Branstad endorses a big, fat liar

Iowa Gov. Terry Branstad announced today that he's backing Gov. Mitt Romney (R-Mass.) for the Presidency.

It's pretty late in the race to be choosing horses, and this particular stallion has some issues from a previous run.

Romney showed us there's nothing he wouldn't lie about.  So the question is whether it hurt Branstad to back the better of the evils, when in fact the lesser man is evil.

Let me take you back to august of 2007 when the former governor of Massachusetts appeared on a radio show while stumping in Des Moines during his ask-me-anything tour.

Several minutes into a filler segment, the talk show host abruptly shifted gears, noting that Romney was walking into the studio. "Good morning, sir, welcome aboard," Jan Mickelson said.  But the niceties didn't last.

After a significant kerfuffle on and off the air, Mickelson said, "I hope we can do this when we can spend some quality time on the air."  "No, I get a little tired of coming on a show like yours and having it be all about Mormon," Mr. Romney fired back.

If it's not bad enough that Romney was argumentative, defensive and combative, he told Katie Couric that the host had a hidden camera on the console.

More than this being about a potential US President's dishonesty, I'm disheartened that the governor of my state would back him in that role.

Pink slime saga will not end well for producers

I've lived in Iowa all my life and I owe it to the agriculture community a measure of gratitude for sustaining an economy here so that I can be gainfully employed my entire adult life.  But should that mean I can't speak openly about the elephant in the room?

Would I be a bad Iowan if I was critical of its producers?  Listen to any politician or company or industry communication director and you're going to hear some one-sided dialog.  But as an ordinary resident, that's not my job.

As an individual I have a right to take the available information and assess it with as much critical thinking as I can muster on a given day and form an opinion about it.  Unfortunately it's well known that the industries see their jobs as managing public perception through spin in the name of sustaining our economy here.

As a lifelong Iowan, I've long known you don't ask what's in a hot dog.  I've long known that hamburger consists of about the lowest grade meat imaginable.  It probably has a high connective tissue count.  That's why it's ground up; to break those tissues to make it more palatable.  You expect a certain amount of bovine gut matter to be there that you presume to be incidental to the meat cutting process.

What one does not expect is that they take the undesirable trimmings offsite to a facility that specializes in engineering those trimmings into some kind of substance that is then added back into the ground beef as a filler.  That's obviously to save money, but it also serves to let the beef company advertise a lower fat content that is free from bacteria.  It's now a leaner product and is safe.

But as is always the case when the conversation is controlled by the industry, you have to ask what are the yeah-but rebuttals that are left out.

"We have just begun to fight," said Gov. Terry Brandstad (R-Ia) about the presumed smear campaign being waged against the non-meat filler product being added to some 70% of all ground beef sold in the US.

Branstad was dancing as he called on college student at Texas A&M and Iowa State University to counter what "Hollywood and the media elites and the people spreading these...misinformation..."

He now says wants a congressional investigation into how this image-busting smear campaign got started.

US Rep. Steve King (R-Ia) thinks sworn testimony will repair the damage caused by what the governor calls a conspiracy to hurt producers.

The media is helping.  The Des Moines Register refers to "pink slime" as "trimmings from other cuts of meat."  Local television news has been covering the story nightly, but has yet to suggest the additive is anything other than meat.

But the glaring omission -- what nobody bothers mentioning -- is what precisely the misinformation is.

Yes, people have called it "pink slime," which I stipulate paints the additive in an unappetizing light. I'm told that images purporting to represent the substance have not been accurate. I am also aware that there have been exaggerations about how "lean, finely textured beef" is exposed to ammonia.

BFI in Sioux City, Iowa was treated to a gathering of beef industry supporters who have launched a campaign with the rallying cry, "Dude, it's Beef".

True.  But it ain't exactly meat, is it?

This is a war without an enemy. Nobody wants the beef economy to suffer unduly. There is no upside to saying things that are untrue about the food we eat and rely on for our livelihood.  But I hope we can talk about it candidly.

