Memorial Day Weekend – A Time to Reflect and a Call to Support

Memorial Day Weekend is upon us once more – a three-day weekend that has been reserved for you to see family, watch the Indy 500, or catch up on yard work that has been quietly calling to you over the past few weeks.  You might pause to watch a firework show on Sunday evening or pull out your dusty American flag as a way to remember our country’s fallen heroes.  There are ways our society has taught us to pause, reflect, and remember, but what can we do to help the heroes that need our support now?   Perhaps this Memorial Day Weekend, you can use the appreciation you feel towards our fallen heroes as fuel to reach out to a military family currently in need of your support.  According to the National Military Family Association, 70 percent of military families live in civilian communities – not on military installations.  This means that you most likely know of a military family currently living in your neighborhood.  What can you do to help?

1. Recommend Discounted Military Family Activities

Blue Star Museums is a program that offers free admission to all active duty military personnel and their families from Memorial Day, May 27, through Labor Day, September 2, 2013.  See participating museums in your area.

2.  Read and Spread the Word

The Military Family Research Institute at Purdue University recently released a “How to Help” series for targeted community groups:

-Early Childhood Educators

-Family, Friends, & Neighbors

-Financial Professionals

-Higher Education

This series reminds us that something as simple as offering to take their car in for an oil change can greatly help the family during a time of deployment or transition. You can download the different brochures from MFRI’s website here.

3.  Say “Thank You” to the Whole Family

Even though the service member may be the only family member deployed, the family as a whole has to change their routine and overcome the stress associated with a loved one’s deployment.  Recognizing the family’s sacrifices to our country acknowledges that they too are our nation’s heroes.

So what will you do once your flag goes back in the attic, only to come out again for the 4th of July?  Will your patriotism go back into storage…or will you share it with your neighbor?

Altar to the Flag inside the Indiana War Memorial, Indianapolis, Indiana

(Photo credit: Carl Van Rooy)

- AlisonK

King Follows Suit

Last week it was announced that U.S. Representative Steve King would not seek the senate seat being vacated by long time Senator Tom Harkin. Harkin, despite facing staunch challenges from Iowa Republicans, will have served 30 years in the Senate by the time he retires (he also served ten years in the House prior to being elected to the Senate in 1984). King, long thought to have an eye on the Senate, declined stated that he would not run for the seat, following in the footsteps of Rep. Tom Latham and Lt. Gov Kim Reynolds earlier this year.

Many had thought that King aspired to the Senate, so this move is a bit surprising. it could be that King wants to build his grassroots network towards 2016 when Sen. Chuck Grassley may be retiring. Geographically, King has represented over half the state thanks to the redistricting of 2012 (of note, Rep. Latham has represented over two-thirds, closing in on three-quarters, of the state through his time in Congress due to redistricting). However, the larger population centers of Eastern Iowa have trended towards the Democratic ticket in recent years and the presumed Democratic nominee – Rep. Bruce Braley

of Iowa’s 1st District – has represented a majority of these population center since his election in 2006.

While Braley is certainly not a juggernaut of a candidate, having barely won re-election in 2010, he is one of the most prominent Democrats in the state. If Braley wins in 2014, King would likely have an easier road in 2016 with Braley already in office. What should not be discounted is that in Presidential Election years, Iowa has “gone blue” in six of the last seven elections. This creates a hurdle, sometimes significant, in the down ballot races.

It would not be unheard of for a candidate to reverse course and enter an election after initially passing. We will have to wait and see if King finds some poll numbers and/or significant backers that could push him back into this race.

-Sam the Eagle

Hard Cider: Ripe for Michigan

In looking over my recent posts it seems that I have somewhat neglected a subject matter area that we claim to focus on here.  The tagline reads “Politics and Life in Middle America”.  There certainly is no lack of posts about politics, but not so much about life.  Don’t worry, this blog will not suddenly start focusing on what people ate for breakfast or gardening tips.  But there are some interesting things that fall under “life” that can be written about.  I should probably start doing that…

In the past few months I have developed a taste for hard cider.  It started by picking up a four-pack of Crispin while on vacation.  When I returned home, I picked up a six-pack of Angry Orchard and then a week later some Redd’s Apple Ale (yes, I know its not “hard cider”…I’m just telling you the story is all).  I have never been a beer-drinker but I have to say that hard cider is really appealing.  It is great to have with pizza, while grilling, or just hanging out.  There is just one thing that bothers me about it…I can’t find any that is made in Michigan!

