Uber faces possible steeper insurance requirements in Iowa

I've asked my Iowa Assembly members Sen. Matt McCoy and Rep. Jo Oldson to help stop Iowa House Study Bill 130 and Senate Study Bill 1228.

If passed and signed by Gov. Branstad these bills would immediately create a brand new law called "Iowa Transportation Network Company Insurance Act" designed to crush taxicab competition by putting draconian burdens on rideshare drivers, ultimately resulting in fewer transportation options for Iowans and prospective Iowans, as well as tourists.

We need an environment in Iowa that allows innovation and free market competition to flourish, and this is a step in the wrong direction.

How to end poverty and disrupt a corrupt U.S. Congress

Poverty exists because too many workers aren't paid equitably by corporate American capitalists for the fruits of their labor, limiting consumer spending, which hurts the economy, which kills jobs, creating high unemployment, which creates the need for a compulsory levy on other people's earnings to pay into the welfare system.

The business model of corporate America is to keep labor costs as low as possible, but if small businesses on Main Street shared in that kind of greed (essentially pocketing more than their fair share of the profits, which they enjoy thanks in large measure to their labor force), they’d be run out of town.

In recent years, corporate America has been able to get away with paying low wages precisely because of the high unemployment they caused in the first place; more workers competing for fewer jobs facilitates a low-wage climate.

A lot of the job loss in this country is permanent because U.S. companies have been pushing production offshore, exacerbating an already poor economy.

It is the proliferation of big business and their political campaign funding that has hurt the U.S. economy.

The only way to fix the problem is by creating a system that doesn’t provide financial rewards for the current business model.

1. The first step is to eliminate the giant teat of the individual taxpaying collective by constitutional amendment. In other words, end individual income taxes. (Not including capital gains and Wall Street speculation.) In this way, campaign contributions would go to shrinking government spending, since all tax revenues would come directly out of corporations’ pockets instead of the low hanging fruit of the weaker class: the worker, lobbies would have incentive to do only that.

2. The second step is to tax commerce where it occurs, not where the corporation happens to be headquartered. It’s not fair for a company to be penalized by virtue of the geography of their home office when its success comes from the markets it serves well.

3. Eliminate compulsory contracts, both directly by mandate and those indirectly by necessity. This stops insurance companies from amassing fortunes on the back of the free market system, allowing prices for services to soar unchecked. This will also dissolve large pools of capital, which are sitting targets for frivolous litigation.

4. Shift all sales taxes to the seller and require that all advertised consumer prices are the actual, total, final prices … after all taxes, fees and surcharges. This puts integrity back in consumer-business dealings and provides price transparency and eliminates obscuring actual costs behind hidden additional costs to consumers, restoring consumer trust.

Top five reasons radio advertising is better than television advertising ... and YouTube isn't one of them!

If having the more persuasive pitch in a competition between radio and television is considered stealing, then guilty as charged. Many people operate on the full faith and credit of bad information in perpetuity, and the conventional wisdom on Madison Avenue is no exception.

Here are my top five reasons radio advertising is better than television advertising:

5) TV advertising is overpriced chiefly because it's easily disrupted by technology and a general collective attention deficit in the real world.

4) One doesn't require a study to prove that images are nearly superfluous in marketing; most people know innately that the most significant, powerful and lasting impressions in our memories are made by audio input to the brain.

3) The best marketing value in radio and social media is derived from the power of a personal recommendation from familiar, credible people; you don't need pictures for that, but sound is our most penetrating cue.

2) Without an intuitive presumption, reinforced by the ad industry, that television is just better because it delivers motion and color, we can all understand on a primal level how disinterested people are in what we have to show. It's hard not to notice that you can't sit in the same room with a person and keep their eyes on you for very long?

1) The most significant reason people get your message is because they have no earlids.

I had a weird dream last night

I was in the empty lobby of a police precinct, unwittingly there just to rest a moment, to calm my anxiety and collect my thoughts.

