High Time

It's been almost a year since I've blogged about legalization of marijuana, and I'm glad to report that more (slow) progress is being made.  Let’s recap.

Internationally, Canada legalized marijuana this year, leaving the U.S. in their socially progressive dust.

Nationally, after some additional November ballot approvals, eleven U.S. states have now legalized recreational marijuana use.  It isn’t just ‘liberal’ western states either; states like Michigan and Vermont have joined the enlightened minority that allow cannabis with the pleasant side effect of…..tax revenue.  (You thought I was going to say the pleasant side effect of sensitivity and relaxation?)

Meanwhile, at least 20 other states now broadly offer legal medical marijuana.  This should be the bare minimum allowance of any state.   So the good news is, over half of America gets it.

Unfortunately, the rest of America is still in a race to see which state can be the slowest and dumbest when it comes to legalizing pot.  A few of these states, including Iowa, now allow an extremely limited and convoluted way for medically-eligible people to obtain small doses of cannabis product.  It’s so limited, in fact, that it can’t even be considered a legalization of medical marijuana.

The hypocrisy on these non-legalization states gets worse by the day.  We still have a virtually unregulated opioid epidemic in the country, but people can still get prescriptions in those states for opioids with no problem.  And do I even need to make the point about legal alcohol consumption?  For example in Iowa, the regulators have gone out of their way to encourage home-based production and sale of beer and liquor – as if that’s not a mind-altering substance.

Today there is little doubt that most Americans at least want 1) medical marijuana to be legal, and 2) marijuana possession to be decriminalized.  In states that allow the public to vote on ballot initiatives, it’s now also become clear that most people believe in limited recreational sales and usage.

It’s only a matter of time before America legalizes marijuana, like its Canadian counterpart.  The only question is which state(s) will be the last, foolish ones not to do something before then.

The LOST Loss

I’m a big believer in behavioral science / economics, which is essentially the idea that people are motivated in all facets of life by potential gains or losses, and their calculation of the underlying risk in achieving / suffering those gains and losses.  The gains and losses are often related to money, but can also be based on things like religion, politics, or relationships.

Unfortunately, many times humans do not properly calculate the underlying risk, leading to bad decisions / behavior.   I thought about this again this week, when the residents of my county were asked to vote in favor of voluntarily and regressively taxing themselves via a sales tax increase.

The local option sales tax (LOST) has been around for a while in Iowa, as a way for county localities to raise additional tax revenue by tacking on another 1% to the statewide sales tax.  When it was first introduced around 15 years ago, the idea was to allow counties to use the money solely for school infrastructure improvements over a 10-years taxing period.  As with most new tax ideas, I've hated it from the beginning.

Over several years, every county in Iowa passed a LOST, increasing the total sales tax from 5% to 6%.  And as a result, we have the nicest school infrastructure in the United States.  For real.  I’ve been to most other states, and their school building suck compared to Iowa.  (Of course, there’s absolutely no evidence that nicer bricks and mortar mean smarter kids, but that’s another story.)

But then something happened that was only predictable to those of us with common sense:   The LOST never went away.  In fact, after the school districts mismanaged their budgeted improvements to the tune of millions of dollars, the state decided to simply make the statewide sales tax 6%, and allow another, new LOST for counties to use as they wish.

97 Iowa counties have piled on to this regrettable legislation, leaving only two that have not voted for a new LOST that increased sales taxes from 6% to 7%.  (Note:  That isn't a 1% increase, that’s a 19% increase, a math computation the LOST supporters don’t want anyone to know about.)  My county is one of the remaining two, and this week, after an affluent neighboring suburb passed a LOST a few months ago, my county decided to have another vote.

Which brings me back to behavioral economics.  Why would anyone vote to tax themselves, especially with no explicit guarantee that local government would spend the money on non-essential services?  Yet, it happens quite often – as I mentioned, it recently happened in 97 out of 99 other instances in Iowa.   It’s usually backed with nothing more than a promise that the sales tax it would help to offset some other tax burden (this time it was property taxes) or that it would not be permanent (see above).

My answer is, it’s another matter of not properly calculating the risk.  Many people don’t recognize the cumulative impact of a regressive tax.  They think of it in terms of ‘just an extra penny on the dollar’ rather than a whopping 19% increase on every Average Joe that will probably cost hundreds of dollars a year, and many thousands of dollars over many years.