Michigan is one of the top apple producing states in the nation (actually #3 behind Washington and New York).  however, if you look at where the “national” brands originate  you will see that Woodchuck comes from Vermont, Angry Orchard is from Ohio, Crispin is from Minnesota and Redd’s (yes, not a hard cider, I know) is from Georgia.  Furthermore, Crispin and Redd’s are both owned by MillerCoors, while Angry Orchard happens to be owned by Sam Adams.  Clearly, it takes a national brand as a parent company to get these ciders the national exposure they are starting to receive.

I have to wonder, why not Michigan?  There are plenty of breweries around the state.  One, Bell’s Brewery of Kalamazoo, has an almost cult-like following.  They have the network to start regional (at the very least) distribution of a hard cider.  New Holland Brewery of Holland (obviously) is another microbrewery that could venture into the market (they apparently used to make a hard cider, according to their website).

I would love to go into a store here and know that I can buy some hard cider made from Michigan apples, bottled in Michigan.  It seems that with the hard cider becoming more and more popular, it is a ripe opportunity for Michigan businesses or businesses looking to invest in Michigan.

-Sam the Eagle

 

Justin Amash Would Add Twist to MI Senate Race

It seems that you can’t turn your head these days without seeing a story on Michigan’s precocious Congressman Justin Amash (R – MI 3).  The latest stories center around the possibility of a Senate run to replace Carl Levin, who is retiring following the completion of his sixth (!!!) term in 2014, as well as the so-called rise of Libertarianism within the GOP rank and file in Washington DC.  But Amash has been in the news almost since he arrived in DC following the 2010 elections.  Following the recent election he even garnered support from a few colleagues as an alternative to then – and current – Speaker of the House, Rep. John Boehner of Ohio.

If Rep. Amash decides to run for Senate it will certainly throw the entire election up in the air.  As it stands right now, Rep. Mike Rogers (R – MI 8) is a favorite on the Republican side if he decides to run.  The Democratic names being thrown out are Rep. Gary Peters (D – MI 14) and Debbie Dingell, wife of Rep. John Dingell (D – MI 12) and DNC Party Woman for Michigan.  With Michigan having an open primary, Amash could well win votes from both sides of the aisle as well as bring out non-traditional primary voters.  While Amash is certainly conservative, he hardly votes in lock-step with the GOP (he gives a thorough explanation of why he voted the way he did on each and ever bill on his Facebook page – in his own words, not delegated to a staffer).

Amash, like The Pauls (Rand and his father Ron), has a national appeal due to his in-your-face libertarianism and would certainly be able to draw upon that appeal to amass a substantial war-chest if he decides to run for Senate.  After being elected by a very comfortable margin in 2010, he had much closer results in 2012.  While redistricting played a small role in that shift, the district is still lean GOP.  Interestingly though, while President Obama barely won the district in 2008, he lost to Mitt Romney in 2012 by a margin greater than that *just a few points off that of Amash’s victory.  This could be indicative that teh relatively breezy initial election Amash won in 2010 may not be the case going forward.  While I don’t expect Amash to lose reelection to his seat in 2014, the race likely will not be a cake-walk.

The question remains as to what Amash’s long-term goal is in politics.  Does he want to enrich his national profile within the House or does he have higher office ambitions?  If he has his eye set on eventual House leadership (not likely while the current group is entrenched) then the choice is obvious.  If he has his eyes set on a higher office – Governor or even – the choice becomes a bit more muddled.  In the Senate, Amash would not be as unique a character with people such as Rand Paul (R – KY) and Ted Cruz (R – TX) already grabbing headlines there.  He could also become viewed as more of an “Inside the Beltway” type by those in Michigan given the Senate’s reputation.

Whatever decision Amash makes in regards to a 2014 Senate run, I have a feeling that the reasoning behind it won’t be that typical traditional politician.  That just does not seem to be Justin Amash’s way.

- Sam the Eagle

*CORRECTION: as pointed out by Congressman Amash himself, he did have a greater margin of victory in 2012 than Mitt Romney did.  Also, if you factor in that the Libertarian candidate won a little over three percent in the race, the numbers look even better for Amash.  Why a Libertarian ran against Rep. Amash is yet another strange quirk of American Politics.

Right-To-Work Could Mean Changes for Unions (repost)

(EDITOR’S NOTE – this story was originally published on 4/18 in my column at IVN – The MidWest Wing Report)

The idea of being a “right-to-work” state is certainly not new. Almost half the states (24 of 50) in the Union have such laws. It is different in the Midwest, though. Home to a majority of the so-called “rust belt” states, unionization is something different here… a way of life for many. From steel mills to auto factories to shipping ports and so many industries in-between, unions are everywhere. Could that be changing now though?  Will right-to-work kill the unions who helped build this region and our country?

