouraging. Still, it’s remarkable that Senate Republicans were unable to push an eminent domain bill through committee before last week’s “funnel.” At least a promising bill is alive in the House, though it may take every ounce of public pressure and political courage to pass it.

I believe Zaun is correct when he says that if Republicans don’t rein in the abuse of eminent domain, they’ll probably lose seats in 2024. Continue Reading →

Why going vegan won’t solve climate change

Posted on by

Veganism. I have nothing against it, nor any other diet, for that matter. Raw. Paleo. Carnivore. Breatharian. Bring it on. It’s your call. Why? Because I believe in freedom (unlike the Republican majorities at the Iowa Statehouse, it seems).

What I have trouble with is the occasional “vegangelical” who calls me a climate hypocrite because my Locavore diet includes meat. Even my favorite mouthpiece of the Mainstream Media, The Guardian, has an entirely lopsided take on the role of animals in agriculture and dining.

The main problem is that many vegan and vegetarian arguments against meat lump large-scale industrial production in with sustainable alternatives. That’s unfair, disingenuous, and actually harmful. Continue Reading →

Just give Iowa to China

Posted on by

(Come meet long-time advocate for the homeless, Carla Dawson, at the annual Bishop Dingman Peace Award, March 4 at 6:00 p.m. at Holy Trinity Catholic Church, 2926 Beaver Ave in Des Moines.)

The growth-at-all-costs crowd never ceases to astound me. Take Debi Durham, director of the Iowa Economic Development Authority. Durham has proposed HSB 147, a bill that would allow foreign corporations to own up to 1,000 acres of contiguous farmland.

Iowa used to have strong provisions against foreign ownership of farmland. But the proverbial camel’s nose found its way under the tent in 2017, when foreign entities were allowed to purchase up to 320 acres of contiguous farmland for commercial purposes.

As often happens, the camel now wants to shove its entire head under the tent. Given the money and power behind this trend, is there any doubt that corporate interests will try to continue to erode limitations on who controls our farmland? Continue Reading →