As in past LOST votes, I voted no, and I’m pleased to day this time it failed (barely).  I’m not against paying for essential government services, but I’m totally against voting to tax myself for undisclosed services I may not need, to be administered by government bureaucrats that haven’t been truthful, and who aren’t good stewards to begin with.

In other words, I’m for properly assessing risk and behaving appropriately. 

Yes We Cannabis

It’s time to catch up on the good news in world of cannabis!

In sum, the news is positive enough that I’m almost ready to declare that January 2018 will one day be considered the ‘tipping point’ in time for full decriminalization of marijuana in America.  (There’s only one thing standing in the way of that right now, more on that in a few paragraphs.)

The thing getting the most attention now is the legalization of recreation marijuana in the state of California.  That became effective on January 1, 2018, and now like several other (mostly western) states, they allow anyone at least age 21 to buy a limited amount of cannabis daily.

The difference here is, California is the most populous state in the country.  As such, the implications are more profound.  One of these implications is the amount of tax revenue this law will bring to a state that sorely needs it.

Make no mistake, money (i.e. tax revenue) is why cannabis will ultimately be legalized in all 50 states.   That isn’t the only reason, nor the best reason, but it’s the main reason.

[This would normally be where I go on a rant about how marijuana should be no more controlled than alcohol, and probably less controlled than prescription drugs.  But I’ve covered society’s asinine attitude about that more than once before, and specifically in regard to medical marijuana.]

One lesser but still important pot-related action happened just this week in Vermont (Vermont!), where the governor signed a bill making it the ninth state to legalize marijuana effective July 1, 2018.  The difference is that Vermont was the first state to do it via legislation, rather than by a voter-approved ballot initiative.  That is a big deal, and the first admission that states want to grab the tax revenue.

Regarding that one thing standing in the way of ‘tipping point’ actualization…..we currently have an old white male dominated (Republican) party in charge of the executive and legislative branches of the U.S. government, along with an old white guy U.S. attorney general that thinks marijuana is evil.  That means marijuana, for now, will likely maintain its federal designation as a Schedule I drug along with things like heroine and LSD – good grief.

These will all need to be changed before the pro-cannabis world can truly take over.  It’s only a matter of time, however, and that time is much shorter than it seemed only a few weeks ago.

2018

Another New Year's Eve (eve) is here, so it's time for my annual review of the things I wanted to have happen in the past year, and a fresh list of things I want to have happen in the next year.  Here's the 2017 list, with comments in ALL CAPS:

-Again:  At least some progress on medical marijuana in Iowa,

THE GOOD NEWS IS, SOME PROGRESS WAS MADE.  IT'S GOING TO BE A TAD BIT EASIER FOR THOSE WHO NEED IT TO GET IT.  THE BAD NEWS IS, IOWA IS STILL NOT FULLY COMMITTED TO IT.

-Some type of institutional or legal control over fake news / social media.

FACEBOOK HAS TAKEN SOME ACTION, ALBEIT TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE.  AT THIS POINT, IT'S HARD TO GET IN FRONT OF IT, BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT LIVES IN A VIRTUAL REALTY WORLD THAT HE WANTS OTHERS TO BELIEVE IS NORMAL.

-Related to the above, more critical thinkers, fewer idiots who believe everything they hear.

THERE ARE MORE CRITICAL THINKERS ON THE LEFT, AND LET'S JUST SAY FEWER CRITICAL THINKERS ON THE RIGHT.

-GPS technology used in major sporting events, e.g. to mark the ball in football games, and for the strike zone in baseball games.

NOPE.  LOSERS.

-More working from home by me.

THIS HAPPENED, BUT TO ONLY ABOUT 25% OF THE LEVEL IT SHOULD HAVE.

-The return of popular mainstream rock bands and rock music.

THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN, HOWEVER, I SAW RED HOT CHILI PEPPERS AND JOE WALSH AND TOM PETTY (AND SCHEDULED TO SEE BOB SEGER) IN CONCERT.  SO IT WASN'T ALL BAD.

-Implementation of the fiduciary rule, and the demise of commission-based financial advice.

THE CURRENT ADMINISTRATION ALLOWED THE RULES TO GO INTO EFFECT, BUT THERE WILL BE NO ENFORCEMENT UNTIL AT LEAST 2019.  SO, NO.  AND SINCE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS ARE IN THE REPUBLICAN'S POCKETS, MIGHT AS WELL FORGET ABOUT THIS FOR A FEW MORE YEARS.

-The resignation or impeachment of an unqualified president -- no names, any one will do.

