About 200 cell blocks with broccoli, kale, chard, collards, celery, herbs and more on March 2, 2024.
Yesterday a large flock of pelicans arrived on the lake. It’s a sign spring is coming.
While checking the mail, someone I’ve known since we moved here in 1993 was walking their dog. We had a discussion about the weather and about my garden which is one of the largest in the area. Our consensus of two was it is going to freeze again. It is too early to start digging garden plots.
In my fourth week of indoor seed planting, things seem to be going well. Most seeds have sprouted on schedule, and despite growing indoors, are developing in a way that will make for sound seedlings. Soon it will be time to assemble the portable greenhouse and move some outside.
There was a Red Flag Warning on Sunday, which means a risk of wildfires. I will delay brush burning until the warning ends.
I got these on Saturday at the Solon Public Library Annual Used Book Sale for a free will donation.
On Saturday I went to the public library and bought three books at their used book sale. I began reading the Pete Souza book as soon as I got home and couldn’t put it down until I turned all the pages. It is incomprehensible we went from Obama as depicted in these photos to Trump. I began to tear up a couple times while reading it. I am usually more reserved.
This led me to thinking about the presidents during my lifetime and this brief rating:
Truman: Don’t recall as president.
Eisenhower: Okay for a Republican/Interstate Highway System
Kennedy: Favorable
LBJ: Vietnam/Voting rights/Medicare
Nixon: OMG!
Ford: Not Nixon
Carter: Malaise/Camp Davis Accords
Reagan: JFC!
George Bush: Reagan-lite
Clinton: +/- Neocon
George W. Bush: Bad, very bad
Obama: My president
Trump: Nightmare/insurrectionist
Biden: What I expect from a Democrat
Spring is two weeks away and the days tick by much faster than I’d like. By my count, I can expect 14 more springs during my lifetime. I plan to find enjoyment in each of them. Hopefully pelicans will be a part of them.
The machinery of our politics has so many moving parts it is hard to keep up. Important things are pushed from sight just because so much attention is paid to the distractions of Republicans. Here are some items that merit our attention.
Iowa Legislature
Democrats in the legislature are doing a great job of communicating Democratic policy even if Republicans have been dominant. It seems easier to track Democrats and that is attributable to their improved messaging this year compared to previous ones. We are in the minority and Democratic legislators need our support to hold the line. They need our encouragement more than ever. Thank you Democratic senators and representatives.
Godly Iowa?
It is history 101 that two primary traditions in white America, the denominational biblical tradition and enlightenment utilitarianism, worked together to contribute to the American Revolution. In doing so the civil belief system which marks American culture today was created. Do the United States operate on God’s law or man’s law? Whatever answer one asserts, it doesn’t matter to how the country was formed and has been operating since the Declaration of Independence. My State Representative, Brad Sherman, believes otherwise.
The decline in our culture is disturbing to all who understand that the foundations of freedom are based in compliance to the laws of God. We know that it will take the power of God to restore America to the godly principles and moral values that are so badly needed. But because God always uses people, we have a part to play. There are many avenues where God uses people, but one is in the laws we pass. Good government will always reflect God’s values because God is good.
Rep. Brad Sherman, God’s Law Versus Man’s Law, Jan. 19, 2024.
Sherman asserts, “The Declaration of Independence tells us that rights come from our Creator and the purpose of government is to secure those rights.” Here is the mention of God in the Declaration of Independence to which he refers:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
Declaration of Independence, John Hancock, et. al. July 4, 1886.
Call me heathen but I can’t connect these dots. To make matters worse, this is from a man who, with all the pressing problems in the state, focused his efforts on a bill that would prohibit Satanic displays on government-owned property. Luckily for us all that bill didn’t make the first funnel, saving us time and distraction from other, more pressing problems.