We've been told it's not dangerous.  But what precisely does lean, finely textured beef do to advance human or animal nutrition?

The sad fact is that the louder the governor of Iowa speaks on behalf of his generous campaign donors, the more attention is drawn to a substance in our food that is almost universally repulsive.

It seems to me the problem is the fact that they've been using filler to artificially lower the production costs of ground beef and passing it on to unwitting consumers as pure and good.

Well it's not good.  And it's not honest. This is the most vile and disgusting part of the bovine. Salvage matter, if you will. It's cow guts pulverized into an unrecognizable paste, which has been sanitized with ammonia (Cargill at least uses citrus).

Yes, it's beef. No, it's not meat.

In some cases, it's been reported that the actual pink slime content in a typical pound of ground beef is as high as 30%.

No one I've talked to about this wants pink slime deliberately added to their diet at any cost savings.

The bottom line is that we don't have to make up lies about finely textured beef because there are plenty of accurate truths available that are positively disgusting to the consumer.

I'm mortified that there are entire plants dedicated to turning the most awful part of the cow into filler to stretch hamburger.

And then there's the labeling issue. The plant owners say it's all beef, therefore requires no disclaimers.

But wouldn't people want to know about this stuff? Yes. And it's unpleasant. And growing up in Iowa I've learned there's a lot of unpleasant things you can learn about how food makes it from the farm to the dining room tables of America. Hot dogs come to mind. "If you knew how they were made, you'd never eat another."

Shortly after the story blew up, I bought 10 lbs. of 80% lean ground beef at Hy-Vee for $2.89 a pound. I did this knowing it probably contained 15% of the most unspeakable parts of the cow. Call me disgusting, but it's beef, afterall.

I only wish the beef producers had the guts to be honest about their products.

I want to see farm-of-origin labeling. The FDA demands to know, but they keep it a secret from the people who actually buy the meat. Why do they need to keep this a secret? I suppose there could be a plausibly legitimate reason for that, but I can't think of one.

The corn-based feed they gorge the cos with at feedlots makes for more fat on the meat, which is said to produce a tasty steak when grilled. In the west, they'll tell you grass-fed beef tastes so much better than midwest's corn-fed variety.

I'm of the opinion there's a lot we're not supposed to know because it's not terribly appetizing to contemplate at the dinner table.

We know the cruelty imposed by meat producers, but Iowa just passed a law to put down those who would expose the suffering.

I would rather go on believing my hamburger is not the best cut of meat,, but that the part therein that isn't considered meat is inconsequential But instead we learn that they actually ptoduce the additive offsite and ship it in to the meat plants to deliberately dilute the product with salvage matter.

The real danger to the beef industry isn't that people are spreading lies or misinformation. What's going to change the business of beef is that consumers now know more accurate information about what goes into the Big Mac that just doesn't sound good to them, which will eventually affect demand for their products.

I'll give you this: cow guts might in fact qualify as beef, by definition.  But let's be honest. It doesn't even qualify as a low-grade cut of meat...dude!

Pet diaries

This has been circulating for a while and I enjoy seeing it every time it rolls back to me.

The Dog's Diary

8:00 am - Dog food! My favorite thing!
9:30 am - A car ride! My favorite thing!
9:40 am - A walk in the park! My favorite thing!
10:30 am - Got rubbed and petted! My favorite thing!
12:00 pm - Milk bones! My favorite thing!
1:00 pm - Played in the yard! My favorite thing!
3:00 pm - Wagged my tail! My favorite thing!
5:00 pm - Dinner! My favorite thing!
7:00 pm - Got to play ball! My favorite thing!
8:00 pm - Wow! Watched TV with the people! My favorite thing!
11:00 pm - Sleeping on the bed! My favorite thing!

The Cat's Diary

Day 983 of My Captivity

My captors continue to taunt me with bizarre little dangling objects. They dine lavishly on fresh meat, while the other inmates and I are fed hash or some sort of dry nuggets. Although I make my contempt for the rations perfectly clear, I nevertheless must eat something in order to keep up my strength.

