Next President @ University of Iowa?

November 20th, 2006

There’s discussion on who will be the next president of the University of Iowa on the forums today. TH privied us to a discussion being broadcast over WSUI.

Sousy chimes in with the following distillation:

I’m listening off and on.

The things I’m gathering:

1) The U of I community is not happy.
2) There seems to be a split of opinion in terms of ‘where to go next’.

and…

3) While it seems that the panel members have stated ‘all the candidates we selected would have made an outstanding president’, it doesn’t sound like there was a lot of enthusiasm for “the candidates” themselves. Most of the anger here seems to be that the University of Iowa faculty/staff representatives were not allowed to simply choose their own candidate.

It’s obvious that there is a difference of opinion over the type of candidate that the University staff committees want, and the type of candidate the board (or “Michael Gartner”) wants to hire… and a lot of frustration.

The only thing that baffles me: the seeming silence (for the moment) on the part of the Board of Regents in terms of the ‘reasoning’ for rejecting the slate. I’m sure there were good reasons – but I’d like to know what they are, and what happens next.

See also: UI faculty, students move ahead
on ‘no confidence’ votes

  • pdx

Loebsack and Leach, sitting in a tree…

November 4th, 2006

K-I-S-S-I-N-G

...or so the L.A. Times would have us believe. Okay, so they’re not really kissing. Truth be told, how these two men have conducted their campaigns is a somewhat refreshing show of adulthood and civility, especially so considering what we’ve seen coming out of the fear-and-smear GOP for the past several years. I’ve always liked Leach’s temperament, if not the way he casts votes. Nevertheless, he’s had a good run and it’s time for one of Iowa’s most progressive districts to be represented in Congress by someone who doesn’t vote with the GOP 60+% of the time, don’t you think?

I’ll be the first to cast a vote for Jim Leach as the new President of the University of Iowa, however – not that my vote matters in that regard, mind you. Mephistopheles, are you listening? I’m ready to broker a deal here.

A few excerpts from the aforementioned L.A. Times article on Dave and Jim…

Both of the candidates in one tight House race refuse to go negative.
By Richard Simon, Times Staff Writer
November 4, 2006

CEDAR RAPIDS, IOWA — Dave Loebsack believes in giving credit where credit is due. Believes it so much that he recently bought an ad on television here declaring, among other things, that his congressman, Republican Jim Leach, is a “good man.”

When a reporter asked what had prompted Loebsack to say that, the bearded college professor replied: “Congressman Leach and I truly like each other. We respect each other.”

What’s odd about all this is that Loebsack is the Democratic candidate challenging Leach. And Leach, who is facing serious opposition after having held his House seat for 30 years, is treating Loebsack in the same gentlemanly fashion.

Recently, when state GOP strategists sent negative ad mailers to district voters attacking Loebsack, Leach made them stop. Then he apologized to his rival.

Welcome to Iowa’s 2nd Congressional District, scene of what may be the most unlikely campaign in the 2006 midterm election cycle.

Almost everywhere else — in the campaigns that will decide who controls Congress before the 2008 presidential contest — candidates in both parties are spending millions of dollars trying to demonize their opponents. In appeals aimed at rousing voters’ fears and passions, many are scaling new heights of nastiness.

...

“I can’t imagine that there is another race in the country like it,” said Peverill Squire, a political scientist at the University of Iowa. “As long as the national parties stay out of the race, voters in the 2nd District can enjoy that rarest of American political experiences: a competitive yet civil campaign.”

Although Leach knows it’s a tough year for Republicans, he has refused to go negative. When state GOP officials sent out that attack mailer, Leach asked them to stay out of the race. When they did it again, he warned Republican National Chairman Ken Mehlman that he would refuse to caucus with his party when the new Congress convened in January if the negative tactics recurred. Mehlman promised to put a stop to it.

Then Leach called Loebsack and apologized.

“It has been my practice in my campaigns and in my public life over the years to accentuate the positive and run on my record,” Leach says.