There was a faint sound of conversation in an adjacent office. "He was a white, middle-aged man on a bicycle..." were the first words I heard plainly. And it was a familiar female voice.

It's true. Minutes earlier it had been me that was flying my bike down a crowded city street, possibly causing alarm and panic, whizzing past a lady that looked a lot like a blonde TV-cop -- who, in a predictably commanding tone, screamed out, "Stop and get back here right now!"

She might not have been a cop, I thought. And even if she was who knows who she was screaming at? It felt like I was evading a cop.

Things are moving fast. Time to get out of the area. Time to assess the situation, I thought, turning a corner, ditching the bike, and stepping into the first public building I came to.

Alarmed myself now, realizing I was the subject of this field report to the authorities, I swiftly ducked away through a corridor, where I stumbled on a somewhat interesting shipping tube laying atop a trash bin. Inexplicably I swept it up to have a closer examination while on my brisk walk. But the sound of a conversation between Patricia Arquette, the actual actress, and two men I presume were a pair of detectives, caught me off guard. "That guy," Patricia said assuredly. I slowly looked up as I paused.

They gave me a silent stare that felt like minutes. I returned a look, vowing to myself not to say a word while they analyzed me. As I began to realize just how virtuous silence can be, I confidently and calmly turned and continued down the corridor. No one stopped me. I'd managed to flee the scene without incident or objection.

"Clever," I heard one of the men say as I stepped out of sight. "The only evidence is sealed by federal postal law." They must have thought I'd hidden something in the shipping tube I merely thought looked cool ... as if I'd have had the wherewithal to contemplate such a calculated maneuver. A parcel is safe harbor from search & seizure, I imagined. That, along with my instinctive silence, saved the day.

A palpable sense of relief washed over me as I climbed back onto my bike. I can only imagine the conversation that transpired amongst the trio after I'd left. Lacking a real crime, I bet the detectives dismissed Ms. Arquette with polite platitudes.

It seemed real.

Rep. Steve King and the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling

So Friday SCOTUS nixed states' arbitrary restrictions on marriage, restoring civil rights owed to couples of like gender. And before day's end, the always sensational Rep. Steve King (R-Ia.) predictably argued that decision is oustside the court's purview, calling it "judicial fiat."

Apparently they're members of the Grand Old Party, conservatives & libertarians, except when those principles conflict with a certain world view.

You may remember '09 when the King scare machine reacted to Iowa's top-court ruling striking down this state's restriction on gay marriage, fearing that decision "turns immediately Iowa into a Mecca for same-sex marriage." He warned of "weekend [travel] packages being planned right now." And the fear language didn't stop there. "We'll be the Las Vegas of same-sex marriage for America if the legislature doesn't act now," King asserted. At the time he called on the Iowa Assembly and then-Governor Chet Culver (D-Ia.) to move quickly to require residency for marriage ... "right now, before the planes start landing in Des Moines," as if they might be loaded with WMD.

Video: Rep. Steve King with radio host Jan Mickelson, April, 2009



Let's be clear. A fundamental duty of the high court is to hold states' authority in check, protecting individuals' Constitutional protections from Gestapo-style government imposition where ever necessary.

Instead King, applying a bizarre sort of acrobatics to language and logic that even a 5-year-old can see through, today claims this country "cannot tolerate a Supreme Court that would impose their will on the rest of this country."

Striking down same-sex marriage bans in no way creates a restrictive imposition on others. Efforts by Congressman King, right-wing religious lobbyists like Bob Vander Plaats and pundits like Jan Mickelson to paint certain kinds of marriages as "weakening the institution" are absurd, and their attempts to moore their false logic in mythology can't mask their scalding bigotry. They can only point to religious symbolism in order to criticize Friday's ruling. Must we remind him there are no references to "holy matrimony" in the Constitution?

America is not a compendium of special clubs who get to use government as a tool to impose their wants on the "those people" whose behavior they despise. Being an American means a lot of different things to different people, but it can never mean you have a right not to be offended.

