. . . because much of the content relates both to Washington, D.C., and "outside the beltway" -- the heartland, specifically Iowa -- and because after going from Iowa to Washington via Texas and California I subsequently returned, From DC 2 Iowa.
Update July 25, 3:27 p.m. CT: Nate Silver 538 projects if election were held today [July 25] Trump would win by 54.5 to 45.5% for Hillary (percentages change over time).
Update on polls; July 30, 2016: They vary, both over time and between pollsters. The only one that really matters, because it is definitive, is the one that counts voters' ballots on November 8, 2016. Meanwhile, here is what The New York Times "National Polling Average" reported on July 30, 2016: Hillary Clinton 42.6%, Donald Trump 42.1% -- in other words, a toss-up. Of the 5 polls averaged, among the 3 putting Clinton ahead they range from 43-42% to 40-35%; the two favoring Trump are 48-45% and 44-40%. Results for 11 swing states show Clinton leading in 9, by 0.2% (Ohio) and 1.3% (Florida) to 4.5% (Virginia) and 7.0% (Wisconsin). Trump leads in Georgia by 3.3% and Missouri by 8.2%. "2016 Election Polls; National Polling Average,"New York Times, July 30, 2016.
_______________
As a lifelong Democrat, I have for some years now been discouraged by the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and others who are considered members of the Party's establishment (many of whom are superdelegates). So discouraged that I'm going to undertake a two-part blog experiment.
Today [Monday, July 25, 2016] before watching any of the Democratic National Convention, or reading any of the news reports coming from Philadelphia, I'm going to write about some of the reasons for my discouragement. Later this week, once the Convention is concluded, I plan to write on the same subject once again to see what impact the Convention has had on my thinking.
It is not my purpose in this blog essay to deal with the personalities or qualifications of Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donald Trump, or others. It is, rather, to address the way in which the Party, as a Party, has positioned itself in today's America. [Photo credit: Maring Photography; Contour by Getty Images.]
The Democratic Party establishment has historically served, and been supported by, the poor, working poor, working class, union members, family farmers and a broad range of other demographic groups. Were it still both perceived and actually functioning as such, it could elect a majority of officials from school boards and city councils to the U.S. Senate, House and White House. While there are still occasional nods in the direction of the unrepresented, the Party's leadership has become -- and obviously wishes to remain -- funded by, and the legislative advocates for, Wall Street, large corporations, and the top 1% of America's socio-economic elite. It's mission, far more than the enactment of populist policies, is the perpetual re-election of office holders whose highest priority daily activity is raising money.
In the latter years of the 20th Century this evolution might not have been very honorable, but at least it could still work.
The question is whether it will still work in this or any other country when one considers the Tea Party, Occupy movement, Brexit, and the unprecedented numbers and enthusiasm of the supporters of both Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders.
Whether justified or not, millions of angry Americans now look upon government, corporations, other powerful institutions, and those who run them, not just as uncaring for people like themselves, but as an enemy, deliberately adopting policies and budgets knowing the harms they will impose.
I am not arguing, in this essay at this time, that every Democratic Party official should have joined the Bernie Sanders campaign. But to so obviously trivialize, or oppose, his candidacy -- now documented in the DNC emails revealed by Wikileaks (not that it wasn't well known before) -- and carry on with 20th Century politics, was unnecessary and counter productive. For the angry Americans, independents, youth, Democrats, Republicans, and others, it was "a poke in the eye with a sharp stick."
However experienced and well qualified for the presidency Hillary Clinton may be thought to be, when millions of potential voters (and what may turn out to be non-voters) have taken to the streets with pitchforks in hand, for the Party leadership to offer them its preeminent establishment icon only confirms their worst fears about their Democratic Party, not to mention America's future and their own.
And that's, I believe, "Why Trump May Win."
Having written this, I now discover I'm not the only one with this assessment.
Michael Moore has written his analysis of why there is not just a chance that Trump could win, but "5 Reasons Why Trump Will Win."