For Loebsack’s part, it was in one of his own TV spots that he described his opponent as a “good man.” About the worst thing he’s said is that Leach’s party membership facilitates GOP control of the House.

...

A recent poll of 1,055 likely voters showed Leach ahead, 50% to 48%.

So close.

UPDATE:

  • pdx

Make Your Own Campaign Videos

October 5th, 2006

What with the popularity of you-tube, disseminating your own self-styled campaign spots has never been easier, and with the advent an open-source application by the name of CamStudio – actually making the videos has perhaps never been simpler. The folllowing ad was pieced together simply by opening a few files up in photoshop – manipulating the images while the RECORD button in Cam Studio is pushed, then hitting PAUSE for the frame break. This is a pretty rudimentary example of what can be done – tap your own creative juices and slap something together that will help push Iowa back into the blue, what say you?

Thanks to profo, on the Iowa Underground forums, for the concept.

  • pdx

The Ultimate Agricultural Efficiency

October 3rd, 2006

With a ‘thanks’ once again to A.V. Krebs comes this opinion piece from the New York Times:

THE ULTIMATE AGRICULTURAL EFFICIENCY
Editorial New York Times
September 23, 2006

Any American history of pork—- the meat, that is—- shows a steady concentration of more and more hogs in the hands of fewer and fewer producers. That is what modern agricultural “efficiency” looks like. It’s good for the bottom line of the big industrial players, but bad for farmers, hogs, the environment and, ultimately, consumers.

That history took another step in the wrong direction when Smithfield Foods—- the biggest pork packer—- agreed to buy the second biggest pork packer, Premium Standard Farms.

This is a deal that deserves to be closely examined by antitrust regulators. It would mean fewer markets for farmers and fewer choices for consumers. Already, packing giants like Smithfield and Premium Standard Farms use their market power, when buying hogs, in ways that violate the spirit of the 1921 Packers and Stockyards Act, which prohibits undue price discrimination. Their power in the marketplace allows them to negotiate price premiums that smaller packers can’t offer.

The public should also understand what the deal would mean for the future of American farming. It would push farmers still farther down the road to becoming nothing but contract laborers.

There is little or no role for the independent farmer in this landscape. The logic is simple: Why bother to buy pigs from farmers when you can own them yourself? If this deal closes, more than half the pigs Smithfield kills would be pigs it already owns, a percentage that is sure to increase.

The hog farmers’ job would no longer be farming. They would be janitors in confinement barns across rural America where the packers’ huge herds of pigs are crammed in stalls to live out their short lives.

And that would be the ultimate efficiency of American agriculture—- doing away with the farmer by doing away with competitive markets.

Most independent pork producers have already discovered this fact: if you don’t have a ‘semi-load’ to sell…. you don’t have a buyer. Independent sale barns have closed nearly everywhere and the ‘free market’ for pork is dwindling in favor of contract growers that promote a certain type of industrial efficiency. Packer ownership of livestock will only further industrial efficiencies as a way of life dwindles to a final generation.

E. Coli And The Centralization of the Food Industry

September 28th, 2006

The San Francisco Chronicle ran an article detailing the issues that mass food production has caused – in this case, the easy spread of a single E. Coli outbreak from a local contamination to a national outbreak:

TECHNOLOGY, EATING HABITS HELP TO SPREAD E. COLI
By Erin Allday San Francisco Chronicle
September 23, 2006

In the spring and summer of 1982, McDonald’s held a special promotion—- two burgers for the price of one—- that led to the first reported outbreak of a food-borne bacterial infection that now sweeps the nation with some regularity.

That year, at least 47 people in Oregon and Michigan, most of whom took advantage of the promotion, fell ill with severe abdominal cramps and bloody diarrhea. Doctors and public health investigators were spooked—- they’d never seen anything like it.

A year later, after months of investigation by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, investigators were able to identify the infection. It was a common bacterium, one that microbiologists had long known to live in human intestinal tracts with mostly harmless, and sometimes even helpful, results.

