Boswell Creates Jobs at Protest

March 22, 2010 11 Comments

On Thursday March 18th I attended the health care bill protest held in front of Congressman’s Boswell’s office on Locust street in Des Moines.

The protest began at 12:30 and as people started showing up to line both sides of the street to protest for and against the bill, workers from Organizing for America were there with a clipboard marking off who was there and placing them in different locations. For those of you unaware, Organizing for America is “the successor organization to Obama for America, building on the movement that elected President Obama by empowering communities across the country to bring about an agenda of change.” Taken directly from their site. Volunteers showed up on both sides chanting, holding signs, and answering questions from the media. There were about 100 protestors, but I did not count. What I did notice was that there were more people there against the bill than were there in favor of it.

The most disturbing part of the protest was not what happened during, but what happened immediately after. At exactly 1:30, one hour after the start of the protest, ALL protestors there in favor of the bill left and went to the Organizing for America office where they were all handed an envelope containing what we were told by one of them was a check for an hours worth of work. YES! You got that right! Supporters for the health care bill were paid to be at that location for one hour. I was shocked, I shouldn’t have been, but I was. When asked why they were only there for an hour, their response was that they only got paid to be there for an hour. So my question is to you astroturf Obama supporters, do you only stand up for something if you are getting paid for it? It makes you wonder because those there protesting the bill and Boswell’s support of the bill were there NOT getting paid and most of us were either losing time from work or taking personal time away from our jobs, families, and lives to support something that we feel strongly for. So for those of you that received that large color tri-fold mailer from the office of Loenard Boswell, paid for by the taxpayers of the 3rd district, touting his plan to create jobs, well….. there you have it!

I just don’t buy the fact that these people care as much as they say they do if they are receiving a check from an organization to scream at other people and cause a disturbance for an hour. Then leaving one hour later, on the dot, as quiet as mice to go pick up a paycheck. So where is this money coming from? I am seriously DISGUSTED!!! After the supporters of the bill left to pick up their checks, We went to Boswell’s office to talk to his staffers who of course were polite, but defended Boswell and all of his actions up to this point. What I want to know now is, what Boswell is getting out of all of this? If those there in support of him are getting paid, what is his compensation?

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , ,

Health Care Rally a Huge Slap in the Face!

August 31, 2009 8 Comments

On Saturday Aug 29, the Obamacare bus came to the Iowa Capitol and many were there to express their opinions. There were those there in support of the health care bill being peddled by our President, while many were there in opposition. The event was deceptively patriotic, and as you can see from the video, several attempts were made to confuse those that were there in dissent. Many attempts were made to confuse those that have actually read the bill and when questions were asked of Iowa’s Attorney General, Tom Miller, those questions were ignored. A luxury bus, paid for by you, the taxpayer, pulled in adjacent to a 12 foot display of old glory. In the moments leading up to the event several organizers and staffers came to where we were standing ordering us to leave, check our signs, move out of the way for the media that never came, and eventually sent in a state trooper. Several times we were asked to move so that the luxury bus and satellite vehicles could make their way through.  Even the Attorney General speaking in favor of the proposed health care bill could not draw up any media attention to this event. In short, the tax payer funded event was small, poorly staged, unorganized, and it was a personal insult to know that my tax dollars went to promote any government program in this manner.

Filed under Politics Tagged with , ,

Fundamentals of Staging Ornery Town Halls

August 9, 2009 4 Comments

Fundamentals of Staging “Ornery” Town Halls.

1. Pick a room that is too small to handle the expected crowd.
2. Set the thermostat for a temp that is above a tolerable level – preferably no air conditioning.
3. Give the initial impression of a town hall meeting format
4. Avoid hot topics by presenting on smaller, less mainstream issues
5. Delay appearance or speaking time of the host – for example highlight presentation on title issue.
6. Time of Day. Hold meetings when inconvenient for largest number of attendees.
7. Have staffers play roles running interference to help representative avoid direct contact or direct questions.
8. Focus on positivity only, be polite and smile no matter the climate in the room. You are there for THEM!