Imagine my surprise when Thursday night, a press release from the governor arrived with this statement: “The right of religious freedom is endowed upon us by our creator – not government. Our founders recognized this principle, and today the Iowa House took a step forward to protect it. Twenty-three states around the country, with both Republican and Democrat governors, have passed similar laws. Now, it’s Iowa’s turn.” Republicans are out of touch with Iowans on the role of government in religious freedom.
Kids Online Safety Act (S.1409)
The Kids Online Safety Act (KOSA), which sets out requirements to protect minors from online harms, has strong bipartisan support in the U.S. Senate. Why, then, does the LGBTQIA+ community have trouble swallowing it? They, like most everyone, believe protecting minors on the internet is important. What they don’t like is they believe KOSA as it stands would inadvertently block LGBTQIA+ and other youth from accessing valuable digital content and supportive online communities.
More specifically, they note KOSA’s “duty of care” obligation, which could cause online platforms to inadvertently remove legitimate and vital content to avoid violating the law. This risk is particularly concerning in states with policies already hostile to the LGBTQIA+ community, where political actors could exploit KOSA to further their anti-LGBTQIA+ agenda.
The group LGBT Tech petitioned the U.S. Senate to amend the bill. To read the letter they and more than 70 other LGBTQIA+ groups sent to the Hill, click here.
It is hard to disagree that “striking a balance between protecting minors and safeguarding fundamental rights of expression and privacy is of the utmost importance in our digital world.” KOSA, as it stands, requires modification to do so.
Elect Democrats
A positive thing is when the Iowa Democratic Party puts people before politics, we gain supporters. Our numbers increase in a way to empower us to take back control of the state government. By focusing on how to help Democrats win elections in November we may miss a few things, yet have the big picture right. If you see something I missed, please make a comment on this post.
Editor’s Note: I was cleaning up old email files and found this April 10, 2005 email from Dave Loebsack announcing to a small group he was exploring a run for the Congress. As we now know, Loebsack beat 30-year incumbent Jim Leach and served until Jan. 3, 2021. His analysis of the direction of the Republican Party seems spot on, not only for 2005, but from a perspective in 2024. It is presented without editing. I hope readers will be inspired to help Christina Bohannan re-take this seat in November.
Recently, I sent a message to a number of listservs in the 2nd congressional district noting that I am beginning an informal “exploration” of a run against Jim Leach in ’06.
Many of you know me as a teacher of political science at Cornell College since 1982 and a long-time Democratic Party activist in Linn and Johnson counties and beyond. I have also worked hard to help the public engage in important issues by serving as a resource person for various civic groups, delivering lectures, facilitating discussion, moderating events, appearing on local television public issues programs, etc.
Why am I considering running at this point?
It is time that we in this district begin to halt George Bush and the hard right of the Republican Party as they try to move America ever farther in their direction. In recent days, we have seen this movement evident by the efforts of Tom DeLay and his allies as they try to capture control of the federal judiciary. Apparently, it is not enough to control the executive and legislature. They want all three branches of government in their grasp.
The simple truth is that Jim Leach remains a Republican who, as Julie Thomas put it in 2002, at a minimum serves as an enabler for the right-wing leadership in the House and the Bush administration. What is needed at this point is a representative who is in touch with the concerns of folks in this congressional district and who is willing to “lead” on issues that matter.
Just one example of Jim Leach’s bad votes makes this point. Recently, he voted for the House version of Bush budget that would significantly scale back if not completely gut many of the programs that are the only sources of support for those who have nowhere else to turn, in many cases just to survive. Indeed, the House budget is even harsher than the Bush budget. The values reflected in this budget, I believe, are not the values of the vast majority of folks in the second district of Iowa. Interestingly, there were a few Republicans in the House had the courage to vote no, but not Jim Leach.