Frankly, I think that all politics is too volatile to ever predict, with certainty, what will happen 100 days in the future. But I certainly share Moore's sense that Trump could win, and that he has a much greater chance of doing so than the Democratic Party establishment's actions indicate it understands.
Moore's analysis is too long to reproduce here in its entirety. But here are such clues as you may be able to pull from his five headings: (1) Midwest Math, or Welcome to Our Rust Belt Brexit, (2) The Last Stand of the Angry White Man, (3) The Hillary Problem, (4) The Depressed Sanders Vote, and (5) The Jesse Ventura Effect.
Robert Reich takes a comparable view. Here are some brief excerpts:
Does Hillary Clinton understand that the biggest divide in American politics is no longer between the right and the left, but between the anti-establishment and the establishment?
I worry she doesn’t –- at least not yet. . . .
In fairness, Hillary is only doing what she knows best. Moving to the putative center is what Bill Clinton did . . ..
But this view is outdated. . . .
The most powerful force in American politics today is anti-establishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations, Wall Street, and the super-wealthy.
This is a big reason why Donald Trump won the Republican nomination. It’s also why Bernie Sanders took 22 states in the Democratic primaries, including a majority of Democratic primary voters under age 45.
There are no longer “moderates.” There’s no longer a “center.” There’s authoritarian populism (Trump) or democratic populism . . ..
If Hillary Clinton and the Democratic Party don’t recognize this realignment, they’re in for a rude shock -– as, I’m afraid, is the nation. Because Donald Trump does recognize it. His authoritarian (“I’ am your voice”) populism is premised on it. . . .
Most basically, the anti-establishment wants big money out of politics. This was the premise of Bernie Sanders’s campaign. It’s also been central to Donald (“I’m so rich I can’t be bought off”) Trump’s appeal . . ..
Last January, a Des Moines Register poll of likely Iowa caucus-goers found 91 percent of Republicans and 94 percent of Democrats unsatisfied or “mad as hell” about money in politics.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t need to move toward the “middle.” . . .
She needs to move instead toward the anti-establishment –- forcefully committing herself to getting big money out of politics, and making the system work for the many rather than a privileged few.
Michael Moore, Ralph Nader, Supreme Court Day, and "Master Harold . . . and the boys" (brought to you by FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com*)
At the University of Iowa College of Law it's Supreme Court Day. At 1000 movie theaters across America it's "Capitalism: A Love Story." In the bookstores is Ralph Nader's new book -- are you ready for this? -- a novel, or as he calls it a "practical utopia," and a big one in physical size, imagination and scope: Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.
And if you haven't seen it yet, tonight and tomorrow night (October 3 and 4) are the last nights for the must-see local Dreamwell performance of "Master Harold . . . and the boys," 7:30 at 10 South Gilbert (although otherwise unaffiliated with the Unitarian-Universalist Church). Not only is this play brilliantly written, acted and directed, it has a message for America in general, and Iowa City in particular, as we continue to struggle with the remnants of racism in our midst, as much as a post-apartheid South Africa once did.
Moore's new film has been called "moving beyond words" (New York Times), a "magnum opus" (Time), "scathing, effective and hilarious" (Bloomberg), "warmly received" (AP), "quintessential Moore" (USA Today), "classic" (Los Angeles Times), "one of his best films" (Variety; Jay Leno said it's not just "one of" it is "his best"), a "fireball of a movie [that] could change your life" (Rolling Stone), "rousing and entertaining" (The Independent), playing to what The Guardian says has been "tumultuous applause."
There will again be those with a different view, who will complain that this is not a true documentary. Well, of course not. He never said it was. His is a new genre of film: docu-tainment. Go and enjoy it. Millions do. If you learn something along the way, so much the better.
Ironically, Ralph Nader is not an anti-capitalist. He is, if anything, trying to save the capitalist system from itself in order than it may continue with a little more positive impact on the people than now. (For all we know Michael Moore, down deep, may be doing the same. After all, he's done all right financially in this economy. But if he's truly an ideological capitalist it's less obvious from his films so far.)
