From local notoriety to a teachable moment

By Jeff Orvis

For a few days, Belle Plaine was in the news, both locally and nationally. After last night, because of the action of the Belle Plaine Board of Education, our little town faded back from the limelight, which is probably a good thing.

At issue was the decision by school administrators to end the practice of firing off a 21-gun salute to close the annual Veterans' Day observance. For many years, local veterans groups have presented a school assembly, complete with a flag ceremony, usually a guest speaker and the salute, followed by the playing of “Taps.”

But this year, it was decided not to allow guns in the school, even if they were handled by veterans and were loaded with blank ammunition. I haven't met our superintendent, but I can only suppose that with the tragedies of mass killings in schools and movie theaters in this country, along with the mounting body count of children through gun violence, maybe it was thought a change was needed.

This decision set off a social media firestorm. Fueled by the seemingly unending resources of the National Rifle Association, an Iowa gun owners group promised a protest at this week's school board meeting. More important to local residents, this decision seemed like a slap in the face of our veterans, along with several young people from here currently serving in the armed forces.

Another factor in this is how well received this annual assembly has been. I can remember when I was in school, some kids were less than attentive at some assemblies and more than once the whole school was called on the carpet by our principal. I attended most of the Veterans' Day assemblies when I was at the newspaper and I was constantly surprised at how well behaved the junior and senior high school students were for this program. I suspect one of the main reasons for this behavior was the fact that most of the students know someone who is currently in the military or are the children of veterans.

While I don't yet know the school superintendent, I am friends with several members of the board of education. I am not surprised, based on reports I have seen, that the board was not swayed by the sudden media interest, but did take the time to hear statements from members of the capacity crowd at the meeting. In the end, the board voted to allow the custom to continue as in the past.

School officials should not be condemned for introducing this proposal. In this ever-growing gun crazy culture, maybe this was a good time to consider whether a change would be in order. But on the other hand, we are losing dozens, if not hundreds, of veterans of our wars from World War Two to the present, each day. Also, many American Legion and VFW chapters are having problems staying afloat.

To be certain, I am no war hawk. I am of an age where I could have been eligible for the Vietnam draft. I did not agree with our involvement in that conflict, especially as it was commanded by a corrupt federal government. Through educational and physical deferments, I never served in the military. But I recognize the need for our country to have a strong defense today. Before we became involved in what has been called America's longest war, a career in the military was also a good alternative for many young people.

We should honor those who have fought for us. The 21-gun salute is a fitting way to remind all of us what price so many paid for our freedom. Thanks to our school board members for their decision. And thanks to our superintendent for having the courage to start a dialogue on this topic. If nothing else, it should serve as a teachable moment for classes where history and current events are taught.

A brave look at religion and politics

By Jeff Orvis

They say the quickest way to start a fight is to begin a discussion on religion or politics. So while I often like to keep this blog light, if the discussion of either above topic bothers you, perhaps you should wait for the next entry.

Let me start by stating that I am a professing Christian and very proud and grateful for that fact. God has gotten me through a lot over my life and I recognize he is with me every step of the way. But one of the gifts I think He has given me is tolerance. And unfortunately, I see less and less tolerance in this country each day.

Some people seem to think if we just let God in our schools, everything will be okay. Others are shocked when state and county governments won't allow the Ten Commandments to be prominently displayed on the grounds of government buildings.

I believe in prayer. Lord knows, forgive the weak pun, that I have called upon him numerous times silently before taking a big test in school, as well as before building up the nerve to ask a particular girl to a dance. I also believe in the Ten Commandments and realize that as a sinner, I don't keep them each day. But that doesn't mean I don't try.

Our Sunday school teachers and clergy have done a great job of teaching us that belief in Christ is the only way to get to Heaven. My way or the highway and that highway is a one-way to a very unpleasant, very warm place.

It's been many years since I studied American history. But from what I remember, it seems that our ancestors, at least some of them, came to this country to escape a European country where there was only one religion. I have no doubt that the early settlers drew upon their faith to sustain them during those tough first years. But they did it without a federal government looking over their shoulders, telling them who and how to worship.

I have recently become aware of a term, Christian dominionism. My interpretation may be a bit off, but it seems to be the belief that this country is a Christian nation and the devout believers in this concept believe we will all be doomed if we don't allow prayer back in our public schools and the Ten Commandments in our courthouses and statehouses. Their belief is well meaning. If more people followed the teachings of Christ, this would be a more civilized and peaceful society.