The only thing that keeps me going is my dream of escape. In an attempt to disgust them, I once again vomit on the carpet. Today I decapitated a mouse and dropped its headless body at their feet. I had hoped this would strike fear into their hearts, since it clearly demonstrates my capabilities. However, they merely made condescending comments about what a "good little hunter" I am. Bastards!

There was some sort of assembly of their accomplices tonight. I was placed in solitary confinement for the duration of the event. However, I could hear the noises and smell the food. I overheard that my confinement was due to the power of "allergies." I must learn what this means, and how to use it to my advantage.

Today I was almost successful in an attempt to assassinate one of my tormentors by weaving around his feet as he was walking. I must try this again tomorrow, but at the top of the stairs.

I am convinced that the other prisoners here are flunkies and snitches. The dog receives special privileges. He is regularly released, and seems to be more than willing to return. He is obviously retarded. The bird must be an informant. I observe him communicate with the guards regularly. I am certain that he reports my every move. My captors have arranged protective custody for him in an elevated cell, so he is safe. For now.

This is my thirtieth year in radio and I'm still inspired by the spirit of the business, with all of its varied aspects.  There are layers stacked on entertainment, journalism, community service, marketing and a camaraderie that has always spoken to me.  It touches people and binds us to those in other worlds and about town.

There's also a moving timeline that is intriguing and exciting.  There's a rich history that creates this aura of heritage, yet it's full of people always working to enhance and polish the processes that make the sound come out of the speakers and the words ever-relevant.

I'm not a purist.  I think that's too limiting for such an evolving medium.  I love new ideas and exploring ways to change up my craft.  Besides, pure is relative to an individual and the period of his entry into the business.

The earliest broadcasts were always live, as there was no means to record them.  Later, programming was produced using test acetate (lacquer-coated discs cut using a needle modulated by sound), reel-to-reel and "carts" (continuous loop tape cartridges of various lengths).  However the basic gear -- the mic, a transmitter and many inexpensive receivers -- still comprises the magic of radio.

It's okay to wear your tape-splicing ability on your sleeve or to extol the virtues of the cart deck, but you have to be amazed at our ability to edit in the digital realm and file reports, with photos and video, armed with nothing more than a mobile phone and the radio smarts to know what to capture.

Radio is as it's always been; people with eyes on the streets and a smile in their voices.  The constant is that talent creates the imagery of a window that looks over the city to an extent that one might think of them as omniscient.  Listening makes you feel connected to the world outside while you may be confined to your home or your car or your office.  They are a collective voice coming from several places seemingly at onces, providing comfort and a sense of companionship.

People will forever pontificate about whether radio is dying.  Until it's dead.  But I know on this day it's not.  It's thriving as a medium and reaches impressive audiences over-the-air -- and now across a global digital fabric.  The biggest challenge today is not that the medium is losing its viability, but rather the challenges facing the guiding business model.

I have been extremely fortunate to be able to work at some of the most prolific radio stations of the midwest.  I've always worked alongside stellar performers who carry on the positive spirit.  They've been unquestionable assets to our industry and the stations they support.

But if radio ever does die, I hope entertainment, journalism, community service, marketing and a camaraderie survive.

Voter ID efforts suspect

I keep hearing that Iowa needs to pass legislation that prevents voter fraud.  And the proponents of the measure use language that appeals to the sensibilities of regular people, saying, "If you need an ID to (insert any common activity), then why not require ID to make sure elections are fair?"

And that's when my ears perk up.  That sure has the ring of demagoguery, the same rhetoric used in every debate on nearly any polarizing issues where someone has a thinly veiled agenda.

I must ask if this insistence on requiring government identification at the polling place is based on actual voter fraud problems or does this amount to statistical wizardry crafted by some organized elite faction to sway outcomes to their preferred side.