And here is Ralph Nader's explanation of his "practical utopia" on WNYC in New York on September 23 of last week:
During the 1970s, Ralph Nader could fairly be credited with more progressive legislation than any individual U.S. Senator. He has been one of the most creative thinkers regarding the organization and funding of citizen movements, such as his "Public Interest Research Groups" ("PIRGs") and "Citizen Utility Boards ("CUBs"). He's been generous with his time, money, and willingness to give others the credit -- creating the innovative idea, implementing it, attracting others to run it, spinning it off to them, and funding its beginning.
During the 1980s and beyond he became increasingly discouraged with the democratic possibilities under our two party system, as both parties grew ever more dependent on the funding from corporations and other special interests. The differences between them existed in some areas, but they were not very noticeable when it came to corporate subsidies and tax breaks or the military-industrial-complex's Pentagon budget.
We are witnessing as I write this a real disconnect; the distance has become ever greater between Washington and the rest of the country. While a majority of Americans (along with some very candid generals) think a "military win in Afghanistan" is an oxymoron, those politicians funded by the military-industrial complex think sending more troops there is a really terrific idea. The NRA is able to trump the 80% of Americans who think our gun laws may have something to do with our nation's highest-in-the-world deaths from handguns. Big Pharma is invited to the White House for a closed-door deal that will prevent negotiating down their excessive prescription prices. A clear plurality-to-majority of Americans want universal-single-payer health care -- and it's now touch-and-go to unlikely they're even going to get a "public option." Instead of creating government jobs, like FDR did in the last "Great Depression," Congress and the President chose to fund corporate CEOs and bankers -- profits over people, corporations over constituents.
For Nader's entire 20th Century career he rebuffed the pleas of Americans that he run for office. He felt, correctly, that he could get more done during those years as a "Public Citizen," as he called his role, than with the perceptions of conflict of interest that accompanying public office.
But as "pay to play" increasingly became the accepted norm in Washington, the parties grew closer to each other in their support of the special interests that were their largest contributors, and Nader relented. The days of 1970s-style reform were over. Someone with his passion for making America the best that it could be realized that something new had to be tried.
He agreed to run for president, to see if the threat of a third party might -- as it had in America's earlier years -- move the parties' leadership closer to their constituents' best interests. His efforts contributed to the progressive movement in many ways. But those efforts also produced a venomous response from those Democrats who put re-election of Democrats, and unquestioning party loyalty, ahead of the public policy benefits for all the people for which Democratic presidents like Franklin D. Roosevelt, Lyndon Johnson, and others had fought so hard.
After all, said the Democrats, candidates need money to win elections (although Senator Bill Proxmire managed to run statewide in Wisconsin for $30 -- the cost of postage to return the unsolicited campaign contributions), and if Democrats have to sell their souls to the company store to get that money, well, so be it. After all, think of the alternative: ugh, Republicans!
Whether he's totally abandoned running for president remains to be seen. But what does seem obvious is that this brilliant, dedicated and innovative reformer has now imagined and seen a new light once again: the literature of utopia. In the video clip, above, he speaks of Edward Bellamy's Looking Backward: 2000-1887 -- obviously at least a part of the motivation for Ralph's choosing his new utopian road "less traveled by."
Why fiction? he's asked. Because non-fiction, he has come to see, makes dreaming difficult. Like Robert Kennedy, Ralph Nader also dreams of things that never were and asks, "Why not?"
He offers us his latest dream in Only the Super-Rich Can Save Us.
May it inspire the dreams of all of us -- including those young law students from America, India and China who will be gathered for dinner with Iowa Supreme Court Justice Mark Cady at my home on this Supreme Court Day at the University of Iowa College of Law. _______________ * Why do I put this blog ID at the top of the entry, when you know full well what blog you're reading? Because there are a number of Internet sites that, for whatever reason, simply take the blog entries of others and reproduce them as their own without crediting the source. I don't mind the flattering attention, but would appreciate acknowledgment as the source, even if I have to embed it myself. -- Nicholas Johnson
"We're glad to hear Gov. Chet Culver say emphatically, 'Iowa will go first, that is the bottom line,' but . . . at the rate the process is speeding up, the parties might as well hold their caucuses for the 2012 election at the same time."
