Great coaching job by ND. I wish Iowa had a sharp young black coach who is good at special teams. Hmmmm?

In case you missed it, Statehouse Republicans have a mandate. The Golden Dome of Wisdom is now redder than a Tesla fire.



“Iowans have spoken, loud and clear. They demand common sense, and it is incumbent upon us to continue implementing common sense solutions,” said Senate President Amy Sinclair in her remarks on the opening day of the 2025 legislative session.


“The verdict issued by Iowans and Americans leaves no doubt about what direction they want government to take,” said Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver.




Readers, too, have been reminding me that Republicans rule, and I drool.


“Apparently (and not surprisingly), you haven't gotten the message yet about the presidential election,” a reader wrote.


“If you, a TDS liberal, have forgotten that elections have consequences, you are in for considerable heartache ahead,” he added.


Others were slightly more emphatic.





ADVERTISING


“What a piece of s--- you must be at the core not to wake up to reality truth and facts !!!! A feel sorry for you !!! Hope you someday find a moral compass,” a reader wrote.


Can pieces of s--- even have moral compasses?


It’s true, Iowans clearly have chosen Republican governance over the last five election cycles. Voters have given Republicans historic majorities in the Iowa House and Senate. Gov. Kim Reynolds has been elected twice. I would never argue that somehow these election results are in any way ambiguous, unlike my critics.


Iowans want Republicans in charge. Case closed.


One of the spoils of victory is, apparently, ignoring the concerns of hundreds of thousands of Iowans who did not support Republicans. They won, so that means you need to shut up. Bring your views in line with the majority or remain silent. If you don’t like it, move to California.


Republicans love to rule but they don’t like to listen.


Republican leaders skipped out on a traditional pre-session forum where journalists could ask them about their agenda. Many GOP candidates skipped forums during the campaign where voters could ask about their plans. I’ve heard from Iowans who say attempts to communicate with their lawmakers leads to silence.


The governor, who once promised weekly news conferences, rarely takes questions or grants interviews. Fox News, notwithstanding.


The GOP majority calls public hearings on legislation affecting a sizable swath of Iowans to be held on weekdays in small room. They limit floor debate so it’s possible to shove bills through faster. In some cases, bills have sprung from behind the scenes to the governor’s desk with remarkable speed. Bills that couldn’t pass through the normal, public process are added as little surprises to budget bills at the end of the session.


Checks and balances have eroded. The Legislature no longer provides any meaningful oversight of the Republican-controlled Executive Branch. Political blood is thicker than law.


Did you ever think you’d hear a Republican governor brag about how government is now “centralized.” More power for the governor, less for the people.


Women who want abortion rights, public schoolteachers, trans Iowans and those of us who want to clean up our dirty water are among those who have been bulldozed by lawmakers and Reynolds’ regulators. Think tanks from out of state have more say in legislating than Iowans.


Want to turn to local government? State edicts have weakened their authority.


But the Legislature is not supposed to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Republican Party, governing only on behalf of its political allies. The GOP controls the agenda, but it should not ignore other voices. That governing for the common good the late Republican congressman Jim Leach often described has fallen far out of fashion.


And if Iowans oppose what’s happening at the Capitol, it’s their civic duty to weigh in. Questioning authority is a necessity, not an annoyance.


But the message from the Capitol often is, “Cry more, libs.”


Maybe there is an upside to the Republican push to make sure Iowa kids get a big dose of the Founding Fathers in social studies class.


“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny,” James Madison wrote in Federalist 47.


"All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression,” Thomas Jefferson said in his second inaugural address.


John Adams often warned against the “tyranny of the majority.”


I’m not screaming “tyranny!” in a crowded Statehouse. But the founders lived with having their concerns ignored by the powers that be across the pond. Their anger over the trampling of the minority was a real and fresh wound.


So, loyal opposition, don’t shut up or go away. Continue to speak out and question legislative actions. It’s your right as a citizen. No voter mandate, no matter how clear, can take that right away.


(319) 398-8262; dorman.todd@thegazette.com

Opinion: A mandate doesn’t mean you have to shut up

Gov. Kim Reynolds delivers the annual Condition of the State address to the Iowa Legislature on Tuesday, Jan. 14, 2025, …

www.thegazette.com

God I hope it isn’t Iowa.