NOT AS CRAZY AS IT SOUNDED LAST YEAR. WILL ADD PUSH THIS FORWARD.  IT WON'T BE ANY FUN TO ASK IT FOR 2019 BECAUSE BY THEN IT WILL BE LIKELY.

For 2018 I'd like to see:

The failure of Bitcoin, not as an idea, but as an investment.

An NCAA scandal so large they will have to start allowing players a cut of revenues.

More destinations and ways to fly on Southwest Airlines.

A widespread ability to charge devices without a cord (also asked for this for 2016).

A new governor / lieutenant governor elected for Iowa. 

Let's try this -- exponential growth in the cannabis industry to the extent all states will want a piece of it through taxation.

Greater national and international awareness of CRISPR (genome editing) technology.

Smaller entree portions served in restaurants, for a reduced price.

Fewer national weather disasters, but more understanding of climate change.

The resignation or impeachment of a mentally unstable and unqualified president -- again, no names.

2016

It's once again time to review my 2015 list of things I'd like to see happen, and lay out my hopes for 2016.  Here's the 2015 list, with new notes in ALL CAPS:

-Less glorification of big butts.
I'M DECLARING VICTORY ON THIS, BECAUSE IT MOVED FROM A 9 TO AN 8 ON A SCALE OF 1-10.

-A Final Four for Iowa State men's basketball, and an NCAA tournament berth for both Iowa and Northern Iowa men's basketball.
OH, SO CLOSE.  THAT IS, IF YOU CAN CALL ISU LOSING IN THEIR FIRST NCAA TOURNAMENT GAME AS A 3 SEED 'CLOSE'

-More action, less inaction by the U.S. Congress.
A PERPETUALLY WASTED HOPE.

-Stephen Colbert dominating late night television, with Conan and Fallon and Stewart right behind.
OTHER THAN JON STEWART RETIRING, I FEEL THIS IS STARTING TO HAPPEN.

-Common use of Apple Pay.
NOT AS COMMON YET AS IT SHOULD BE.

-Might as well go for it again -- at least medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.
C'MON, MAN! PROGRESS IN SOME OTHER STATES, BUT NOT IN IOWA.

-A vaccine against Ebola.
DID NOT HAPPEN, STILL WORKING ON IT.

-A week-long vacation for me.
DID NOT HAPPEN, STILL WORKING ON IT.

For 2016 I'd like to see:

At least some progress, not regress, on medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.

Chris Christie versus Hillary Clinton for president, with ? winning.

A higher stock market.

Just one actual, even very minor piece of legislation to make it slightly more difficult to buy a gun.

The personal, financial, and political implosion of Donald Trump.

A way to charge devices without a wire.

An à la carte option for cable and satellite TV channels.

More time for eating right, less time for exercise.

Non-representative Democracy

One of the reasons the United States is the greatest country in the world is our governing system of representative democracy.  Too bad it doesn't always work that way.

When is a representative democracy not a representative democracy?  In Iowa, the answer is when it comes to legalizing medicinal marijuana.

This week, a Des Moines Register Iowa Poll found that 70% of adult Iowans favor the legalization of marijuana for medicinal purposes.  This is up from just 59% last year, and 58% the year before that.

It's over.  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that this issue has been decided, and Iowans are ready to follow the rest of the country into making this rational, albeit long overdue choice.

Unfortunately, Iowa's elected state legislators don't seem to be any closer to legalizing marijuana for medical uses.  Basically, we've elected a bunch of old, white, close-minded, and mostly Republican males (including the governor) who will always believe pot is evil, regardless of its proven therapeutic uses or the desire of their constituents.  They continue to use the intellectually dishonest argument that the 'unintended consequences' of legalization will lead to serious drug abuse in Iowa.  Simultaneously, they attend numerous political receptions where they, along with many others, can legally drink non-medicinal booze without a thought of the 'unintended consequences' of alcohol abuse.

Some Iowans seem to be buying that 'unintended consequences' argument, because the same Iowa Poll reports that only 30% of adults approve legalizing marijuana for recreational use, a number unchanged over the past two years.  We are still years away, or more likely, one big fiscal deficit away, from joining the few other states that have done this.

Oh well.  One thing we know about representative democracy it that it works, it's just a matter of time.  So it will be with legalizing marijuana use in Iowa and in the U.S.

2015

As with last year, let's review the things I said I'd like to see in 2014, with my new notes in ALL CAPS:

-The (continued) fall of the so-called Tea Party conservatives.
(NOT REALLY.  GIVEN THE OUTCOME OF THE MID-TERM ELECTIONS, THEY'VE AT LEAST HELD AND MAYBE GAINED STRENGTH.)