With all of the recent media attention regarding wildly out of control town hall meetings, one must consider the recent meetings that have been held in Iowa and how they compare to the above list. When do we start to see a pattern emerging? The media is thriving off video showcasing mobs of screaming, angry individuals being planted by local conservative groups to throw off Democrats in Washington.

Consider these fundamentals when attending these town halls; with our video cameras, note pads, and lists of questions. Are we being lured into a town hall setting by the enabling hosts, our elected officials? Are we being lured to showcase an event that appears to be wildly out of control? Are we being lured to these events to appear unruly and hostile to discredit our intentions? Who is really staging these events, the so-called angry mob, or our seemingly gracious hosts? One should only look as far back as WWII to the Nazi propaganda films that were perfected by using these basic staging principals.

As we look to our representatives for accountability and answers at these so called meetings we get responses such as: “you’re in a mood” “You’re being adversarial.” “I’m not taking questions” “We’re not talking about that today.”

As we try to get one on one time with our elected officials, their staffers are heading us off at the pass, assuring us of our voice. We are being directed away from the hosts, our representatives, so they are not barraged with our questions and discontent.

Prime examples of these staging fundamentals can be seen in the most recent “town halls” held just last week. Marcia Hora from Ankeny, who attended a Small Business Forum in Chariton on Friday Aug 7th hosted by Congressman Leonard Boswell, stated that almost all of these staging fundamentals were present. Marcia reports that not only did the Congressman stand up, point his finger, and sternly refuse to answer questions at this unpublicized event, his staffers ran interference for him as he walked out. Congressman Boswell did not even let the crowd know he would be unavailable for questions, leaving people so angry that mass confusion ensued. People circled the small room asking anyone and everyone how they could get the Congressman to listen to them. None of his staffers were able to provide any attendees with answers.

A town hall meeting in Des Moines on Sat Aug 8th hosted by Senator Tom Harkin was reported to be held in a small room with no air conditioning or fans. The location of the meeting was significant such that it is being turned into a medical clinic and pharmacy thanks to the stimulus package. And it might be important to note that this meeting was also held in an area of Des Moines known for its lower income residents.

So consider these conditions as you head to your local “town halls.” Who really is staging these events?

Filed under Politics Tagged with , ,

House parties bringing politics to the people

June 28, 2009 6 Comments

Saturday I attended a house party event for Bob Vander Plaats. I had never been to one before so I wasn’t completely sure what to expect. There were probably a total of 20 people there so there was plenty of opportunity to mingle and talk with other individuals in a very informal comfortable setting. If you are ever invited to one of these I highly encourage you to go!

The most amazing part of the experience was actually speaking with Bob and getting to know him on a more personal level not only through a one on one conversation but also as he addressed the group. Bob discussed his reason for entering into a gubernatorial race as well as why he has continued to do so throughout the years. The reason may surprise you. Bob is not, or ever has been a politician; he is simply an Iowan that feels he has been called to serve. As Bob would explain to you, he has spent his life serving the people of Iowa in many capacities.

This is a rare quality in just any human being these days, but why would we expect any less out of our elected officials?

Bob discussed the areas of most importance to him, especially the platforms that he had run on in previous elections, being education; bringing that back to the locally controlled level and letting teachers teach, businesses; work on attracting good businesses to our state through creative ways to keep our college grads here, health care; not controlled by a corporation or government, but putting the control in the hands of those who use it – US!

The conversation was good, the passion was definitely there, and Bob has a plan for our state. For me, this is a relief as I feel like most other Iowans do, that our state is winding through a black hole and there is no light

Bob fervently discussed his stance on marriage in Iowa and the recent Supreme Court decision. As an educator, Bob is well versed on explaining how our state government let the judicial branch, the weakest of the 3, make a law that affects every Iowan. Because the other 2 branches of our government did not do their due diligence and take the reins after the decision was handed down, our great state may be headed down a path where the weakest branch of our government may start to further control the lives of Iowans. Bob articulated how important it is for all 3 branches to work together to serve the people of Iowa with the people’s best interests in the forefront of their minds.