The bacterium was E. coli, but this was a rare strain that had mutated. It had attached itself to a virus, and that virus made people very sick. Today, that same strain, called 0157:H7, sickens hundreds if not thousands of Americans every year, and is the source of the latest epidemic linked to bagged fresh spinach that has sickened 166 people so far, one of whom died.

“At the time of that (1982) outbreak, there was no knowledge that E. coli could cause a disease like this, so nobody believed it,” said Lee Riley, a professor of infectious disease and epidemiology at UC Berkeley who was one of the lead investigators for the CDC in the McDonald’s case and an author of the first paper published on E. coli in the New England Journal of Medicine.

“The outbreak occurred because the restaurants were having these promotions and going through a lot of hamburgers,” Riley said. “It’s the mass consumption of meat and the way it’s processed and delivered and distributed that made it possible for this E. coli to spread.”

Escherichia coli is found in everyone’s body. It can be helpful—- it kills off other harmful bacteria, for example—- but mostly it just sits there and doesn’t do much. Certain less-benign strains of E. coli are known to be the most common cause of urinary tract infections among women.

The first noted case of 0157:H7 actually dates back to 1975, when a woman at Alameda Naval Air Station became mysteriously sick. Doctors at the time couldn’t diagnose what ailed her, but they noted the rare E. coli found in her body and sent a sample to the CDC. When the 1982 outbreak occurred, investigators used that sample as further proof that E. coli was responsible for the sickness in the McDonald’s cases.

Public health officials say it’s impossible to know how long E. coli 0157:H7 has been around. People probably were sickened by it for years, or even decades, before doctors identified it.

But the reason outbreaks have become more common in the past 25 years, health officials agree, is because technology has been developed to identify and connect strains of bacteria and because the nation’s eating habits have changed—we eat mass-processed foods that make it easier for contaminated products to reach more people.

Over the years, technology has become increasingly complex as federal health officials searched for ways to identify outbreaks more quickly. The technique used today, known as PulseNet, allows microbiologists to track the “paternity” of a unique strain of 0157:H7, and, thereby, tell if isolated cases that appear around the country are connected, said Dr. David Acheson, chief medical officer with the federal Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition at the Food and Drug Administration.

The first E. coli outbreaks in the United States were in ground beef partly because E. coli bacteria live in cows, and partly because ground beef was among the first food products to be highly processed and mass-distributed via fast-food outlets. Beef from one tainted cow could be mixed with beef from hundreds of healthy cows, and the resulting hamburger patties would all be contaminated.

The nation has endured a handful of outbreaks since 1982—- including one notable outbreak involving hundreds of people who ate at Jack in the Box in 1993—- but the meat and fast-food industries have adopted policies over the years that make such cases more unusual now.

But in the 1990s, the source of the outbreaks spread to fruit and vegetables. In the past decade there have been 20 such outbreaks, including the most recent one. The last nine outbreaks involved leafy greens that were packaged into salad mixes.

Those salad mixes have become increasingly popular as Americans, told they need to eat more vegetables, jumped at the convenience of prewashed lettuce and spinach. But the problem with those mixes is the same problem the meat industry ran into—- a very small amount of contaminated vegetable can spread the E. coli bacteria to hundreds or thousands of packages when it’s mixed in a processing plant. That was the case with bagged spinach.

“Spinach is brought in from many, many farms,” Riley said. “So you have an opportunity for a lot of bagged spinach to become contaminated. It’s just a massive spread of E. coli, even if the original contamination was limited to one farm.”

With meat, solving the problem meant simply cooking it at a high enough temperature to kill the bacteria. But raw vegetables may prove more challenging because there’s not a lot that can be done once the produce has been contaminated. Washing produce isn’t necessarily enough to get rid of E. coli.

For now, federal and state investigators are searching farms in the Salinas Valley for clues as to what caused the contamination in spinach. But they may never know the answer. And to some degree, bacteria are always going to be living in our food supply.

“We live in a microbial world,” said Sam Beattie, a food safety extension specialist at Iowa State University. “Any time you go out into an agricultural field, can you really expect it to be a sterile environment? I don’t think so.”