The right-to-work legislation that passed in Michigan and Indiana makes it illegal to require union dues payment in order to secure or keep a job.  For example, a section of the Michigan right-to-work law passed in December and effective last month is highlighted below:

AN INDIVIDUAL SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED AS A CONDITION OF OBTAINING OR CONTINUING EMPLOYMENT TO DO ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:

• (A) REFRAIN OR RESIGN FROM MEMBERSHIP IN, VOLUNTARY AFFILIATION WITH, OR VOLUNTARY FINANCIAL SUPPORT OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
• (B) BECOME OR REMAIN A MEMBER OF A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
• (C) PAY ANY DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES OF ANY KIND OR AMOUNT OR PROVIDE ANYTHING OF VALUE TO A LABOR ORGANIZATION.
• (D) PAY TO ANY CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION OR THIRD PARTY AN AMOUNT THAT IS IN LIEU OF, EQUIVALENT TO, OR ANY PORTION OF DUES, FEES, ASSESSMENTS, OR OTHER CHARGES OR EXPENSES REQUIRED OF MEMBERS OF OR EMPLOYEES REPRESENTED BY A LABOR ORGANIZATION

AN AGREEMENT, CONTRACT, UNDERSTANDING, OR PRACTICE BETWEEN OR INVOLVING AN EMPLOYER AND A LABOR ORGANIZATION THAT VIOLATES SUBSECTION (1) IS UNLAWFUL AND UNENFORCEABLE.

The impact of right-to-work varies depending on who you listen to. Those on the business end, such as chambers of commerce, tend to say right-to-work will only help the economies of the states which adopted them. Union officials and those supporting them of course have a different take on legislation saying that the legislation by itself will not draw in many new companies and/or jobs to the states that adopt it.

The impact on Michigan jobs cannot be measured after only a few months of this measure being signed into law and a three weeks after taking effect. In Indiana, private sector job growth rose throughout 2012 to a tune of 3.4 percent, .7 of a percent higher than the national average. However, unemployment also rose. While the national average was 8.2 percent, Indiana was .4 higher at 8.6 percent. In reality, those numbers can mean a lot of different things and its irresponsible to pin one or the other solely on the passage of right-to-work legislation.

In truth, right-to-work legislation may be more symbolic than anything. While many think of Michigan (and other Midwestern states) as a union stronghold, only 17.5 percent of workers (about 671,100) are union members, down from 40 percent in the 1970s.  At its heart, right-to-work could be construed as a political power play. Unions, by in large, tend to be strong backers of Democratic candidates, meaning the dues that all members pay, regardless of political affiliation, go towards candidates with the D listed next to their name in November.  This does not sit well with all union members of course.

Republicans in Indiana used their overwhelming majority in the Legislature to pass the legislation in 2012 by arguing that it would give the state an additional advantage (besides tax rates) over Illinois and Ohio for any start-up or expanding businesses in the region.  The unspoken added benefit is that it may end up changing how unions do business in Indiana and Michigan.

In order for unions to continue surviving in Indiana and Michigan, they will need to change how they appeal to workers.  Now that a person is no longer required to pay union dues in order to receive union benefits, some incentive will have to be devised. If not, its possible that we could see unions erode steadily in both states.

After all, why pay for something you can get for free?  This will certainly be interesting to watch, especially in Michigan, as the legislative impact will only continue to grow as time passes

Boston Marathon: Jumping to Assumptions (repost)

(EDITOR’S NOTE – this story was originally published on 4/22 in my column at IVN – The MidWest Wing Report)

In the wake of the Boston Marathon bombings we, as a nation, have been tested.  While this incident did not affect us all in the same way, it certainly has impacted us.  Tragedies such as these always lead people into the “who done it” and “why did they do it” discussion.  As soon as the bombings were reported people started saying that “right-wing groups” or “people of Islamic decent” (which I am not even sure if you can be a descendant of a religion) were behind this.  It seems to be a reflex now to assign blame before we even know any of the facts.  Carl Wicklander wrote an excellent piece about this earlier in his column ICON.

I will admit that I even wondered if some sort of super-ultra-conservative group was behind this given the date (April 15th – Tax Day), the fact that it was in Boston (home of the original Tea Party) and it was “Patriot’s Day”.  And I, as you may know, am a Conservative.

To suspect that a group of Islamic fundamentalists was behind the attack also seemed natural given 9/11 and other attacks (attempted or “successful”) of such magnitude.  Yet, so far as we know, that was not the case here either…at least not a large organized group like Al Qaeda,  Hamas, or similar such groups.