"Man Bites Dog" is often used as an example of what makes news: the unusual, the unexpected. By that standard why does the Press-Citizen headline: "Romney Tops Straw Poll" (hardcopy only; not online; reference to Register) and the Register"Romney's Drive Pays Off"?
Where's the "news"? Romney blanketed the state with straw-poll-focused TV commercials prior to the event, spent something like $1,000,000 by the time he'd brought in 100 bus loads of voters -- old Chicago style -- and then fed and entertained them, and paid the Republican $35 poll tax for each of them to vote at an "election" in which the leading contenders weren't even participating! (Fred Thompson, who has not even entered the race and didn't show up, got 1.4% of the vote; Rudy Giuliani 1.3%; and John McCain 0.7%. Thus, two of these non-contenders got more than two "straw poll candidates": Duncan Hunter, 1.2%; John Cox, 0.3%.)
What's the significance of "tops straw poll" in an election in which three of the leading contenders aren't even running?
At that, Romney only got 4516 votes from the 33,000 Republicans in attendance -- 13.7% (although 31.6% of those actually voting).
The real news (as I see it) is Mike Huckabee's second place finish (18.1%). At least The Gazette, alone among this morning's papers, bothered to note in a sub-head, "Huckabee Takes Second Place." (It also had the most useful front-page information: a layout of the 11 candidates pictures, votes and percentages.) Huckabee had no pre-poll TV commercials and a fraction of Romney's money. He's essentially splitting the Christian conservative vote with Sam Brownbeck (who came in third at 15.3%) -- all of which makes Huckabee's victory even more remarkable (and newsworthy). (Together Huckabee and Brownback had 33.4% of the vote -- more than Romney -- and when one or the other drops out much of their support will probably go to the one who remains.) Rod Boshart and James Lynch, "GOP Straw Poll Voters Pick Romney; Huckabee Takes Second Place; Brownback Third,"The Gazette, August 12, 2007, p. A1.
"Huckabee's a Winner! Stuns Iowa's Republicans and Journalists." That would have been my headline. Then maybe a sub-head, "Romney Buys Most Votes." Something like that.
Anyone my age will remember the story of the "Three Little Pigs." The moral -- at least encouraged, if not actually underwritten, by the brick manufacturers' trade association -- is that brick is a more substantial building material than straw for those needing protection from wolves with above-average lung capacity.
An infrastructure built on straw and rust makes no more sense than a housing program relying on straw. And not incidentally, pouring steel-eroding salt on icy bridges made of steel doesn't make a lot more sense these days than the old advice to "pour oil on troubled waters."
Children's stories and analogies aside, the Des Moines Register takes a serious look at infrastructure this morning with its lead editorial and two very well-written columns from Dick Doak and Ismael Hossein-Zadeh (along with David Yepsen's conclusion that at least in Iowa, when it comes to infrastructure "politics will trump policy").
Editorial, "Bill is Due to Shore Up Infrastructure,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 1 ("the American Society of Civil Engineers . . . puts the grand total of America's infrastructure needs at $1.6 trillion).
Richard Doak, "Quit Tax Breaks; Rebuild America Instead,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 3 ("Might there be a connection between the deplorable state of the nation's infrastructure and the penchant for giving away public money to private enterprises?")
Ismael Hossein-Zadeh, "What Drives Neglect? Tax Cuts, Military Spending,"Des Moines Register, August 12, 2007, p. OP 3. ("[F]or the same amount of money [as the cost of the Iraq War in 2007, $140 billion, we could have had]: 13,842 new elementary schools, or 39 million people with health care, or 19 million Head Start places for children.")
Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko" -- his best work to date, and a film that should be seen by every American who believes they may someday require medical care -- makes the persuasive point that even those Americans who do have health insurance (not to mention the 45 million who don't) aren't getting what they're paying for (so long as insurance companies, and their executives and employees, are economically enriched by denying rather than paying claims).