After Bob spoke to the group, he asked for questions. And people spoke up. Like I said in the beginning, if you get a chance to attend one of these events, do so. If you are interested in finding out where one is, let us know, we can help you locate one.

Bob wants you to know about him personally, but more importantly he wants to know what you care about and if you don’t personally tell him, how will he? How many opportunities will you be able chat one on one with a gubernatorial candidate –and a front runner at that?

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , ,

Technology Creating Families or Creating Social Issues?

June 21, 2009 6 Comments

An ongoing battle in the United States Supreme Court is being waged on whether Social Security benefits should be given to dependants of deceased individuals. That is, children conceived after the death of a parent. Patti Beeler of West Branch, Iowa has been fighting this court battle seeking benefits for her now 6 year old daughter who was born 2 years after her father’s death. After being denied benefits, Mrs. Beeler had taken her case all the way to the Supreme Court stating that her daughter, Brynn, is entitled to the money her father paid into Social Security before his death.

At first glance of this story in the DM Rag many thoughts started running around in my head. My first thought was that Mrs. Beeler had knowingly had a child as a single mom and was now asking the state for money to help raise this child. Moreover, Mrs. Beeler used invitro-fertilization, a very costly procedure to begin with. My second thought was “How dare this woman take the state for a ride and expect the state of Iowa to help her care for a child that was conceived a year after the death of the father. I kept coming back to the point that this woman entered into single parenthood, knowingly, with a very costly procedure and wanted help. She knowingly entered into a situation where she would be a financial responsibility of the state. When you look at it this way it seems pretty ridiculous and clear cut to me. Why should Social Security, a benefit that can’t keep up with the aging population, be further stretched to include offspring conceived after the death of a spouse?

One could also condemn Mrs. Beeler for conceiving a child knowing that she would be raising this child without the child’s father.  Whether or not the deceased spouse, Bruce Beeler, consented to postmortem parenthood, does not necessarily mean that this was in the best interest of the child.  If this was the case, however, should the parents not have considered the financial obligations of this beforehand? Not knowing what the outcome would be to seeking benefits for an unborn child, is it safe to rely on this to raise a child? Does the child of Patti and Bruce Beeler deserve to brought into this world to be raised in a single parent household as well as be a financial dependant of the state.

These were my thoughts before I read the story of course.

There is a softer side to this argument, and by reading the article in the Des Moines Register I learned that there is more to this story than meets the eye. Not long after the Bruce and Patti Beeler met, they were engaged, with plans to have a family. Not long after that, Bruce was diagnosed with leukemia and stored his genetic material so that after treatment the couple would be able to conceive.  But, as the couple planned a wedding they also planned a funeral and was witnessed signing a document giving consent to the use of Bruce’s genetic material after death.

Knowing this side of the debate, is it safe to argue that because Bruce paid into Social Security and children that were born of him are now entitled to it, no matter the date of conception? Should this pass in the Supreme Court, a wide range of questions need to be answered?  How many children could a person have using a deceased spouses genetic material and still seek benefits? What time limits will be placed on the conception of the children that benefits will be sought for? What constitutes consent between a living and a dead spouse? Should the current state of our Social Security system be weighed when making this decision in the courts? What other types of non-traditional parenthood could also be affected by this Supreme Court decision?

But I think, in the end, that we should go back to the fact that this is now a single parent household. Do we want to further encourage adults to continue to make decisions about having children just to keep the memory alive, even if it is the will of the deceased?  Is this fair? Is it fair to the child? Is it fair to the state? Is this something that we should encourage knowing that children raised in a home with 2 parents are far better off than when raised in a single parent household?

Filed under Politics Tagged with , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 696 other followers