However, while those assumptions were verbalized by some in the media, both on air and over twitter, the issue is not them but our mindset as Americans.  You can see/hear/read the reactions in the comment section of news stories, on Twitter and Facebook, the callers on radio shows.  We are quick to point the finger even before we fully know what we are blaming people for doing.

In our haste to paint the blame we use overly large brush strokes, almost always including a large section of people who are not at any fault at all but have a sole, singular connection (race, religion, politics, etc) to those who perpetrated the tragedy to which we are reacting.

Perhaps it is time we all take a step back and remember that when something awful like the Boston Marathon bombings, the Sandy Hook Shootings, and even 9/11 happen, it is because of madmen (and women).  People who are, quite literally, insane…who’s only purpose is to inflict terror on others.  That is the only category we need put these people in – that of terrorist.

Gun Control Debate Isn’t About Guns (repost)

(EDITOR’S NOTE – this story was originally published on 4/12 in my column at IVN – The MidWest Wing Report)

Gun control is certainly not a new issue in the United States but the topic has never been hotter than it is right now.  The fight over the Second Amendment to the Constitution and its bearing upon today’s society is everywhere - the 24-hour news channels on TV, talk radio, the internet, and the front page of every paper in the US.  It seems that every facet of the gun control issue that could be debated is being debated.  The thing is, the argument isn’t really about guns or gun control…its about the role of the federal government, individual liberty and state’s rights

On the surface the argument is over what “the founders intended” when they wrote the Constitution and subsequent amendments to it with the Bill of Rights, the second of which reads “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed“.  However, the reality is that the true debate is over the legislative reach of the federal government, a debate that is as old as our nation.

The line “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” is at the heart of this specific gun control discussion.  There are those who say that when our founding fathers created this amendment they could have never envisioned semi-automatic pistols or rifles with ranges exceeding hundreds of yards.  This is true.  But they also didn’t live in a time when the enemies of our nation, both foreign and domestic,  had such weapons (and much much greater ones) available to them.

Some would say the debate over gun control is similar to those regarding the use of seat-belts and motorcycle helmets.  The danger with those two illustrations is that, more often than not, they only impact the passengers in the car or the riders of the bike.  If I was to compare it to anything using that medium (automobiles/bikes) I would say gun control is similar to the speed-limit laws.  While those laws affect the driver they also affect everyone else on the road, just as gun laws affect the gun owner but also affect others in the community.

Interestingly enough the federal government doesn’t control speed limits – that power resides with the individual states.  Obviously there cannot be a complete corollary but to me the issues seem quite similar.  I doubt that those who formed our nation by rebelling against a tyrannically oppressive government would have an issue with the individual states exerting their authority on this issue.

The people who live Montana or Alaska have different views on gun control than those of Massachusetts or Rhode Island and their laws undoubtedly reflect that.  Those laws have been debated by citizens of those states inside their legislatures and will most certainly continue to be debated there.  More than likely some sort of federal mandate would still be needed on this issue though to ensure that people are not skirting the laws of their home state by purchasing weapons/ammo in a nearby state.  Perhaps that is really what the discussion should be about in Washington- the federal government helping states to enforce the laws they created for their own citizens.

“Accidental Racist” Has Good Intentions (repost)

(EDITOR’S NOTE – this story was originally published on 4/10 in my column at IVN – The MidWest Wing Report)

Country Star Brad Paisley released a new album Wheelhouse yesterday.  While that in itself is not newsworthy outside of Country Music circles, the song Accidental Racist from the album has drawn a lot of flak.  Paisley has received a lot of press regarding this song in the past few days, most of it negative.  However, the saying goes “there is no such thing as bad publicity” – and despite the bad press – I think that is once again the case.  More people are aware of his new album than were a week ago which could result in increased sales.  It is also touching a topic that still deserves a lot of discussion in our Nation.

Paisley has taken to Twitter  to defend this song, a collaboration with LL Cool J.  Below is an exchange he had with Michael Reagan, the son of former president Ronald Reagan:

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

Wow. RT @ReaganWorld: the world would not have heard The Evil Empire Speech or Tear Down This Wall Speech if my father would have…

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

RT @ReaganWorld: listened to the naysayers. He understood as you do, your audience is larger than those who point fingers.

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

RT @ReaganWorld: @BradPaisley Your song speaks the truth.