For those who stubbornly cling to the ideological fantasy that our profit-maximizing, claim-denying, capitalist, insurance-company dictated, disease-treating system for the rich gives us the world's best health care system, now comes more solid statistical evidence that it doesn't.
Twenty years ago Americans ranked 11th in the world in life expectancy -- a measure clearly relevant in comparing countries' health care systems. Today we've dropped to 42nd. It doesn't help that one-third of us are obese and two-thirds are overweight -- as but one bit of evidence of our unhealthy lifestyles -- but clearly our mean-spirited and broken health care delivery system bears a major responsibility.
For those who ridicule Moore for using Cuba as an example of a good health care system, consider this. A baby born in Cuba has a better chance of surviving its first year than a baby born in the U.S. That's right; Cuba has a better infant mortality rate than we do. It turns out that we're also 42nd in the world in infant mortality -- 41 countries do a better job than we do -- another common and relevant comparative measure. Infant mortality in Beijing is 4.6 per thousand births; in New York City it's 6.5.
And, hey, you "right-to-life" folks, isn't the death of a new-born at least as much of a loss of life as aborting a fetus before it's born by means of an abortion? Why aren't you lobbying for a universal, single-payer health care (not "health insurance") system? Do you realize if we did as well as Singapore we'd have more than 18,900 additional surviving babies each year?
Press-Citizen wants public back in "public health" Four speak out on "Sicko" Pomerantz to get honorary degree from UI UI buildings on Regents' agenda "Big Ten Network" in big tough negotiations
The Des Moines Register continues its four-day series on so-called "health insurance" and the companies that provide the non-coverage. This morning it has seven more pieces on the subject. (I may or may not identify, and add links to, each of them later. Meanwhile, just check the online Register site. You'll find them -- and yesterday's.)
Meanwhile, the anonymous blog commentator "John Barleykorn" has just kindly emailed me a link to a story in Washington's conservative paper, The Washington Times, regarding the Canadian system. Gregory Lopes, "In Reversal, Canada Dabbles with Health Care Privatization," July 22, 2007. While it must necessarily point out the disadvantages of the Canadian system, and the advantages of the "marketplace" for all purposes, given the source it is a remarkably balanced piece.
Bottom line: No one can question the advantages of the universal, single-payer systems available to all the citizens of the world living in civilized, industrialized nations. It's irrefutably in the numbers. (1) Canadians, for example, enjoy better health than we do, measured by such things as infant mortality and life expectancy. The U.S. ranks well down the list. (2) Every single person is provided this free service; health care is considered a citizen's right (like K-12 education is here) not just one more profit-maximizing corporate corner of the economy. Some 45 million American's don't have the necessary ticket for access to health care: health insurance; and of those who do, for many it only covers them a part of the year, or they discover the condition for which they need health care is the condition their insurance company won't pay for. (3) The total cost of these systems -- even though they cover everyone and our system only covers some lucky few -- are dramatically below the cost of ours.
There are undoubtedly horrible stories of delays and malpractice that can be told by individuals in any nation's health care system -- ours included. (As a kid, with regular U.S. medical care, I often had to wait entire days beyond my scheduled appointment to see a doctor.) There are some problems in our system that don't exist in other countries; some in other countries that don't exist here. There are ways other countries' systems try to hold costs to reasonable levels (the Times story points out that dental is not covered in Canada), and ways our insurance companies do here.
But individuals' anecdotal stories aside, the bottom line remains: other countries provide health care to all as a right, as a result of which their people are healthier and live longer, and it costs them less than what our system costs for providing care to fewer individuals.
And see, below, the anonymous comment from "North Liberty" regarding the possible benefits of a properly structured multiple system (which is, in fact, a variation of what many of the "universal, single payer" systems have in reality).
"Sicko"
The Daily Iowan has a balanced movie review of "Sicko" this morning (Paul Sorenson, "The U.S. Sick System") that tends to focus on the film (as a "movie review" should, of course) more than the public policy questions.