Would LOVE to have some back & forth with those posters right now, tonight, immediately after their loss.

On a serious note, Pennsylvania is straight hillbilly.

I mean complete trash. The state as a whole.

George Barnett takes a LOT of heat on here.

3 OL starters are returning next season: Gennings Dunker (confirmed today), Logan Jones & Beau Stephens.

Trevor Lauck & Kade Pieper (2nd year players) are 2 players to watch.

Check this out:

Login to view embedded media
Login to view embedded media Login to view embedded media

Admits that many of his campaign promises will be difficult to achieve. Can’t guarantee that many of the things will actually happen. Nice.

Deplorable Dumbasses!:

Republicans were ebullient after November’s election victories vaulted them into supermajorities in the Iowa House and Senate — the largest in more than 50 years.

To celebrate, Republican Party of Iowa Chair Jeff Kaufmann led legislators and other Republican officials in dancing along to the "YMCA" — President-elect Donald Trump’s signature campaign dance — at the party’s annual legislative breakfast before the session started Monday.

“We want people to know that Iowa Republicans are fired up,” Kaufmann said, urging the crowd out of their seats. “We want people to know that Iowa Republicans like Donald Trump.”

More:Iowa Republicans tout 'common sense' agenda as supermajority gavels in for 2025 session

He told the crowd he had been assured that Trump would be shown the videos of the dancing.

“I’ve got confirmation he will see them,” he said.https://www.press-citizen.com/story/news/politics/2025/01/13/iowa-republicans-ymca-dance-for-donald-trump-before-2025-legislative-session/77678885007/

​

?

Who do you got? I'm a Bears fan so I hate both teams. I think the Lions win it.

This is a hefty one. As @RossWB called it, meaty.

This is premium content. Please subscribe to view.

Deplorable:

The incoming Trump administration is preparing executive orders aimed at the federal workforce that could be implemented within days, kicking off an effort they see as essential for wresting power away from career government employees, according to four people familiar with the matter, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe internal conversations.


House Republican leaders are also gearing up to enact their own curbs on federal workers this spring, which could include significant cuts to employee benefits, said two other people, who also spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect internal conversations, as well as a document circulating on Capitol Hill.
The executive actions under consideration include measures to weaken the power of federal employee unions by stripping workers of collective bargaining rights they’ve had for four decades, the people said. Trump aide Stephen Miller told GOP congressional leadership Sunday that the administration may also move quickly to undo federal diversity initiatives, according to two people familiar with a call he held, speaking on the condition of anonymity to describe the private talk. Miller also said the administration would order some teleworking federal workers back to the office and push to reinstate a policy to reclassify tens of thousands of career civil servants so they have fewer job protections, other people familiar with the call said.

ADVERTISING


Trump officials have promised to scrap programs set in motion by the Biden administration devoted to advancing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) and direct agencies to find efficiencies that could result in staff cuts. While the precise timing of these measures remains unclear, several people in contact with Trump transition officials said they could come in the first week of his administration.
💻
Follow Technology
The efforts on Capitol Hill and in the transition represent the GOP’s first efforts to make good on Trump’s vow to rein in a federal bureaucracy that he and his allies have long derided as a “deep state” bent on disrupting his agenda.
Trump’s aides have already prepared upward of 200 executive orders on everything from tariffs to immigration, but his allies view taking on 2.3 million career civil servants as crucial to the administration’s goals.


Trump clashed repeatedly with federal workers during his first term, accusing them of resisting his policies. But he made little headway in reducing the workforce or diluting its power. Now, he and incoming officials have made clear that they want to more aggressively confront the career employees who stay on through every administration, a group they perceive as filled with liberals likely to try to block his plans. Some moves are likely to set off an immediate court challenge, including from federal labor unions.
“From day one, they need to be very clear: The president is elected by the American people, and the bureaucrats are not, and they’ll either implement what Trump wants — or they’ll be gone,” said Newt Gingrich, a Trump ally who was speaker of the House in the 1990s. Gingrich compared Trump’s move to purge the civil service with President Abraham Lincoln’s decision to force out Confederate sympathizers during the Civil War. “Trump certainly has the ability to suspend union contracts — I’m confident he has lawyers working out right now how to make that happen quickly.”
Advisers from the “Department of Government Efficiency,” an outside group led by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, working with experts in the civil service who served at the White House in Trump’s first term, have been also working since the election to find administrative actions to reduce the size of the workforce without going through Congress, aware that they could run into opposition in the closely divided Senate.