At this point, I invite you to be in touch with me if you have questions about what I stand for, who I am, etc. Also, I am open to all advice and support. If you think I should move forward with this “exploration,” please let me know. If you think you would support me as a volunteer or financially, please let me know. If you think there are others who are more qualified than I and who deserve our unified support, please let me know. I do not plan to do this if I don’t believe the necessary support (perhaps most critically the necessary financial support) will be forthcoming.
No doubt the road ahead will be difficult for any candidate who ultimately takes on Jim Leach in 2006. He is a well-entrenched figure who has been in congress for nearly 30 years and he can self-fund any campaign if need be. Given these realities, any campaign in this district will likely have to build from the ground up. We need to begin NOW to build a true grassroots movement to take back this district as a first step towards taking back America from the right-wing of the Republican Party. This will take some time but it can begin right here in the 2nd district of eastern and southeastern Iowa!
Over the course of the past few weeks since I first sent a version of this message out, support for this “exploration” has been quite humbling. Indeed, I have taken the next step and set up an account where I will deposit any contributions that might be sent for this effort. Should you be so inclined to help, simply make the check out to “Loebsack Exploratory Committee” and send it to the address below.
In the meantime, I urge you to make a pledge that indicates your interest in this campaign and your support for this effort should I move on to the next stage and declare a formal candidacy.
We can take back our country from the right-wing of the Republican Party and we can begin to so do by electing a Democrat in the second congressional district who will lead on the issues that matter to folks in this part of Iowa.
Thanks, and take care. David Loebsack Mt. Vernon, Iowa
Despite these tangible contributions to improving the lives of Iowans, why doesn’t the president get more public credit for his work? I submit the reason is citizens just expect infrastructure things to happen. It is government acting as it should be and therefore if nothing seems broken, no worries. No credit for elected officials either.
At the same time infrastructure improvement happens, there is a coterie of Congress-people sowing chaos in the U.S. Capitol in an obvious, although ill-advised, attempt to re-elect indicted criminal Donald J. Trump as President. I don’t know if Matt Gaetz is the ring leader, yet he is at the center of efforts to disrupt our government and economy at the bidding of the 45th president. Gaetz was recently profiled in The New Yorker.
In seven years in Congress, Gaetz has helped make the institution even more dysfunctional than it already was, threatening to shut down the federal government and force a default on its debt. Gaetz is a paradox: he is determined to attack the modern democratic state, but he harbors ambitions that only modern American politics can satisfy. He articulates an idea of the country that seems so negative—ridiculing his colleagues, trashing the welfare state, scorning embattled democracies abroad—that it is sometimes difficult to see what he stands for. And yet the more Gaetz tears down, the more his supporters love him.
I recommend reading the entire article at the link.
I have confidence in the American people and in Iowans. The Iowa Democratic Party is on the right path with its People before Politics campaign. As an Iowan, everywhere I turn in state government there are problems with its current direction.
For example, I currently need a certified copy of a birth certificate for the new Real ID program, which adds a gold star to my driver’s license. I don’t like flying in commercial aircraft, yet may have to in event of an emergency. Real ID or additional documents will soon be required. The needed certified government document was available at the county recorder’s office, yet when I called them to ask questions, they referred me to an outfit called VitalChek to get it. “You can order it from us by mail and you can also just call them and they will send it to you,” the person answering the phone said. That’s fine if the outsourcing of normal government functions saves money for the state. What VitalChek does is add a substantial fee to the request, in addition to the charge for the document. Perhaps some government staffing was reduced in this move, but the expense was transferred directly to citizens in the form of extra fees. Pile on enough stuff like this, and the people of Iowa may get irritated enough to vote Republicans out of office. Maybe then Iowans will recognize the good work Democrats can and in Biden’s case are doing.
To leave on a positive note, I linked to this video about broadband in Iowa. Whatever you do in the near future, be sure to give the Biden Administration credit for the good work they are doing.
Like in every year since 2017, when Republicans gained majorities in both chambers of the Iowa legislature, there is a voting bill this session, House Study Bill 697. A person could set their clock by this behavior. The impact of the annual process is to make elections more difficult for Iowans. Changing the duties of the Iowa Secretary of State and how elections are conducted is a feature, not a bug, of Republican governance.