-Less Kanye / Less Miley.
(NO FOR KANYE, YES FOR MILEY.)

-Apple TV.
(NOPE, BUT WE GOT APPLE PAY AND WE'RE GETTING THE APPLE WATCH.)

-NCAA basketball Sweet 16 trips for either Iowa and Iowa State.
(NO FOR IOWA, YES FOR IOWA STATE.)

-Better football from the Cyclones and Vikings - the bar is incredibly low.
(NO FOR THE CYCLONES, YES - BARELY - FOR THE VIKINGS.)

-Warmer Spring weather, at least where it doesn't snow again in May.
(IT WAS DEFINITELY BETTER.)

-More legalization of marijuana beyond what's happening in Colorado on 1/1/2014.
(YES, SORT OF.  THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PASSED A VOTE TO LEGALIZE IT.  BUT STATES LIKE IOWA STILL CAN'T BRING THEMSELVES TO EVEN LEGALIZE MEDICINAL USE.)

-A la carte cable TV channels.  It's only a matter of time before cable providers will have to do this to compete with computer streaming.  Why not in 2014?
(NO AGAIN, ALTHOUGH COMPANIES LIKE NETFLIX AND AMAZON PRIME ARE INCHING US CLOSER TO IT.)

For 2015 I'd like to see:

Less glorification of big butts.

A Final Four for Iowa State men's basketball, and an NCAA tournament berth for both Iowa and Northern Iowa men's basketball.

More action, less inaction by the U.S. Congress.

Stephen Colbert dominating late night television, with Conan and Fallon and Stewart right behind.

Common use of Apple Pay.

Might as well go for it again -- at least medicinal marijuana legalization in Iowa.

A vaccine against Ebola.

A week-long vacation for me.

The Sound of One Hand Clapping

I was thinking about a blog post to update this one on Iowa's repressed views of medicinal marijuana.  Then the Des Moines Register published the following editorial, which is pretty consistent with my views:

Iowa parents will no longer face prosecution if they purchase a special marijuana extract for their severely epileptic children. Gov. Terry Branstad signed a bill into law, which takes effect July 1, that allows parents to buy a cannabis oil that may lessen seizures. For that, he and the Legislature deserve credit.

“This bill received tremendous support and truly shows the power of people talking to their legislators and to their governor about important issues to them, to their families and to their children,” Branstad said shortly before he signed Senate File 2360.

Parents did work relentlessly the past few months to gain support from lawmakers. And that did make all the difference in swaying elected officials. However, this law is only the first step toward changes Iowa needs to make.

The parents who will be legally allowed to purchase the cannabis oil still face obstacles. They need a recommendation from an Iowa neurologist and will have to travel to other states with less restrictive marijuana laws to obtain the oil. They may face waiting lists.

Also, the change in law benefits only a small group of Iowans with the most organized lobbying efforts. Other sick Iowans should have legal access to marijuana extracts, too. These include people with painful and debilitating conditions like cancer, spinal cord injuries and severe arthritis, who may benefit from the drug. But if these people obtain cannabis oil, they will still be considered criminals in this state.

Benton Mackenzie, for example, has been diagnosed with angiosarcoma, a cancer of the blood vessels. The 48-year-old was growing his own marijuana to make cannabis oil to shrink skin lesions caused by the disease. After the plants were confiscated from his parents’ home in Long Grove last summer, his lesions have grown enormous and his health has deteriorated.

Mackenzie and his wife are both charged with felony drug possession. His 73-year-old parents are charged with hosting a drug house. His son is charged with misdemeanor possession, and his friend is charged in the drug conspiracy. A Scott County district judge recently ruled Mackenzie won’t be able to use his illness as a defense.

“At least the state is now recognizing, with a law, that marijuana has medicinal value,” said Mackenzie.

Yes, but the state has much more work to do on this issue.

Branstad and other mostly Republicans in Iowa want us to applaud how open-minded they were in helping just a few Iowans with the cannabis oil law, in the absolute most minimal way possible.  It's a joke.

To paraphrase the old Zen riddle, they deserve the applause made by the sound of one hand clapping.

Bad Medicine

On March 16th, 2014 I had a letter to the editor published in the Sunday Des Moines Register.  They edited it, so here it is with the edited part in brackets:

So Iowa Governor Branstad opposes legalizing marijuana for medicinal purposes (on the vague grounds of 'unintended consequences'), [while our legislative 'leaders' pat themselves on the back simply because they had a 'conversation' about it this year.]  Both government branches claim the issue needs more study.