Consensual and non-consensual police encounters

We've covered the levels of police encounters before and I don't like to spend too much time on covered ground, but I discovered a very nicely made instructional video with an excellent example of a non-consensual encounter without justification that quickly escalated to an arrest without any cause.

A promise broken

The Woodland Cemetery to the founders of Des Moines was seen as a promise of security for all time.

Located at Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard and Woodland Avenue, Woodland Cemetery is an honored and revered resting place for the founders of our city and heroes of our nation.

The cemetery advisory board voted last night to strip the barrier between this revered site and vandals, the homeless, dog walkers.

There is simply no more historic place that is seeded so deeply the history of Polk County, aptly named for President James K. Polk. But among those interred at our cemetery is a different Polk. Jefferson Scott Polk (1831-1907) as a lawyer well educated, clear headed, deliberate, optimistic, positive, nervous, sanguine temperament, aggressive and plain of speech.

In 1859, J.S. Polk formed a partnership with Judge Casady and M.M. Crocker, making one of the strongest law firms in the district.

In 1861, when Mr. Crocker entered the military service, and the firm became Casady & Polk, which continued as such until 1864. At that time Casady retired and was succeeded by Fred M. Hubbell, as junior partner. For twenty-five years Polk & Hubbell thereafter became synonymous with push and enterprise in our town.

In 1867, Mr. Polk and others organized the Equitable Life Insurance Company. The following year, he was elected Secretary and held that office fourteen years.

In 1871, Mr. Polk organized the Des Moines Water Works Company.

August 29, 1866, Des Moines was finally treated to the iron horse with a line fully built from Keokuk along the Des Moines River, after a long and oft-fruitless battle to bring a rail line. On October 1st of that year, Mr. Polk, Fred M. Hubbell, Dr. M.P. Turner and U.B. White completed the first mile of street railway in the city as the Des Moines Street Railway Company. Now fully connected by rail, Des Moines enjoyed 38 daily rail connections and the beginnings of a world class mass transit system, thanks in no small measure to the work of Mr. Polk.

By 1888 Jefferson Polk procured a charter for the Rapid Transit Company, and in 1889 he purchased other competing Railways, and began installation of an entire new public transit system.

In 1874, he laid a narrow-gauge track to Ames, purchasing and laying out the town of Sheldahl.

Sources: Find A Grave/Katie Lou; History of Polk County, 1880

Humanity at its finest

It's easy to find character flaws in people, so it's refreshing to find and share stories about selflessness and compassion. What may have begun as a self-serving exercise, this generous individual turned his personal misfortune into life changing tools for children.

Unfucking our educational system

The public has been brainwashed into thinking that voting for more money in a fucked up education system will somehow, magically, unfuck it.

School boards and administrators are politicians and operate in much the same way as the ones in the state assembly and in DC. They're wined & dined by organizations desperate to suck on the enormous teat of the taxpayers. Teachers are organized into packs whose mission is to benefit teachers, and in no way concern themselves with higher learning or figuring out a better way to impart wisdom for our future.

How can that model ever be anything but massively dysfunctional and corrupt?

I'm tired of hearing the big education thinkers using terms like "at grade level" when there's absolutely no evidence showing kids learn better while in lock-step with peers of the differing intellect. A child learns based on his or her own cognitive abilities and the learning resources available and it's intuitive that no two kids are alike. Therefore assigning a rigid grade level to a child is completely arbitrary.

The starve-or-struggle grade-level system insures no kid will learn on pace with his or her cognitive ability. One child will always complete a module early and find himself board, while another will always struggle to keep pace with the class and eventually give up. It makes no sense to try to force their instruction into the arbitrary constructs we have built and selected for them.

On the other hand, systems like Khan Academy [www.khanacademy.org] can facilitate learning at one's own pace. That's a conversation this country should have sooner rather than later.