Wellmark Naming
The Gazette awards a Gomer to Marvin Pomerantz for his "childish" my-way-or-the-highway, I'm-taking-my-marbles fit ("Bratish Behavior," p. A4), and the Press-Citizen has another letter to the editor this morning opposing corporate naming of University colleges and buildings (Charles Laudie, "Wrong to Sell Public Education Names") -- in addition to those yesterday.
And don't miss, from "Anonymous'" comment, below, the possibilities of selling off naming righs to athletic teams: "I want Frank Perdue to have naming rights to the football team. We could be the Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes." That one might seriously go for a lot of money, especially with a tie-in monopoly right to sell fried chicken pieces in the stands. Only problem: When the "Perdue-Iowa Chicken-Hawkeyes" play the "Purdue Broiler-makers." You know, "which comes first, the chicken or the broiler?"
Gambling's Gomer
The Gazette awards another of its "prestigious" Gomers this morning to the gambling industry ("Side Effect," p. A4) that, along with increasing its gross revenues in Iowa is increasing the number of gambling addicts and problem gamblers seeking help -- with all the social and economic costs gambling imposes on any people who believe they can gamble their way to a state's economic development.
Yesterday [July 9] I said I was going to swear off blogging and get some work done -- primarily for want of any news worthy of commentary. One day later, as if to take up my challenge and prove to me that they can find news related to the subjects tracked by this blog, the papers are full of it again today [July 10]. No lengthy essays from me. But you'll at least want the links to the updates.
Wellmark: "Well then, if you're not going to accept our money we're just not going to give you the money. So there!"
[July 12] Marvin Pomerantz, an exceedingly generous benefactor of the UI and other Iowa institutions and projects, a former Wellmark board member, chair and prime mover of the College of Public Health Capital Campaign Committee, says he is "embarrassed" by the rejection of the Wellmark offer to purchase the name of the College in perpetuity for $15 million.
With respect, I think to the extent there is any embarrassment felt by Pomerantz, lead Wellmark director John Colloton and Wellmark CEO John Forsyth -- all involved in this proposal -- it is an embarrassment of their own making. When Forsyth says, as he has, that Wellmark did not envision that its effort to buy the name of the College "would spawn the negative reaction" that it has it indicates either (1) a lack of prior research and consultation or (2) an arrogant sense of entitlement that Wellmark's money should enable it to buy anything, along with a willingness to steamroller over opposition he knew would be there. It's an embarrassment that they thought of the idea; that they went ahead with it; and that they've reacted with such a petulant "I'm taking my marbles and going home" display. Those are the things that make this fiasco embarrassing. What the College did in rejecting the proposal is in no way embarrassing.
On the other hand, there's something the University does need to address. That's Pomerantz' comment that "we think they [the UI administration and faculty] were making rules up as they went along." I have no way of knowing what happened. I wasn't there. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pomerantz is dead on about that assertion.
Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?"Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.
The issue here is not whether corporations and business are "bad." We are surrounded daily with evidence to the contrary provided by everything from the start-ups of our youngest entrepreneurs to our oldest and largest corporations.
The issue is whether we wish to maintain a sanctuary anywhere in our society from the values and pressures of profit maximization -- churches, national parks, what was created to be a "non-commercial" radio service and is now larded with commercials? The academy does seem to be well into a similar transition from a cloistered sanctuary for the free education of students to a corporate-sponsored and administered jobs training program (from which the banks prosper with the interest on the student loans necessary to pay the ever-rising tuition). Because it is a transition we may well be, as Pomerantz suggests, "making rules up" as we go along.
As I discuss in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," linked above, the issues go well beyond the naming of universities, colleges, buildings -- indeed, anything large enough to hold a plaque. I won't repeat here that list of potential issues confronting our new UI President, Sally Mason. But if we are, in fact, making up the rules as we go along I would humbly suggest that we pause a moment to think through with deliberation the issues and the policies that we wish to pursue rather than continue to wander down a road littered with the kind of improvised explosive devices that we've just seen triggered.