The reality is, there's nothing else to study.  Twenty other states already allow medicinal marijuana. Dispensing it by prescription isn't rocket science.  Plus, a majority of Iowans want to legalize medicinal marijuana.

Yet, Iowa is no where near the point at which its narrow-minded political leaders are willing to act to reduce the pain and suffering of some of its citizens.

Iowa doesn't need more study-time to legalize medicinal marijuana.  What it needs is its legislative and executive branch to stop assuming marijuana is an evil drug, and start focusing on the good it can do.

See it here.

Our Unstoppable Social Evolution

In the past week, there were at least 3 major news stories (two national and one local) about same-sex couples and the gay lifestyle.  How can I refuse to write about them?

The two national stories were U.S. Supreme Court cases, heard on back-to-back days.  One case was about the right of gays to marry, the other about gay marriage rights as they relate to the Clinton-era federal Defense Of Marriage Act.

The local story was another attempt by extreme Iowa Republican Party conservatives (I'm not sure there's another kind right now), to remove the governor's name from an anti-bullying conference.  Why?  Because they believe "anti-bullying" is a cover for promoting the gay agenda.  Yes, they actually think this out loud.  Not surprisingly, the effort is being led by WOITH Bob Vander Plaats, who can't be disgraced enough.

Regardless of how any of this turns out in the short term, in the long term it's once again time to remember a basic rule in America:  Society evolves on social issues.  There's no stopping it.

When we recognize something that hurts/helps society, we take action to disallow/allow it, respectively.  It may take years, or decades, but eventually, we get it right. 

It's going to take a while, maybe even another generation, but legislation allowing and expanding same-sex marriage in all states is going to happen.  Take it from someone who lives in a state where gay marriage has been allowed for years now - we've figured out it doesn't hurt us, it only helps us.

And so society evolves.

Stupid Is As Stupid Does

There are many iconic phrases given to us by the novel/movie Forrest Gump, e.g. "Run Forrest, run!" or "Life is like a box of chocolates."  The one that I've been pondering the past few days is, "Stupid is as stupid does."

I've never been quite sure what that phrase means, but I can think of at least one recent instance where it fits perfectly.  That is, in the case of last month's fake 'debate' in the Iowa legislature over medical marijuana.  (Yep, this in another blog post on the topic of pot.  Only the enlightened should continue reading.)

A legislative subcommittee just held a hearing on the topic of medical marijuana, which a new Des Moines Register Iowa Poll revealed is supported by a majority of Iowans.  That didn't stop the old white man who chaired the meeting from starting the hearing by saying, "Doing any bill.....that would legalize marijuana would be one of the stupidest bills that's ever been passed by this organization.  There is no reason to legalize medical marijuana."

Stupid is as stupid does, sir.

Before the hearing, I wonder how many legislators or their family members got their day started by taking an anti-depressant, anti-anxiety, or anti-pain medication, or some other kind of mind altering drug?  And after the hearing, I wonder how many legislators went to one of the nightly lobbyist-sponsored receptions and had an alcoholic drink or two?

I'll bet the answer is, "Lots of them."  But please ignore the man behind the curtain, we have an intellectually dishonest argument to make.  Society has determined that legalizing those other mind-altering substances is perfectly fine, even though they may be addictive, routinely abused, and lead to dire consequences for other people.

Stupid is as stupid does, for sure.

So we won't even have a real debate about controlling and legalizing medical marijuana.  We will merrily go along another year in Iowa, not only ignoring the incontrovertible organic health benefits of marijuana for some, but also spending millions on anti-pot enforcement and criminal incarceration for others.  Iowa allows gambling, Iowa allows gay marriage, but somehow the social conservatives here continue to beat back progressives on medical marijuana.

Maybe Forrest Gump's mom can explain this to me, because he also once said, "Mama always had a way of explaining things so I could understand them."

"And that's all I have to say about that."

Citizens Un-united

A few months ago, many beef-industry-reliant states got into a tizzy over media reports about 'pink slime.' This is in fact a derogatory name for a beef filler / by-product that's found in practically every package of ground beef.  (The beef industry prefers the name "lean finely textured beef.")

Anyway, the governors of these states held a press conference at a processing plant to complain about the way this filler was being characterized.  At this made-for-TV event, the mainstream media reporter who gave the 'pink slime' a national spotlight asked Iowa's governor a question - did his interest in this issue also stem from the fact the beef processor was one of his biggest political donors?