Part of the problem is thinking in terms of centralized instruction (and food prep and authority) as opposed to more evenly and accessible distributed systems throughout the community. Distributed models in all domains inherently have less bureaucracy and tyranny, and therefore offer more individual accountability resulting in less waste and corruption. This is a topic that deserves note here, but far more discussion in public forums.

A major factor is that teachers are unavoidably flawed. They're notoriously inconsistent from day to day, year to year and among classrooms across the nation. That means there are no consistent quality standards to ensure all kids have access to the country's best possible instruction -- but they definitely deserve it.

As a community and as a state and as a nation we should be able to objectively and openly produce the best of the best instructional materials and presentations and lectures and put them to work for the students.

And another not-so-impermanent thing: information is free. Why are we wasting so much money on that which is free? In any other domain we'd be appalled by how much information is locked behind paywalls which are put in place for the sole purpose of revenue generation on the backs of the people.

It's hard to define what education is today. It's part political, part institution, part incarceration, part indoctrination and part corporation. Kids learn better how to be reliant on and subservient to the totalitarian class instead of discovering how to be free-minded explorers.

One day not that long ago we had an educational system that was at its core a means to provide kids with a schoolhouse and the best information available, and that resulted in world class thinkers and doers of the industrial age. They were not institutions and their purpose was not to generate revenue or political power, but simply to help kids develop into contributing, productive members of the community and go out in the world as free people and invent and build new things and enrich the lives of our neighbors.

Today, instead of giving the children the smartest mind in town, a world class education could mean giving them the smartest minds in the world from which to develop their new found wisdom and places in our collective society, to invent and build new things to improve the lives of our neighbors.

So before you vote one more time to throw more money at an educational system in hopes that will finally unfuck it, put to the schoolmasters how they intend to leverage a modern infrastructure and a bounty of information into a world class education for all children.

Raising the Minimum Wage is a good start

The quick serve franchise model in this country is one of the problems. They are the bottom feeders in our society; parasites by any definition. They produce nothing, but permeate our thoroughfares to suckle the teats of neighborhoods. The brand names tend to squeeze regional operators to leverage profits from the fruits of their uber-low-wage workforce. There is so little profit margin for operators that it’s not feasible to own just one McDonald's restaurant, nor is it in their revenue interests to pay a living wage. Not to mention the fact that they sell notoriously unhealthy meals.

States and communities should begin putting their collective legislative feet down and facilitating some local requirements on absentee parasite corporations that tend to hurt communities as opposed to acting as responsible corporate citizens. There could be local ownership requirements in addition to an objective measurement of economic and commercial impact; the ratio of what a restaurant brings to a community versus what it removes. The ratio of revenue versus wages & taxes, for example.

But that's not the most fundamental issue in this society.

Let’s be clear. The so-called Republicans who purport to identify with conservatism are advancing policies that help corporate interests amass or export the wealth of this country, leaving the rest of us with fewer greenbacks – of diminishing value – after ever-expanding payroll deductions and expenses are withheld.

The idea that low wages are caused by unemployment, as Heritage Foundation’s Chief Economist Steve Moore recently claimed, is the wrong assessment. Unemployment might give corporations a better negotiating position, leading to lower salaries, but it hurts them in the end when domestic markets can’t afford to buy whatever it is they’re selling. This is of course partly helped by the flood of currency being created out of thin air in hopes some of it will land in consumers’ pockets (but oddly never does as promised).

Moore's right about one thing: we need dialogue on job growth policies. But the only rational, effective job growth policy is to adjust wages with inflation, not only because it respects the workforce – without which there is no business – but because it's ultimately better for the economy because it puts more buying dollars in the marketplace.

The reason people won’t or can’t pay the extra buck for a sandwich at a minimum-wage eatery, whose pay suddenly becomes $10.10 an hour, is because the office workers haven’t received a cost-of-living or merit increase for the last six years. It's the office workers who are getting pinched, but when they complain about how expensive the food is at the lunch counter or grocery store, they should rightly direct their anger at their employers for stagnating wages instead of parroting the lies being fed to them by corporate-run media outlets who want you to think that equitable wages leads to job loss.