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

So,as you buy this album,I hope it triggers emotions. I hope you feel joy,heartache,triumph,surprise; you laugh,cry,nudge someone beside you

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

…I hope the album rocks you,soothes you,raises questions,answers,evokes feelings, all the way through until Officially Alive

Brad Paisley ‏@BradPaisley

‘Cause I wouldn’t change a thing. This is a record meant to be FAR from easy listening. But fun. Like life. Have a ball, ya’ll. love- brad

It is interesting to note that LL Cool J, who also co-wrote Accidental Racist, seems to have avoided much of negative press and comments that Paisley has been receiving.  Perhaps that is because the media is focusing on the fact that a Caucasian male, in country music no less, is talking about racism…something that is rather rare.

Country Music is a genre that tends to focus on “what country is” along with relationships rather than bigger picture issues.  When an artist does tackle “issues” in their songs, they tend to focus on economic conditions, the plight of the “working man” and the decline of “small town life”.  So this song is has created a bit of a spectacle in the issue it is trying to address.  in a recent interview with USA Today, Paisley claims this is exactly what he intended.  While the song may never be released as a single, he didn’t “accidentally” record it – he wanted to convey a message to his listeners and to people across the nation.

Racism is far from the only “big” topic that Wheelhouse covers though.  Paisley also covers spousal abuse with a humorous twist in Karate (featuring Charlie Daniels).  In Those Crazy Christians he talks about religion, specifically Christianity, through eyes of a person who is not religious.

I am Brad Paisley fan.  I have bought most, if not all, of his albums.  I enjoy his songs and his take on subjects through his music.  I admire him for this collaboration with LL Cool J.  And while I think it is noteworthy that he is going out of his Southern Comfort Zone to address this controversial issue…I just wish the song was better.  The message is powerful if you listen to it, the music doesn’t match the message though.  He is capable of performing great music and with Accidental Racist he comes up short in that endeavor.

MSNBC and Your Children vs. Our Children

A recent video by MSNBC Host  Melissa Harris-Perry has some Conservative Groups up in arms.  In the past two days I have received emails from a few of these groups responding to the ad.  In fact, if it were not for the emails, I would never have been aware of the ad.  The emails contain the usual “outrage” that most emails of this type include.  A call to action of sorts against the leftist agenda.  One minor problem…there isn’t anything to be upset about.

We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we have always had kind of a private notion of children.  Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility.  We haven’t had a very collective notion of these are our children.  So part of it is that we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities.  Once its everybody’s responsibility and not just the household’s then we start making better investments.

This is likely an instance of “hearing what you want to hear”.  Could the above statement be worded better, more appropriately?  Of course!  Rather than form some sort of vitriolic response, instead look and listen to what the message is and ignore the messenger.  Children in the United States have always been part of the collective.  That is why we have public schools and public universities.  It’s why there is a department of social services (or some similar office) in every state.  If you see a child in danger – YOU do something, regardless of whether or not that child is yours.  Children are the future of our nation and they need to be cared for, educated, protected and loved.

When something like this occurs, I just shake my head.  I get so angry at the people who claim to represent me and my ideals because they are so enamored with making any point they can against “the left”.  Because of who the messenger is, the message is lost, its disregarded.  Our schools DO need to be better.  We DO need to do a better job of getting help for children who are in abusive homes.  We need to create MORE opportunities for all children.  These efforts should not ever take the place of parents and families but should be in addition to those efforts.  Our country depends our children them, we ALL depend on them.

- Sam the Eagle

 

NSF Research – Purdue Appeals to Bucshon

Larry Bucshon, member of the United States House of Representatives. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Recently Congressman Larry Bucshon (R-IN 8) toured Purdue University and met with faculty and research leaders to discuss government sponsored research and its importance to the University.  Congressman Bucshon is the Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Research, so this carries a bit more weight than the normal district work period meet-and-greet.  Additionally, Rep. Bucshon was a heart surgeon prior to being elected to Congress in 2010 so he knows a bit about research and its importance in society.

Visits such as these take place all across the country during district work periods (when the House and/or Senate are not in session).  In a time when federal dollars are under an increasingly precise microscope, the pitches made by faculty members and university officials need to be on target.  University research is an important funding area but the dollars need to be justified to ALL Americans, not just those within the state when federal money is involved.

Often times news outlets will come out with the absurd stories of government research – just do a simple search for “wasteful government research projects”.  However, sometimes what may sound silly actually leads to life-saving developments.  A test on insect larvae could result in new anti-cancer treatments.  Research on spider silk could help develop better personnel armor for our troops.  Looking at how barnacles attach to ships could end up saving our Navy millions in maintenance costs and could lead maximize shipping efficiency (less drag means faster speeds with less required horse-power).

So, while it is of incredible importance to reduce our spending we need to make sure it is not at the risk of jeopardizing future developments that could benefit our State, Nation and ultimately our World.

- Sam the Eagle