The consolodation of the food market into the hands of one or two players – in this case, most of the nation’s spinach being produced in Salinas Valley, CA - can lead to massive outbreaks. It does need to be stated, however that federal inspection agencies have little to no power to halt such outbreaks before they happen.

(Thanks to A.V. Krebs’ Agribusiness Examiner #458.)

  • Sousy

DSM Register: beneath contempt

September 25th, 2006

Okay, so I open my Sunday NY Times and find this piece of actual reporting:

Spy Agencies Say Iraq War Worsens Terrorism Threat
A stark assessment of terrorism trends by American intelligence agencies has found that the American invasion and occupation of Iraq has helped spawn a new generation of Islamic radicalism and that the overall terrorist threat has grown since the Sept. 11 attacks.

The classified National Intelligence Estimate attributes a more direct role to the Iraq war in fueling radicalism than that presented either in recent White House documents or in a report released Wednesday by the House Intelligence Committee, according to several officials in Washington involved in preparing the assessment or who have read the final

Then I open my DSM Register the next morning, and this is how the newspaper Iowa Depends on covers the story:

Dems jump on report linking war to terrorism
WASHINGTON – Democrats yesterday seized on an intelligence assessment that said the Iraq war has increased the terrorist threat, saying it was further evidence that Americans should choose new leadership in the November elections.

The Democrats hoped the report would undermine the GOP’s image as the party more capable of handing terrorism as the campaign enters its final six-week stretch.

That’s the way the Des Moines Register works. They don’t cover the story; they cover the spin. After all, what Democrats say about the report is far more important than, um, national security.

$%#@*&!

Not that I am accusing the Register of bias. I certainly wouldn’t do that after the paper lead last Saturday with the results of a mock poll that had McCain and Guiliani outpolling John Edwards by a few meaningless mock points over two years before the election. And that’s LEAD, as in this completely non-news story is the most important thing of the day. And I certainly wouldn’t accuse the paper of spinning instead of reporting when last week it LEAD with a poll showing Iowans had upped their approval ratings of Bush by a few meaningless percentage points (which were well within the poll’s margin of error).

That’s LEAD, mind you; that’s splash a poll result all over the front page and call it news. That’s report a story of national importance as if it were so much partisan squabbling while elsewhere the paper’s editors hypocritically dole out a rose to an Iowa candidate who resigned his party rather than engage in partisan squabbling.

I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: you can learn a lot from a newspaper if you read it with the proper contempt, but the Register is sadly beneath contempt anymore. It’s now just a hack paper floundering to get suburbanites to read it by covering football tailgating parties, drunken bike rides, and Oprah-esque abuse stories.

Yeesh.

  • profo

Iowa GOP Forces Own Candidate Out Of Party

September 19th, 2006

It seems that the Iowa GOP leaders in Des Moines decided to “help” with a campaign in southern Iowa – in a way so disgusting that it forced their canddiate to drop out of the party and declare himself to be an Independent.

Kevin Wiskus, a candidate for Iowa House District 94, has switched his party affiliation from Republican to Independent following what he said was a “shocking and tasteless” mass-mailed brochure attacking his opponent.

The move, he said, was in response to a brochure from the Republican Party of Iowa attacking current state Rep. Kurt Swaim, D-Bloomfield.

“I do not support any kind of attack campaign tactics,” Wiskus said. “Voters should be able to choose between qualified candidates based on individual merits. At no time should voters have to make a choice based on which candidate can throw the most mud.

“Though I had no prior knowledge of this vicious attack on you, I ask that you please accept my most sincere and humble apology to you and Julie,” he wrote in an ad to appear in the Centerville Daily Iowegian.
...
“You deserve an apology from the Republican Party,” begins Wiskus’ ad in the Daily Iowegian. “Since he will not get an apology from the Republican Party of Iowa, I would like to apologize to Kurt.”