While the majority party continues to ratchet down election restrictions, they apparently don’t understand that whatever scheme they devise will serve Democratic success in re-taking control of the legislature. Democrats did required analysis of the election process and designed the work needed to win during the 2008 election when Barack Obama won Iowa. They can and eventually will do it again.
Republicans can dink around all they want. It won’t mean diddly-squat when the Iowa population moves to replace them. The movement will be bigger than only what Democrats want. I believe the day is approaching.
There was drama during the Iowa House State Government Subcommittee over House Study Bill 697, as Trish Nelson pointed out. Rep. Amy Nielsen and Chair Bobby Kaufmann entered a heated exchange about the bill which ended with the two Democrats on the committee, Nielsen and Rep. Adam Zabner, walking out before the subcommittee meeting finished, according to the Cedar Rapids Gazette. The subcommittee advanced the bill to the full committee in their absence. On Thursday, the full committee approved the measure.
Democrats have it wrong if their response to yearly voting restrictions is to bemoan loss of the halcyon years of the Obama campaigns when we could elect Democrats to statewide positions and award our electoral college votes to a Democrat. The kind of work we need to do is not complicated. Figure out who in the Iowa population will vote for our candidates, understand the new rules for voting, and persuade our people to vote. Strategies like this hopefully exist, are kept secret, and have already been implemented by the Iowa Democratic Party.
All you Republicans who are tinkering with the voting process, beware. Iowans are are coming to replace you and it may be as soon as in November.
I hope everyone reading this post is already helping Democrats get elected in November. The time to engage is now.
There are two parts to turning the country around and both run through the ballot box.
The first is voting: making sure we take care of ourselves by checking our registration and then voting in person, either early or on election day. Encourage everyone we know to do likewise.
The second is changing the public narrative about life in Iowa and in the United States. We should not accept narratives being fed to us by media outlets, churches, interest groups, and political parties. Instead, we must develop new narratives that properly reflect how we live despite our differences. I predict this will change how we vote.
If we can do those things, there is a chance to make society a better place to live. I believe this is possible during the 2024 election cycle.
Political Canvassing
In Iowa, the political strategies and tactics Democrats used during the 2006-2008 election cycles have become obsolete. Not because talking to people lost importance to winning votes, but because we, as a society, have grown ever more suspicious of people we don’t know. Have to ask, what happened to Democrats after Obama won his first presidential election? We may feel we have to ask, but that’s the wrong question. What was an ability to win elections in 2006 and 2008, was an all in, once or nothing endeavor the usefulness of which waned by 2010 when Republicans began re-taking control of state government.
I door knocked for Democrats during the 2022 election cycle and can attest the game changed since 2008. In the Johnson County part of House District 91, Democratic voter registrations outnumbered Republican and Democrats still couldn’t win that part of the district. At the doors, I heard people have complicated lives where voting was not among the highest priorities. I did the best I could, yet my efforts, and those of fellow Democratic canvassers, couldn’t get the job done. It wasn’t from a lack of effort. The centralized, targeted canvassing of the past no longer works.
Changing the narrative
How do we change the narrative about how we live? There are no easy answers. Recognizing how important answering this question is to the process of taking back our government is a necessary first step. Our media, in many ways, is the public narrative. It is messed up when one can say, “…the best way to reach the maximum audience is to give Republicans what they want and drive liberals to hate reading, hate sharing, and even hate subscribing. Because even by rebutting them, you spread and strengthen them,” as Jason Sattler wrote on FrameLab. There has to be a better way.