Until late last week, attorneys planning to serve in the new administration were reviewing possible executive orders and assessing which to issue right away, and which could bring legal challenges or take time to implement. The directive known as Schedule F, for example, which Trump issued near the end of his first term to replace thousands of high-ranking civil servants with political loyalists, was quickly rescinded by President Joe Biden. Biden then issued a regulation to make it harder for Trump to revive it, likely requiring the new administration to issue a new rule if it wants to reinstate the policy. Miller told GOP leaders that Schedule F would soon be re-issued, a third person familiar with that call said.
The Trump transition team did not respond to a request for comment.
Experts on the federal workforce warn that Trump’s plans could diminish critical capabilities of the U.S. government. While Musk and Ramaswamy have claimed their ranks can be reduced with little effect on services, federal workers are often essential for safeguarding functions such as clean drinking water, air traffic, pension checks and thousands of other daily operations.

This interesting article (see below) makes the argument for switching to a proportional representation system here in the US. Apparently no constitutional change is needed, just a small tweak of existing laws.

Part of their argument is that because of our winner-take-all approach, nearly half of us don't have representation in the House of Reps.

Another part of the argument is that with proportional representation, more parties would likely arise so we wouldn't so often have to chose between 2 candidates and parties we don't feel much (if any) connection with.

After massaging a huge database on voters, they identify 6 somewhat overlapping clusters of values and interests and suggest that we could end up with these parties - more or less from left to right:

Progressive Party - emphasizes equity and racial justice, bringing a vision of inclusive social democracy …
New Liberal Party - slightly to the right of the Progressives, more pro-market while still holding liberal social views.
New Populist Party - more in the middle, combining economic populism with moderate views on cultural and social issues …
Growth and Opportunity Party - heir to the socially moderate, market-friendly Rockefeller Republicans.
Patriot Party - would carry forward the America First agenda, with restrictionist immigration and protectionist economics …
Christian Conservative Party - argues for limited national government and emphasizes religious liberty and biblical morality.

I took the quiz (2nd link below) and they put me in the New Liberal Party. Surprised me a bit, since I consider myself a progressive. And on their graph, my dot is closer to the Progressive Party, but what do I know? Maybe I'm getting conservative in my old age.

Article on proportional representation:


Quiz to sort yourself into your new party:

..what do you think people will think of the movie Con Air? #100mg

Elon Musk bet me $1 million the U.S. would not see 35,000 cases of Covid—then turned on me when it happened, says Sam Harris​

Below is Sam Harris' full account on substack:


I didn’t set out to become an enemy of the world’s richest man, but I seem to have managed it all the same. Until this moment, I’ve resisted describing my falling out with Elon Musk in much detail, but as the man’s cultural influence has metastasized—and he continues to spread lies about me on the social media platform that he owns (Twitter/X)—it seems only appropriate to set the record straight. I know that it annoys many in my audience to see me defend myself against attacks that they recognize to be spurious, but they might, nevertheless, find the details of what happened with Elon interesting.

Of all the remarkable people I’ve met, Elon is probably the most likely to remain a world-historical figure—despite his best efforts to become a clown. He is also the most likely to squander his ample opportunities to live a happy life, ruin his reputation and most important relationships, and produce lasting harm across the globe. None of this was obvious to me when we first met, and I have been quite amazed at Elon’s evolution, both as a man and as an avatar of chaos. The friend I remember did not seem to hunger for public attention. But his engagement with Twitter/X transformed him—to a degree seldom seen outside of Marvel movies or Greek mythology. If Elon is still the man I knew, I can only conclude that I never really knew him.