(And while we're doing it, the Press-Citizen's thoughtful editorial this morning [July 12] to the contrary notwithstanding, consider the possibility that it does not necessarily follow that a red hot solution to the Wellmark naming controversy would have been to take the money but not name the building -- even if that option had been available, which it never was. It is the taking of the money (in some circumstances, including this one) that creates the conflict of interest. The naming of the building for the corporate donor only advertises one's willingness to engage in such conflicts, one's having finally swapped one's ethics for money after, as Shaw put it, "haggling over price." Editorial, "Wellmark Should Give a True Gift to Health College,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 12, 2007.
[July 11] Rekha Basu, "U of I Shows Healthy Respect for Its Good Name,"Des Moines Register, July 11, 2007 ("The University of Iowa's school of public health deserves a great big bouquet of roses for proving that not everything is for sale, especially not its name. . . . The fact is, insurance industry goals can be at odds with public-health ones. (Go see "Sicko" if you have any doubt about that). Promoting public health doesn't always line up well with the profit motive in health care. . . . It's too bad Wellmark can't respect the integrity behind the college's decision and has chosen, instead, to take its marbles and go home. . . . [because] withholding the money says it was essentially looking for an ad buy rather than wanting to make a gift. No one needs reminding of the extent to which corporations already run most facets of American life, from the chain newspaper to the chain restaurant to the sports stadiums and arenas that already trumpet the big names in corporate America.")
Alan Jensen, "Lower insurance premiums better than naming rights, The Gazette, July 11, 2007, p. A4 ("If Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield has $15 million to give the University of Iowa for naming rights, they can most certainly cut our health insurance premiums.")
Wellmark executives, still looking for a college where everyone will know their name, have been singing the old "Cheers" theme lyrics: "Sometimes you want to go/Where everybody knows your name,/and they're always glad you came./You wanna be where you can see,/our troubles are all the same/You wanna be where everybody knows/Your name."
"What we've got here is failure to communicate." Two quotes in The Gazette's version of this story tell a lot about the growing gap between the perspective of the academy and that of the corporate world -- a gap that President Sally Mason will confront the moment she sets foot on the Pentacrest.
"traditional and outdated precepts" John Forsyth, CEO, Wellmark, in email to Jim Merchant, Dean, UI College of Public Health: "I would submit that the real challenge for academic leaders like you is to create a mind-set of leading and embracing change . . . over traditional and outdated precepts such as the need to separate academic from commercial interests."
Interim President Gary Fethke: "I regret that the discussion of this generous donation failed to focus on the substantial benefits of corporate partnerships for our students, faculty and staff."
The other presents one of the usual industry attacks on Michael Moore and his film, Brett Skinner, "Canada's 'Sicko' Care,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 11, 2007. Skinner says, for example, "Michael Moore is not interested in . . . facts. He makes fictional films."
For a sample of the kind of point by point by documented point response Moore and his supporters can make to such libelous charges, see "'Sicko Truth Squad Sets CNN Straight," July 10, 2007.
And don't miss James Clay Fuller, "Sicko: Commenting on the Commentaries,"Twin Cities Daily Planet, July 10th, 2007 5:26 am ("Apparently there is a rule in corporate journalism that every mention of [Michael] Moore and his films . . . must contain at least two snide observations about his . . . attacks on rich and powerful but somehow –- in the eyes of the corporate journalists -- defenseless people such as the chairman of General Motors, and, if you can slide it in, Moore's physical appearance" -- all from a journalist who says he's never met or communicated with Moore).
If you'd like to watch CNN's slashing, false attack on "Sicko," and Moore's on-camera response (the piece to which the "truth squad's" textual analysis relates), here it is:
Kathryn Fiegen, "Residents Must Wait to See Sicko,"Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2007 (theater monopolist executive says, "Marcus Theatres' primary business is to show films with broad commercial appeal." Why does this sound so reminiscent of the instructions a major advertiser once gave the radio networks regarding the programs it sponsored: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort"?)