From ten cycles of door knocking for Democratic candidates, I found the narrative voters told me at the door was one of two kinds. The first was a simple statement about the moment in which we found ourselves. Those conversations were pleasant and whether we agreed or disagreed about our politics, we each took something away from the door. The second was less pleasant, as if someone just left a television set where FOX News was spreading misinformation and running down the Democrats. What I heard in both cases was the raw energy of an electorate in motion. It was clear the narratives Iowans lived by were sourced from places other than the issue list I carried at the door. Minds had already been made up.
The coronavirus pandemic had a substantial impact on our politics. Where I live it cemented the Republican majority. When Governor Kim Reynolds normalized the pandemic on Feb. 15, 2022, more than a year before Federal COVID-19 public health emergency declarations ended, she had developed a narrative about her role, which she repeated in an Aug. 30, 2023 news release, “Since news broke of COVID-19 restrictions being re-instated at some colleges and businesses across the U.S., concerned Iowans have been calling my office asking whether the same could happen here. My answer—not on my watch. In Iowa, government respects the people it serves and fights to protect their rights. I rejected the mandates and lock downs of 2020, and my position has not changed.” This narrative won her some votes. Set aside the science of a pandemic, or what actually happened, and it might sound pretty good. It is disconnected from reality.
Iowa legislative Democrats have a good idea. “People over Politics” is the right narrative for this campaign because it hits on the need to address the majority of Iowans’ needs and wants, rather than a small minority. After all, 3.2 million people live in Iowa. That’s a lot more than the 15 percent of registered Republican voters who attended their 2024 precinct caucuses. What we Democrats understand is it is not enough to repeat the slogan, check off the box, and return to politics as usual. Our narrative needs development and has to change. I’m confident our legislative leaders are doing that.
There is an easy and a hard part of the 2024 election. I’ll make sure my personal network votes in November. Every other political energy I expend will be devoted to changing the narrative. I believe it can and will make a difference.
There is not much traction in Iowa for nuclear disarmament causes. Iowans are occupied with a state government taking public money away from public school systems and giving it to private ones. In several important ways Iowa is becoming a paternalistic, uneducated, and cruel place to live and that occupies a lot of our bandwidth. All the same, Iowans know the risk posed by nuclear weapons. If used, they could disrupt society all over the globe. Few, if any, people want that.
“Presidential leadership may be the most important factor that determines whether the risk of nuclear arms racing, proliferation, and war will rise or fall in the years ahead,” Daryl G. Kimball, Executive Director of the Arms Control Association wrote. Most Iowans are aware of the existential threat posed by nuclear weapons. However, they don’t vote for a president based on nuclear weapons policy positions. In fact, Republicans no longer write a national platform, so who knows what their policies are? Elections today have become more tribal in nature and much less issue oriented.
A lot is at stake regarding nuclear weapons proliferation during the 2024 election. As the primary season began in Iowa, the expected nominees for president are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. We have a good idea how they will address nuclear weapons related issues based on their past behavior. Biden would follow time-tested methods of controlling nuclear weapons at home and abroad: through negotiations, treaties and agreements with nuclear armed states and with those like Iran and North Korea that develop nuclear weapons capabilities. Trump is belligerent and it’s hard to know what he would do. The uncertainty about his potential actions if elected president is itself a nuclear risk. A crucial factor in whether one of today’s nuclear challenges erupts into a full-scale crisis, unravels the nonproliferation system, or worse will be the outcome of the U.S. presidential election.
“Russian President Vladimir Putin’s full-scale attack on Ukraine and threats of nuclear use have raised the specter of nuclear conflict,” Kimball said. “To his credit, Biden has not issued nuclear counter threats and has backed Ukraine in its struggle to repel Russia’s invasion.”
Well before Putin’s nuclear rhetoric regarding Ukraine, Trump engaged in an exchange of taunts with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un in 2017. In response, North Korea pursued its own nuclear weapons program, creating more risk of a nuclear detonation.