Mr. Wiskus appears to be a rarity in modern politics: someone who values personal integrity over partisan attack politics. The Iowa GOP flyer accused the incumbent Democrat Kurt Swain for being “soft on crime”, highlighting Mr. Swain’s record as a public defender (where he had the duty to defend “sex offenders”) and for voting for a bill sponsored by Republicans, of all things.

Statehouse candidate denounces brochure

Of course, on WOI radio, the chair of the Iowa GOP referred to the brochure as “voter education” – apparently missing out on the idea that a decision made in Des Moines wasn’t well recieved in the rural counties.

  • Sousy


Digg!

Jeff Lamberti On The Issues

September 5th, 2006

.... or at least, copying them from the political consultants back pocket.

The answers were so good, Republican candidates wanted to use them as their own. The embarrassment was at least seven did.

Republicans in House races copied their party’s talking points and included parts of the answers as their own for an AARP survey. The answers related to Medicare, Social Security, insurance plans and retirement.

Candidates in Georgia, Illinois, Iowa, South Carolina and Texas all submitted the sometimes word-for-word responses, which originated with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
....
Among the candidates who used the borrowed language were Andrea Zinga and Peter Roskam, both running in Illinois, Jeff Lamberti in Iowa, Chuck Blasdel in Ohio and Max Burns in Georgia.

Link: from Forbes Magazine.

  • Sousy

    Digg!

James Van Allen Passes At Age 91

August 9th, 2006

From the University of Iowa News Service:

IOWA CITY, Iowa—Dr. James A. Van Allen, U.S. space pioneer and Regent Distinguished Professor of Physics in the University of Iowa College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, died this morning, Wednesday, Aug. 9, 2006 at the age of 91. Arrangements are pending.

Though he retired from active teaching in 1985, he continued to monitor data from Pioneer 10 throughout the spacecraft’s 1972-2003 operational lifetime and serve as an interdisciplinary scientist for the Galileo spacecraft, which reached Jupiter on Dec. 7, 1995.

The highlight of Van Allen’s long and distinguished career was his use of UI-built instruments carried aboard the first successful U.S. satellite, Explorer 1, in 1958 to discover bands of intense radiation—later known as the Van Allen radiation belts—surrounding the Earth. It came at the height of the U.S.-Soviet space race and literally put the United States on the map in the field of space exploration.

Taking Property - Without Seizure.

July 18th, 2006

Now that the dust has settled on the eminent domain legislation (for now) – another related issue has come to a head in Clear Lake.

State lawmakers can brag all they want about how they protected Iowans from shopping malls, airports and lakes. But when it comes to the property rights fight over hogs, they have nothing to brag about.

Sure, no one is seizing property to build hog confinements. But you don’t have to physically grab property to take its value.

Read the rest of Todd Dorman’s Blog Entry

  • Sousy

C.R. Gazette Drops Coulter

July 13th, 2006

Three cheers for the Cedar Rapids Gazette. It would appear she of the prodigious adam’s apple has reached a tipping point in her career – and is finally pissing off and offending those to the right of the political spectrum. It’s not quite ‘ding dong, the witch is dead’ yet, but it’s atleast a start, eh?

Via Editor & Publisher

By Sarah Weber

Published: July 12, 2006 5:05 PM ET

NEW YORK Ann Coulter is no stranger to controversy, but her latest adventures have several newspapers questioning whether carrying her syndicated column is worth the trouble. The Shreveport (La.) Times is currently leaving the decision of whether or not to keep Coulter up to its readers. But the first newspaper to officially drop Coulter’s column since the latest uproar began seems to be The Gazette of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, where she had appeared for about 14 months.

Opinion Page Editor Doug Neumann told E&P, “Our decision was made before the plagiarism allegations. It did come after the publication of [Coulter’s] book, but I would say it didn’t directly play any role on our decision.”

However, Neumann surmised that Coulter’s incendiary book may have played an “indirect” role in the final decision. “I think it was the book that began to unwind support among her readers,” Neumann explained.