Of course, the governor responded with righteous indignation that someone would even think there was a connection.  Many others, including my own friends and acquaintances, agreed it was a cheap shot question from a self-aggrandizing reporter.

Hold on, now.  While this 'pink slime' deal was very overblown and a bit offensive, that question was not.  If politicians are going to accept political donations, they are fair game to be criticized when they appear to do favors for those donors, rightly or wrongly.  It doesn't matter if they actually happen to believe what they're saying, the appearance of impropriety is there.

Of course, this is just a microcosm of the current state of affairs in this country when it comes to money and politics.  Thanks to the Citizens United decision, money has never had a bigger influence in who gets what in the USA, and politicians have never been more brazen about doing favors for those who provide them with financial backing.

Senator John McCain, one of the few people who still can pass as a moderate Republican and a long-time voice for campaign finance reform, recently said about Citizens United, "There will be scandals associated with the worst decision of the United States Supreme Court in the 21st century.”  Will be?  It's been happening since the day the decision was made.

Even before that decision, that system was still broken.  PACs/SuperPACs and lobbyists have always had too much influence, mostly due to the access their money buys them.  I used to work for a large trade association, and it was no secret how this worked.  When raising money for the PAC, they openly stated  that money was how the game was played, and they needed to be a player.

Oh, but they didn't say that publicly.  Instead they had the gall to quote Thomas Jefferson, who once said, "We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”  As if that meant Jefferson would support a PAC!  (Note - Thomas Jefferson also said, "The end of democracy will occur when government falls into the hands of lending institutions and moneyed incorporations."  Why didn't that trade association use that quote?  D-bags.)

What planet are elected officials on when they allow themselves to accept money from people and especially from corporations, yet don't think constituents or the media should question them about the consequences of that relationship?  It's legal bribery, with politicians who don't want to change it and an electorate that feels powerless to change it.

School's In...For...Summer!

This week the Iowa legislature got its shorts in a bunch over the earliest date schools should be able to begin their school year.  It's been fun to watch.

For many years, Iowa law has mandated that elementary and high schools are not to begin classes prior to September 1st.  However, schools can (and do) apply to have that mandate waived, which it always is.  Consequently, many schools in Iowa have begun to start within the first half of August, and all before September 1st.

No problem - local control, everybody's happy, right?

Enter the special interest groups, namely the tourism lobby.  Schools are now starting so early that they conflict with family vacations, and more specifically, with the Iowa State Fair.  The Fair and the tourism industry want the starting date mandate enforced.

The debate between local control and tourism quickly deteriorated into dumb versus dumber arguments.  If you support tourism, you're accused of being against education.  If you support local control, you're accused of being against common sense.

Of course, the goofy teachers' lobby had to get involved, letting everyone know their precious Spring Break may have to be eliminated if schools have to start later.  Do they not realize that outside of central Iowa, most school districts don't even have a Spring Break?  And how is a Spring Break good for education?

In the end, a compromise bill has been crafted to mandate that schools not begin classes prior to the last Monday in August.  So the debate ends with all parties missing the obvious answer - we should be looking at year-around school.

This is the 21st century, with air conditioning and technology.  It's time to accept that kids don't need all summer off.

Good for education?  Yes.  Good for tourism?  Sure.  Good for teachers?  Talk to the hand.

Caught In Traffic

Here is the text of an email I sent today to my elected representatives in the Iowa House and Iowa Senate, as well as the governor's office:

I’m writing to oppose HF 2048, i.e. the traffic camera ban.

I can’t think of a single reason why individuals and municipalities (not to mention their representative politicians) would oppose using technology to sustain already existing laws.  Traffic cameras, and the fines they may impart, are a ‘win’ in almost every conceivable way.

Traffic cameras keep the roads safer for drivers, especially law-abiding ones.  They make money for municipalities.  They free up resources for law enforcement to spend on more important things. The list goes on…

Sure, there could be some legislative tweaking.  For example, fines might be reduced – that may also be a way to limit the money made by the private companies behind the cameras.  But those are just details.

The fact is, those who oppose traffic cameras are afraid of something, and it isn’t Big Brother.  Opponents are afraid they will no longer be able to break the law while no one is watching.

Automated enforcement technology isn’t Big Brother.  It’s a behavior modification tool (like any camera is), and it clearly works.

We have the power, in the form of technology, to continue doing good here.  I would expect our elected officials to not stand in the way of that.