Trump hasn’t seen a long-standing international agreement he likes. The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires in 2026. Trump didn’t agree to an extension in 2021 when he was in office. Biden extended it by five years just under the wire. If elected, Trump seems unlikely to sign a new agreement with Russia. Biden, on the other hand, proposed new talks with Russia on a post-2026 nuclear arms control framework.The war in Ukraine seems likely to delay progress on such talks.
In November, senior Chinese and U.S. officials held the first arms control talks in years. Progress seems possible with Biden. Trump? Not so much.
Iranian leaders continue to increase capabilities to produce weapons-grade uranium in response to Trump’s 2018 decision to withdraw unilaterally from the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. He proposed imposing tougher U.S. sanctions to pressure Iran into negotiating a new deal. They now are threatening to pull out of the NPT if the United States or other UN Security Council members snap back international sanctions against Iran, according to Kimball.
The U.S. has not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. The Trump administration did not help when in 2018 it declared the U.S. did not intend to ratify the treaty, and in 2020 when senior Trump officials discussed resuming explosive testing to intimidate China and Russia. Biden, on the other hand, has reaffirmed U.S. support for the treaty; and his team proposed technical talks on confidence-building arrangements at the former Chinese, Russian, and U.S. test sites.
How do nuclear disarmament activists get a grip on the need to disarm, both in the U.S. and abroad? Article VI of the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty already called for elimination of nuclear weapons. The question is one of political will. On that, we look to the November elections to see if the country will have any.
~ This article was first published in the February 2024 edition of The Prairie Progressive.
There are two parts to turning the country around and both run through the ballot box.
The first is voting: making sure we take care of ourselves by checking our registration and then voting in person, either early or on election day. Encourage everyone we know to do likewise.
The second is changing the public narrative about life in Iowa and in the United States. We should not accept narratives being fed to us by major media outlets, churches, interest groups backed by wealthy people, and political parties. Instead, we must develop new narratives that properly reflect how we live despite our differences. I predict this will change how we vote.
If we can do those things, there is a chance to make society a better place to live. I believe this is possible in 2024.
In Iowa, the political strategies and tactics Democrats used during the 2006-2008 election cycles have become obsolete. Not because talking to people lost importance to winning votes, but because we, as a society, have grown ever more suspicious of people we don’t know. Have to ask, what happened to Democrats after Obama won his first presidential election? We may feel we have to ask, but that’s the wrong question. What was an ability to win elections in 2006 and 2008, was an all in, once or nothing endeavor whose usefulness waned by 2010 when Republicans began re-taking control of state government.
I door knocked for Democrats during the 2022 election cycle and can attest the game changed since 2008. In the Johnson County part of House District 91, Democratic voter registrations outnumbered Republican and Democrats still couldn’t win that part of the district. At the doors, I heard people have complicated lives where voting was not among the highest priorities. I did the best I could, yet my efforts and those of fellow Democratic canvassers couldn’t get the job done. It wasn’t from a lack of effort.
How do we change the narrative about how we live? There are no easy answers. Recognizing how important this is to the process of taking back our government is a necessary first step. I’ll make sure my personal network votes in November. Every other political energy I expend will be devoted to changing the narrative. I believe it can make a difference.
I am a Cold War warrior. I was in the U.S. Military during the period NATO stood down Soviet forces at the West German border. Based on intelligence received from friends who spied on Soviet troops, we believed we could whip their collective asses on any given day. That was likely our youth speaking. In 2024, Russian progress in Ukraine brings me chills. Russia could win that conflict, annex Ukraine, and commit genocide on the Ukrainian population. To a Cold War warrior, those are real and concerning possibilities. They should be the same for every American.
I wrote my U.S. Senators, Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst, about the stalled supplemental aid bill for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan and other items. Congressional Republicans insisted on tying passage to immigration reform and when they did, the supplemental hit a logjam. After emphasizing to my senators the importance of aid to Ukraine, I wrote they should sever the immigration portion of the bill and pass it separately to free up passage of the military aid bill. I’m not the only one with this opinion.