“Liberals have never liked her, and we’ve always gotten complaints [from them]. But the complaints that mattered the most were from the conservative readers,” who felt that their views were being misrepresented.

Coulter’s syndicate, Universal Press, cleared her of plagiarism charges earlier this week.

Though The Gazette may be the first to drop the outspoken conservative columnist in recent months, Neumann emphasized, “It’s not uncommon for opinion pages to change their line-up.” The daily has long published conservative Cal Thomas and replaced Coulter with another conservative, David Limbaugh.

“We’ve always had a rich line-up of conservative columnists,” said Neumann, “and we still do.”

related digg thread
Also, via ‘Crooks and Liars’, Donny Deutsch Shatters the Coulter Myth

  • pdx


Digg!

The Flipside of Illegal Immigration

June 26th, 2006

This is a story from last week, but there are some interesting ramifications here – and an interesting view of the ethical problems surrounding illegal immigration.

Last week, egg farms owned by Austin “Jack” DeCoster were raided by immigration services. The raids on the egg “farms” netted 36 illegal immigrants.

Immigration agents detained at least 36 illegal immigrants during a raid on egg farms in Wright County.

Bob Teig, a spokesman for the U.S. attorney’s office, said Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents conducted the raid June 14 at several DeCoster egg farms. No charges have been filed and Teig declined further comment.

[b]It was the third raid at DeCoster farms in Wright County since 2001 that has led to the detention and possible deportation of illegal immigrants[/b], Sheriff Paul Schultz said.

Schultz said the [b]people that help get fake identification and work visas for the illegal immigrants should be held accountable[/b].

“The people who bring them here and furnish false IDs are just as guilty,” he said.<
...
He said the employees who were detained were hired by KNA Co., which was under contract with DeCoster to provide legal workers.

“We’re distressed to find some of those people were not legal,” [DeCoster’s attourney William] Smith said.

So…. DeCoster’s operations have illegal workers, yet the sheriff makes a statement regarding the workers. Let’s do a little recap of big events in the history of DeCoster’s egg laying operations.

[Ed Note: apologies in advance for possible pay-only links to the NY Times.]

1997: Jack DeCoster settles with the Department of Labor for $2 million in fines, following charges made by then Secretary of Labor Robert Reich that the egg-laying operations were an “agricultural sweatshop”.

2000: Even under the rather lax Iowa environmental laws applied to confinement operations, Jack DeCoster is named as a “habitual violator” under DNR regulations.

Miller’s Office has filed a total of five lawsuits alleging environmental violations by DeCoster Farms, the most recent filed in Lucas County on April 24. Last July, the Iowa Supreme Court affirmed a Wright County court decision assessing a civil penalty against DeCoster in the first suit, constituting one “strike” toward habitual violator status. On March 22 the Supreme Court upheld a district court decision against DeCoster in the second and third suits concerning violations in Wright and Hamilton Counties. The Supreme Court action paved the way for classification of DeCoster as a habitual violator under Iowa law, which requires that violators must have been the subject of “three strikes” – three violations referred to the Attorney General for legal action and assessed a civil penalty by a court. Civil penalties ordered in the first three suits totaled $79,000.

2002:: DeCoster Farm settles for $1.5 million in a civil rape case brought by a domestic violence group.

DeCoster Farms will pay $1.53 million to a group of Hispanic women who claimed they were raped and abused by supervisors at the company’s egg plants in Wright County, the company and federal authorities announced Monday.

DeCoster did not admit liability.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission began its investigation of DeCoster in August 2001 after the Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence filed a discrimination lawsuit.

The group alleged that DeCoster supervisors in four egg-production plants sexually assaulted female employees and threatened to kill those who complained.
...
“We see a lot of sexual harassment cases, and a lot are pretty awful,” Kamp said. “But this was forcible rape.”

The women reportedly were afraid to testify, and criminal charges were never filed.

[Ed: anyone want to guess why the victims did not want to file criminal charges…. anyone?]