Voting is a fundamental right in our republic and it should not be a difficult undertaking for citizens to exercise. True, government and businesses are pushing harder to ask us to prove our identity at every turn, but the reasons for that climate are not the fault of the citizen. It's a mere convenience for the automation of information, correspondence and transactions.

The question you ought to ask is, should people have to jump through extra hoops to exercise their rights as US citizens? If I, as an American, have the right to be left alone, for example, then I have a right to not obtain government identification papers. You must not be forced to forfeit one right in order to exercise another.

If every time we turn around, the government demands that we produce papers, then we become a controlled state; we forfeit our personal sovereignty. We associate that kind of state-control with Nazi Germany and Communist Russia, which we vehemently oppose and find repulsive. We value the idea that the government has no cause, right or standing to stop, detain, inconvenience or generally bother people for any reason, unless the people have committed a crime against other people, or their property, or that public safety requires it.

There's no public safety issue here. And there appears to be no voter fraud issue either. People are trying to solve a problem in Iowa that simply doesn't exist -- at the behest of a well-funded organization that wants to use the peoples' government for its own profit and purpose.

Those who value liberty and freedom need to think critically about what this will mean for us. We need to understand the direction such measures would take us as a nation; more toward government control and the loss of the freedoms guaranteed by our charter.

While you were busy fighting, thieves stole America

I've suggested divisive infighting has been a useful distraction that enables corporatism.  Much evidence of that in social conversations I read on facebook.

There's plenty of common ground among the wage earners, but folks in the cheap seats are paired into political and social subsets, provoked to attack each other instead of directing their energy at restraining Washington.

We're the useful idiots perpetuating the crime by doing...nothing but bickering and name-calling.

The political parties have become bastardized versions of their former selves, directed by operatives who have but one common interest: to suck from the enormous teet of the federal government.

OWS and Teaparty movements are symptomatic of common unrest by the populous, yet the perception is sold to us that their forces oppose one another.

Seeing a thread here?

We're never allowed to forget the fights. The black/white issue keeps popping up in the media. But ask yourself who is advancing these conversations. It's either those on the dole or unwitting shills for said cause.

You know the message permeates the American psychie when the talking points of group X are exalted in man-on-the-street stand-ups.

I don't know who's responsible for provoking, nor would it be useful to argue over it, but I do know the left-right, black-white, rich-poor battles are playing out in all forms of TV, talk radio, blogosphere and social media.

Whether the ones we see on TV have anything to gain personally is less important than transcending the rhetoric altogether and working as a people in this and every election, firing incumbants of all stripes until Washington is rid of the bug that sucks the life blood from this republic.

We can break down immorality into its most basic form by relating it to something as primal as suffering, something most of us can relate to on varying levels and degrees.

Abortion is subject usually presented as a polar issue, either hard-left or hard-right position.  But attitudes change when you present it this way: "How about an abortion today?"  In its most basic form, no one wants one or thinks it's a suffer-free zone.  From that common ground, we can begin a thoughtful conversation.

Voters need a class in American Government

I have a hard time understanding how such large numbers of citizens of this country don't understand what it means that states are sovereign entities.  That means the federal government is restricted to power specifically enumerated in the Constitution, and all other powers of governance belong to the states and citizens.  Put another way, it is required by law to stay out of the business of drug policy, marriage, education, abortion and host of other issues because these are not under the purview of the job of President of the United States, and candidates for the office thereof.

Many think of the US as a single assemblage of people under one governing body and that the President is sort of like a King commanding an army.  I imagine some are just used to the fact that the federal government often comes along and tries to impose laws on all of us, even though our state-run schools are charged with the responsibility of teaching this stuff to every kid.

It is this very misguided assumption that is at the center of the confusion caused when candidates accuse Ron Paul of somehow being a proponent of drug abuse.  Trust me when I say the candidates are banking on your ignorance regarding states' rights.  Prove them wrong!  Let them know you're more informed than they think you are.