It’s fundamental that poverty creates no demand, and that’s the real harm to our economy; when people aren't paid equitably for the fruits of their labor, they buy cheaper and fewer products and services. It’s intuitive that when wages contract, consumer demand contracts.

Corporations don’t add jobs when they’re handed a few tax breaks and other subsidies. They add jobs when demand increases; when the customers are there. If a corporation gets a gift from the tax payer, it makes more sense that the CEO buys a Learjet than to add jobs if demand can’t support the additional workforce.

You cannot have a conversation about the housing bubble and its economic impacts without also talking about depressed wages and lost jobs and the suffering on Main Street and in our neighborhoods. In the game of musical chairs that is our financial markets, it’s not hard to see who got the cushy chairs when the music stopped; they’re the same ones to whom the political class are beholden, and therefore shielded from any accountability.

But we’re getting used to CEOs taking the first slice of the pie for themselves. They’re people, too, right?

Corporations are comprised of individuals, so the notion that they, as entities, are entitled to be recognized as people is completely beyond the pale of fairness. When corporations are granted the same rights as individuals, we find that corporations exercise extra rights – super rights, if you will – through enormously greater power and influence … more than any other collective of people.

Corporations already have a huge advantage when it comes to influencing government via their in-house captive audience, those individuals who comprise the corporation, who are at least somewhat subservient to their employer. To add to that the extraordinary status as “person” is mind boggling.

Ten basic things everyone should know when cops want to talk

Whether you're pulled over by police or have an encounter on the sidewalk, here are some essential tips on how to preserve your rights.

I. It's insufficient to simply remain silent because police might construe that as uncooperative behavior.

II. In order to preserve your constitutional rights, you should never consent to forfeiting them.

III. By answering questions without the benefit of your lawyer, you are forfeiting your Fifth Amendment protection against self incrimination and undermining your Sixth Amendment right to counsel.

IV. By consenting to searches, you forfeit whatever shred of Fourth Amendment protection against illegal search & seizure the Supreme Court hasn't yet eviscerated.

V. To preserve your 4th, 5th & 6th Amendment rights, say out loud that you refuse to answer any questions without your lawyer, and that you do not consent to any searches.

VI. A person’s refusal is insufficient cause for cops to suspect wrongdoing, which is the necessary legal justification for cops to detain you.

VII. If a cop can claim you committed an offence like speeding, he can then detain you long enough to write a summons. An offence also gives him adequate justification to demand your driver's license, insurance and registration. However he cannot arbitrarily expand the scope of the seizure (detention) without some other justification ... or your consent. Once the summons is signed, you are, de facto, free to go, so any subsequent encounter then becomes a voluntary (or consensual) one, to which you may refuse and politely depart.

VIII. Lacking reasonable suspicion or probable cause, a cop can't legally detain you ... unless you consent to it. Also, if no offense has been committed, he cannot demand identification (except in states with stop-and-ID laws; but even there, 'reasonable articulable suspicion' of wrongdoing is still needed).

IX. A casual conversation is a consensual encounter, but you may only know whether it's consensual or not if you ask specifically whether you're free to go. A trial verdict can turn on that fact alone.

X. Cops can and do con citizens out of their rights in order to bolster their arrest metrics and standing in their respective departments.

These tips are but a tip of the iceberg when it comes to criminal law. The more you know, the better prepared and more confident you can be if you have a run-in with police. And please don't take these items as wholesale facts; please let them be a trigger to get you started with your own research.

If you want to know more, you can start with the landmark Supreme Court Miranda case associated with the Miranda Warning, the case that defined modern day stop-and-frisk encounters called Terry v. Ohio, or Brown v. Texas, which established stop-and-ID standards.

Understand that I'm an informal student of criminal law and not an attorney. This article represents a few of the things I've learned throughout my adult life. It's not legal advise by any stretch, but rather a launching pad for your own legal research.