2003: Jack DeCoster pleads guilty to a pattern of aiding and abetting the continued employment of illegal workers. The guilty plea gets him probation (which is still in effect, if this article is to be believed) – instead of prison.

.Even when employers are convicted, penalties are often minimal. Austin Jack DeCoster, 68, owner of several Iowa egg plants that had at least 121 unauthorized workers, was sentenced to five years probation after he pleaded guilty to engaging in a pattern and practice of aiding and abetting the continued employment of illegal workers. His general manager between 1998 and 2001, who transported illegal workers between plants, was sentenced to three months home confinement with electronic monitoring and ordered to pay a $9,000 fine; he will be on probation for three years.

Under an agreement with the U.S. Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, ICE agents can inspect DeCoster plants without warning. DeCoster owns several egg farms in Iowa and Maine, and a hog operation in Iowa. DeCoster agreed to pay a $1.25 million civil forfeiture and $ 875,000 in restitution for the ICE investigation.

Now, this is just the big stuff. The Register also ran an article a few years ago detailing Jack DeCoster’s attempt to “remake his image”. But, after all of this (and continued violations – this time, neatly “outsourced’), we’re right back to the basic problem: DeCoster Farms and the owners have repeatedly shown a disregard for the law in both letter and spirit, while running an operation that basically amounts to human trafficking.

So… on to today, when the first charges are filed in the case. Who is being charged with a crime? Why, the workers, of course. No mention of the county attourney or federal officals pursuing the repeated violation, or possible probation violations. What’s amazing: in the comments to that previously linked article, someone is willing to defend rampant abuse of the law because workers in egg factories are evidently not entitled to things like “basic human rights” because that might mean we need to pay more for a dozen eggs. (Unlikely – has the price of eggs ever gone down because we’re willing to tolerate de facto slavery?)

Go to Hampton. Get a job cleaning chicken cages and other dirty work associated with the Egg buisness. Organize. Demand $12-$15 per hour.Plus paid for medical and a 401k. Better yet why not a fully paid for by the company pension. Lets not forget 4 weeks vacation after 10 years. Plus all the paid holidays the government gets.Then when eggs go to $8 a dz. you’ll really have something to gripe about.

It’s a rather amazing thing to note that we’re willing to tolerate the operation of a business that seems to make enough profit to pay multi-million dollar fines and remain ever in operation, yet there are people out there willing to believe that a business cannot pay workers enough for them to make a decent living. This is, to say the least, one of the great moral failings of our society.

The best suggestion I’ve heard so far: when the DNR catches a poacher illegally fishing or hunting, the DNR has the ability to confiscate all assets related to the crime. I would imagine that if the same rules applied to immigration and labor law, this “crisis” of illegal immigration would be over tomorrow – and without the need to spend one dime of taxpayer money on fancy new computer systems or multi-billion dollar construction projects.


Digg!

Cityview: Strange Bedfellows

June 22nd, 2006

Thanks to a tip from Chris Woods – Des Moines Cityview has a great bit of reporting on the politics going on surrounding the eminent domain bill.

Cityview: Strange Bedfellows

A bit from the article:

“This does not make sense politically. I can’t figure this out,” says Rep. Jeff Kaufmann, a Republican who managed Iowa’s eminent domain bill in the House.

Kaufmann says he doesn’t understand certain Democrats’ reluctance to return for a special session. “There’s a hesitancy there. I can’t get to that hesitancy,” he says. “It’s almost like there’s something missing, but I don’t know what that is right now.”
...
“I smell Doug Gross in all of this,” Kaufmann says. “I’ve had some pretty solid Republicans tell me this, too.”

The reason? A number of proposed lake projects – particularly one in Madison County where Doug Gross stands to profit from land ownership around the proposed lake. Of course, many others have proposed economic development projects around said lakes, including a rather odd alliance:

Further muddying the waters is the fact that certain people – notably Congressman [Steve] King – are talking about creating private economic development around the publicly financed lakes.

In a 2004 letter to one of the Clarke County supervisors, King states, “[T]he ability for private development on and near the lake will be critical to the financial success of the project. A portion of lakefront property, possibly as much as one third of the total lake area, should be used for private development of homes and related businesses.”