You see this every day.  The government is into everything it's not supposed to be into…and fails miserably at the very few fundamental things it is required to do, like regulate commerce, borders and currency.  It's the ignorance that seems to enable the rhetoric candidates and pundits are using to describe Ron Paul, suggesting he's some sort of radical nut-job.  But when you take more than a cursory look, you recognize he's the only candidate that really understands how this country is supposed to operate.  He knows this stuff by heart, and he stands firmly for these principles, even against a wall of opposition.  Ask yourself what might inspire opposition to what we know to be right and decent.

I feel sorry for all Dr. Paul has had to deal with and I'm truly sad so many people misunderstand such basic issues.  I'm glad he's out there, that more people are beginning to figure out that he's exactly correct in his assessments, but I do fear it's too late to reach enough people to make a difference.  The country's an airplane already on a steep downward spiral and any chance to pull the nose up is fleeting fast.

When I was younger I would never have guessed this country would take the very same hard-line stance in world affairs that our staunch enemies had once taken -- before their demise.  Through our perpetual war footing, aggression toward innocent people, occupations and operations in other sovereign nations, we have now become the thing we once despised.  All we have to do is ask the USSR how this will end for the USA.  How has East Germany fared?  What up North Korea?  Ask Rome and Britain how their empires are doing now.

One moment you abhor Washington for their distance from Constitutional rule of law and the next you reject the most valuable morals purportedly guaranteed by that document, which was once thought to be a sacred promise to its citizens.  You spout off about how our service members fight for our liberties, but you so easily dismiss those same liberties out of some irrational fear for your safety.  This is disgraceful behavior and pure injustice to our military heroes.  America is akin to Germany as the Reishtag burned and brought about the fear that enabled a monster to scorch the European landscape, leaving a stench that shocked the planet.

He who swears an oath to the Constitution and then so radically violates it should be exiled from this land.  Yet he remains here and stands in judgment of another who committed his life to upholding those standards, calling him dangerous and out-of-touch.  It is detestable these people are given any notoriety in the media.  Dare I say Washington ought to be pushed into the Atlantic?

You are either for or against the principles of our Constitution.  One of the very few reasons I believe it's proper to question someone's patriotism is on this point.  If you want to be part of a civilized society that believes with it's heart and soul in freedom and liberty, then you should stand for that and not waiver.  If, on the other hand, you wave your flag despite your ineptitude, and choose instead to advance a police state, virtual martial law, and don't mind forcing citizens to subsidize corporations and fellow politicians with hard-fought earnings, then perhaps you don't belong here, in the places where our ancestors willingly shed their blood so that their people could thereafter live unencumbered from such things.

If you can stand against man because he prefers we promote non-intervention over unjustified aggressions against other peoples, or that the federal government get out of the states' business, then you align yourself with the criminals and enemies of this nation.  There might be a place for you at the axis of evil.

At some point it's time to stop blaming Congress for the shortcomings of our nation and take some responsibility for our own weaknesses; our failing to hold our elected leaders' feet to the fire.  There is a proper remedy, but it takes people who will exorcise the strength and decency to cast out the corruption and greed.  That means even America's most passive citizens must stop sitting on the sidelines saying, "it's not my job; my vote doesn't count."

We must ignore the electability rhetoric and vote with integrity and our brains for a leader who has spent more than forty years fighting for the same values that made America the land of the free and the home of the brave.  There is only one person who has, without fail, come down on the side of Constitutional principles, even when it caused great conflict with his colleagues.  One single member of Congress has stood out above the rest in defense of this nation.  And this nation desperately needs him on that wall to defend the rule of law.

But true change will only occur if we dramatically change the way we think and act about our responsibilities as citizens.  Every able-bodied person should get out and make commanding choices this election.  By pressing Ron Paul to lead the executive branch of government, you will cause shock & awe among the corrupt and inept elements.  You will horrify Washington lobbies, corporations and the media.  But you will flex your muscles as a strong citizen and cause sweeping improvements in the future of our country.