When we first met, Elon wasn’t especially rich or famous. In fact, I recall him teetering on the brink of bankruptcy around 2008, while risking the last of his previous fortune to make payroll at Tesla. At the time, he was living off loans from his friends Larry and Sergey. Once Elon became truly famous, and his personal wealth achieved escape velocity, I was among the first friends he called to discuss his growing security concerns. I put him in touch with Gavin de Becker, who provided his first bodyguards, and recommended other changes to his life. We also went shooting on at least two occasions with Scott Reitz, the finest firearms instructor I’ve ever met. It is an ugly irony that Elon’s repeated targeting of me on Twitter/X has increased my own security concerns. He understands this, of course, but does not seem to care.

So how did we fall out? Let this be a cautionary tale for any of Elon’s friends who might be tempted to tell the great man something he doesn’t want to hear:

1. When the SARS-CoV-2 virus first invaded our lives in March of 2020, Elon began tweeting in ways that I feared would harm his reputation. I also worried that his tweets might exacerbate the coming public-health emergency. Italy had already fallen off a cliff, and Elon shared the following opinion with his tens of millions of fans :

the coronavirus panic is dumb

As a concerned friend, I sent him a private text:

Hey, brother— I really think you need to walk back your coronavirus tweet. I know there’s a way to parse it that makes sense (“panic” is always dumb), but I fear that’s not the way most people are reading it. You have an enormous platform, and much of the world looks to you as an authority on all things technical. Coronavirus is a very big deal, and if we don’t get our act together, we’re going to look just like Italy very soon. If you want to turn some engineers loose on the problem, now would be a good time for a breakthrough in the production of ventilators...

2. Elon’s response was, I believe, the first discordant note ever struck in our friendship:

Sam, you of all people should not be concerned about this.

He included a link to a page on the CDC website, indicating that Covid was not even among the top 100 causes of death in the United States. This was a patently silly point to make in the first days of a pandemic.

We continued exchanging texts for at least two hours. If I hadn’t known that I was communicating with Elon Musk, I would have thought I was debating someone who lacked any understanding of basic scientific and mathematical concepts, like exponential curves.

3. Elon and I didn’t converge on a common view of epidemiology over the course of those two hours, but we hit upon a fun compromise: A wager. Elon bet me $1 million dollars (to be given to charity) against a bottle of fancy tequila ($1000) that we wouldn’t see as many as 35,000 cases of Covid in the United States (cases, not deaths). The terms of the bet reflected what was, in his estimation, the near certainty (1000 to 1) that he was right. Having already heard credible estimates that there could be 1 million deaths from Covid in the U.S. over the next 12-18 months (these estimates proved fairly accurate), I thought the terms of the bet ridiculous—and quite unfair to Elon. I offered to spot him two orders of magnitude: I was confident that we’d soon have 3.5 million cases of Covid in the U.S. Elon accused me of having lost my mind and insisted that we stick with a ceiling of 35,000.

4. We communicated sporadically by text over the next couple of weeks, while the number of reported cases grew. Ominously, Elon dismissed the next batch of data reported by the CDC as merely presumptive—while confirmed cases of Covid, on his account, remained elusive.

5. A few weeks later, when the CDC website finally reported 35,000 deaths from Covid in the U.S. and 600,000 cases, I sent Elon the following text:

Is (35,000 deaths + 600,000 cases) > 35,000 cases?

6. This text appears to have ended our friendship. Elon never responded, and it was not long before he began maligning me on Twitter for a variety of imaginary offenses. For my part, I eventually started complaining about the startling erosion of his integrity on my podcast, without providing any detail about what had transpired between us.

7. At the end of 2022, I abandoned Twitter/X altogether, having recognized the poisonous effect that it had on my life—but also, in large part, because of what I saw it doing to Elon. I’ve been away from the platform for over two years, and yet Elon still attacks me. Occasionally a friend will tell me that I’m trending there, and the reasons for this are never good. As recently as this week, Elon repeated a defamatory charge about my being a “hypocrite” for writing a book in defense of honesty and then encouraging people to lie to keep Donald Trump out of the White House. Not only have I never advocated lying to defeat Trump (despite what that misleading clip from the Triggernometry podcast might suggest to naive viewers), I’ve taken great pains to defend Trump from the most damaging lie ever told about him. Elon knows this, because we communicated about the offending clip when it first appeared on Twitter/X. However, he simply does not care that he is defaming a former friend to hundreds of millions of people—many of whom are mentally unstable. On this occasion, he even tagged the incoming president of the United States.