If you read the whole article, you find what is probably behind all of this: campaign donations.

I was initially unsure of what all of this meant, but I think I am now (oddly) in agreement with Chris Rants: let’s get this eminent domain law (or, if that’s not legally possible – a new law) on the books – we can tweak definitions later.

Can we also discuss campaign finance reforms while we’re at it?


Digg!

Smithfield Foods: Coming Soon

June 22nd, 2006

Smithfield Foods, known in Iowa for successfully fighting Iowa’s packer ban anti-trust laws and increasing their presence in Iowa’s meat packing industry is in the news for employing illegal tatics to fight unionization in Smithfield processing plants.

There is something that struck me as related to our recent illegal immigration debates – Smithfield hiring illegal workers, then threatening them if they dare to organize or protest working conditions:

“They would always tell us don’t get mixed up in this stuff about the union, if you talk about the union they will fire you, (and) having the Hispanics think they’ll bring in INS if they try to vote for a union,” he said.

This is something I’ve never heard in the midst of all of the rhetoric coming from Washington: while we focus on walls and technology and deportation – what is to be done to employers that break the law to employ a virtual slave labor force?

The answer is evidently “nothing”.

Links:
Confined Space: Treating Workers Like Hogs

SmithfieldJustice.com

  • Sousy


Digg!

The Ag Export Myth?

June 21st, 2006

We didn’t comment much about the Secretary of Agriculture races leading into the primary, but there is an interesting contrast in the approaches to developing a strong agricultural economy between Denise O’Brien (D) and Bill Northey®.

In particluar, Bill Northey during the primary discussed growing Iowa’s agricultural sector through greater exports:

World promoter of Iowa products

Realizing that Iowa’s future depends on its exports, Bill has traveled with the WTO and the U.S. Grains Council promoting corn & specialty soybeans. His travels have taken him to 16 countries including Japan five times, and the UK six times.

The idea that we’ll be able to export more and more is… well… a bit of orthodoxy that has been consistently overstated. Alan Guebert writes:

Former Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman couldn’t stop for a cup of coffee in farm and ranch country without waxing romantically on how “1 in 4 acres of American farm production is exported.”

Her replacement, Secretary Mike Johanns, a trained technocrat, often makes the same point with more precision. “Twenty–seven percent of U.S. farm receipts come from trade,” Johanns told a May 8 Chicago luncheon crowd.

The trouble with Veneman’s oversimplified number and Johanns’ overcooked number is that both are wrong, wrote Ed Maixner in the April 28 issue of the Kiplinger Agricultural Letter.

The actual “value” of ag exports to farmers and ranchers, noted Maixner, Kiplinger’s editor, is neither 27 percent nor 25 percent. “Analysis shows the portion is 8 percent,” he explained, when “measured by value …”

The difference, he went on to explain in the Letter, is “the government doesn’t account for extra value that gets added to goods after they leave the farm … shipping, processing, packaging and more. Ignoring such markups greatly overstates the exported share.”

For example, Maixner told Keith Good in a May 13 interview (which can be heard at http://agpolicysoup.blogspot.com/), steaks exported to Japan might carry a $15 per lb. price tag at the export terminal, but the rancher gets less than a $1 per pound from the packer when the animal is sold.

Likewise, $3 North Dakota wheat may fetch $5.50 when it leaves Washington State for Shanghai, but the grower still only received $3 when he sold it in Jamestown.

As such, counting the steak’s $14 markup or the wheat’s $1.50 price boost as “farm value” is “logically ridiculous,” Maixner continued. What USDA actually is tabulating, he added, is “added export value, not farm value.”

Ed Maxiner sums up how 30-odd years of policy geared around ag exports should change:

“When developing farm policy,” Maixner told Good, “it’s probably good to start somewhere near the truth. We don’t export everything … Maybe the first thing we need to take care of is our domestic agriculture economy.”

  • Sousy


<