“It’d be nice to change the status quo on the border, but if there’s not the political support to do that, then I think we should proceed with the rest of the supplemental,” Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, told reporters. “I don’t think we have any real choice (but to do so).” A Thursday headline in the Cedar Rapids Gazette read, “Deal on wartime aid and border security stalls in Congress.”
What is going on? Grassley spilled the beans Wednesday on NBC while answering reporter questions about a tax bill.
“Passing a tax bill that makes the president look good — mailing out checks before the election — means he could be re-elected, and then we won’t extend the 2017 tax cuts,” Grassley told a reporter.
The bill does not include checks for Americans; what it includes is a tax credit. Republicans don’t want President Biden to “look good” on any front, including by passing aid for Ukraine and immigration reform, both of which have strong bipartisan support.
It is irritating Grassley and Ernst dodged the supplemental aid issue in their response to my note. I told each of them I needed no response, that I would watch how they voted. They quickly responded with a full page of comments without mentioning Ukraine, Israel or Taiwan.
I have had reasonable interaction with both Senators Grassley and Ernst. I don’t always agree with them, yet they usually respond to my queries and if we disagree, they tell me why. They have been courteous when we interacted personally, even when disagreeing. In a red state that’s the best we can expect.
For her part, Ernst acknowledged the oversized role played by drug cartels on the southern border, and listed some legislation she introduced or sponsored to address the situation. She asserted there is a humanitarian crisis at the border. I don’t disagree, only it’s not the kind she’s talking about.
Chuck Grassley has been my Iowa U.S. Senator all the time since I married in 1982. I left the state for six years, and he was still there when I returned. I lost count of how many times I met with him or his staff.
Grassley’s approach is similar to Ernst. He lists legislation he supports to address issues at the southern border. He briefly mentioned the House Speaker’s concerns about the border bill, and accused the Biden Administration of “abusing the parole system” to enable admission to the country of large groups of people outside “established pathways.” In a self-serving way, he times the start of the border problem as beginning when Biden took office. As I wrote in my note to him, immigration has been an issue in the United States almost since he was first elected to the Senate. We seem no closer to changing it in a way that will make sense to most Americans. We’ll recognize something went right when Dreamers have a path to citizenship.
Author Tom Nichols summarized the political situation in The Atlantic.
At this moment, the United States is on the verge of failing a challenge of will and commitment, much to the delight of the neo-fascist Russian regime that has turned Ukraine’s fields and homes into an immense abattoir. President Joe Biden, most of NATO, and many other nations recognize the crisis, but the world could face a Russian victory—and an eventual escalation of Russian aggression against Europe—solely because of the ongoing drama and inane bickering within the Republican Party.
Immigration reform is a distraction from the importance of America’s leadership role in the world and our support for Ukraine. For those of us who wore a uniform and remember the wind-swept hills and plains of the Fulda Gap, it is critical we pass the current supplemental.
I’m trying to cut back on outside activities, including politics. Apparently, I’m in too deep to get out of the pool. New and experienced people continue to call me to discuss local politics. I thought I cut the cord on Jan. 15. Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in.
There were only three people in attendance at our precinct caucus. None of us wanted to be on the county central committee caucus night so we turned the page in with those spots blank. I may have to go to the committee and get elected at a meeting to fill this role. Maybe not, we’ll see.
What do I plan to do regarding politics? As I age, I’m changing what I’m willing to do and made a list.
Continue to get most news before it appears in local newspapers.
I have a TV which is off most days.
Focus on local races. My US Senators are not up this cycle.
Help good people get elected.
Politics is about personal networking.
Social media is a small part of personal networking, very small.
Maintain good health.
Vote and encourage others to do so.
That’s a lot. That’s enough.
It’s just a matter of time before I make some commitments. So there it is. Happy 2024 election cycle!
Journey Home 
You must be logged in to post a comment.