Iowans' Gambling Losses Increase Someone's "Economic Growth" -- Just Not Ours
Reason Rules on Tax Shift Onto Poor: 85% Vote "No" on "Yes to Destiny"
A little-noticed story in last Saturday's Gazette caught my eye. It was a report of a town-meeting-type exchange between Senator Chuck Grassley and some of his West Branch constituents. One asked him, "Would you rescind your authorization of the war?" Another "deplored the inequity of the 15 percent capital gains tax" (reduced from 20%) compared with ordinary income tax rates. A third commented regarding import protections for fertilizer companies -- driving up prices. "It's unfair that farmers are expected to sell their crops on a global market but cannot buy their fertilizer on a global market." Grassley's answers. (1) No. (2) "He defended the lowered tax, saying it expanded the nation's economy . . .." (3) "Grassley took notes." Marlene Lucas, "East Iowans Question War, Taxes; Grassley Defends Policies, Takes Notes,"The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. B2.
Yesterday (see Morelli's story, linked above within this blog entry) we read Wellmark CEO Forsyth's comment regarding his efforts to put the company's name on the College of Public Health, ""Neither Wellmark BlueCross and BlueShield nor Wellmark Foundation envisioned that their [gift and naming proposal] would spawn the negative reaction that has been reported in news media,' John Forsyth wrote to James Merchant, dean of the College of Public Health on Friday."
UI's athletic program and other administrators were seemingly also taken by surprise earlier at the adverse reaction to the use of the Iowa Fights song and the University's name and setting for an Iowa Lottery television commercial encouraging increased gambling by Iowans.
And so were the board members of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union who were so confident the members would just go along with the new name they enthusiastically accepted from a high-paid corporate consultant, "Optiva," that they didn't think it necessary to check with the members first.
There are two observations I'd make about these stories. (1) The gap between the lives, interests, understandings, concerns and opinions of the wealthy, corporate ruling elites in this country, and those of the 90% of all Americans who suffer at their hands, is growing even faster than the gap in their campaign-contribution-provided incomes and those of the rest of us. (2) There seems to be an upswing in the willingness of the 90% to do something about the uninformed and unfeeling overreaching by those elites. That can only be healthy for America in the long run.
Resources from Resources for Life Conference Now Online
I earlier mentioned "Resources for Life." Presentations at the Resources for Life Conference, held in Iowa City July 7 and 8, are now in streaming audio available here (scroll down to "200707" and then "Resources for Life Conference 07-07-07" and then click on a presenter's name).
As it happened, there was no news this morning crying out with an urgent need for my commentary.
So I took a couple of early morning hours to watch -- for the first time -- my copy of Michael Moore's new feature film "Sicko."
Make sure you see it. Trust me.
If it doesn't make you as angry as you've ever been, if it doesn't cause you to shed a tear for what we're doing to America's neediest, and for what America could be, you probably are in need of a full range of health care services yourself -- and deserve what you're paying for what you're getting.
Then, make it clear to every elected official you encounter -- especially the candidates for president, and the U.S. Senate and house -- that you expect them to watch it, and then to tell you how much money they've taken from the health care industry lobbyists and corporations, and to provide you the reasons they are still opposing the universal, single-payer health care systems available around the world. These are countries that spend less on health care than we do, and yet provide a level of service that results in better life expectancy, infant mortality and other statistics than in this country.
There are many things the capitalist system can do better than any other alternative imaginable. Handing over to profit-maximizing corporations the delivery of anything as basic as health care to all of a nation's citizens just turns out not to be among them.
As a friend of mine, a candidate in a previous presidential campaign, was fond of saying, "I don't want every American to have health insurance. I want every American to have health care." It's an important distinction. And so far, once again, most of the candidates are still talking about health insurance.
Curious as to why? I won't say more. Just watch it. "Sicko."
Now I'm off for the day on an investigative trip I'll be reporting to you here, hopefully tomorrow.
# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .
This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.
Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)
For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.
Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]