But my question to these folks is, if we are a free society, where one of our cherished freedoms is to practice, or not practice, the religion of our choice, how is this a Christian nation? What about our friends and neighbors that have contributed so much to the growth of this country? Why isn't America just as much a Jewish nation, or Hindu nation or, perish the thought, an Islamic nation? Some of these religions have teachings I am vehemently opposed to, especially not admitting that women are equal and should not be treated with anything but respect.

Like it or not, and many of us don't, we have been catapulted into the 2016 presidential campaign. The latest fad of many of the current candidates, especially the Republicans, is to stand up in front of a group and say, “Vote for me, I'm a Christian!” I'm waiting for one of them, probably Trump, to slip and say that while speaking in a mosque or synagogue.

The point is, just as we have broken the color barrier in the White House and may soon break the gender barrier, there will come a time when we also break the bonds of believing that our president must be a Bible-carrying Protestant Christian. Other religions teach peace and compassion. The jury is still out on whether we will see any of these other folks in Heaven, but ultimately we don't have the final say in the matter.

The candidate that gets my vote will be the one who will indicate that they lean on a Superior Being for strength, but also one who freely admits that he, or she, wants to be the president of all Americans, regardless of what they do on Saturdays or Sundays.

The incredible continuing legacy of Jimmy Carter

By Jeff Orvis

Former President Jimmy Carter held a remarkable news conference earlier this morning. He had announced that he had cancer that had spread from his liver to other parts of his body. What was remarkable about this appearance was that he didn't rely on a spokesman or a doctor to explain the extent of his illness. He sat and answered questions from the local and national press for more than 30 minutes.

I sat and listened closely to this incredible man. For a guy who served just one term in the White House, he might be remembered as one of the most influential individuals of the 20^th and early 21^st century.

When we hear about some of the wonderful work his Carter Center has accomplished around the world, it might be easy to regret that we didn't elect him to a second term. After all, look what replaced him. But I think America may have done him a favor by releasing him from the Washington fish bowl. Leaving behind the world of spin doctors, image formers and hundreds, if not thousands of government types who had their own ideas on how things should be done, he returned to rural Georgia, where the next chapter of his life has been anything but quiet.

Of course, of immediate concern is his health status. He calmly explained how the cancer had spread to four areas of his brain and how he was to begin treatment later in the day. He said he was actually at peace with the diagnosis, recognizing what a wonderful life he'd had. Much of that peace has come from the support of family and many friends around the world, but also from his strong Christian faith. Many of us would naturally sit back and wait to die. President Carter is tackling this challenge head-on, despite living nearly 91 years.

Aside from the detailed description of his condition, he reminded us of many other facts and figures of his life that show why this man is a national and international treasure. A graduate of the Naval Academy, he served on a nuclear submarine. After his service, he returned home and farmed for 17 years. Later on, he served as governor of Georgia, then hit the national political spotlight which ultimately lead to the presidency.

Today, I learned that he and his wonderful wife, Rosalyn, have been married 69 years. They have 22 children and grandchildren. He was asked how this illness and his treatment might affect his work with the Carter Center. He said he still hopes he can make that trip back to Nepal to help Habitat for Humanity build homes. It would mark the 33rd time he has been in that country. Much of the work of the center also involves improving the health of the populations of 80 countries. At one time, he said, there were more than 3 million victims of polio. That number has dropped to 11 and Carter was able to list which countries still had victims.

All of this incredible work takes major funds. Carter indicated that the center has an endowment of just over $600 million. While he and his wife have decided to scale back their day to day work at the center, he said he would still be contacting big donors and being a consultant of the work still being done. And there's still that hope of a return to Nepal.

With more than 20 men and women seeking the presidency, it's easy to compare and contrast them, as well as those who went before them. I have lived during the terms of 11 men. Some have done great things, others have been a disappointment. We all have our opinion on who the good ones have been. After watching the Carter news conference, I noticed on my Facebook page that someone had called First Lady Michelle Obama a disappointment. It has also been suggested that President Obama should be in prison. Most of those suggestions come from folks who can't even spell their claims correctly. Somehow, I would trust a former Constitutional professor before most rural Iowans, myself included.

Way back in 1981, on the day that Carter left the presidency, our hostages were set free from more than a year of imprisonment in Iran. I'm still wondering if the timing of their release was not orchestrated by members of the incoming Reagan Administration to try to dampen the legacy of President Carter.

More than 30 years later, that legacy is secure, despite the best efforts of those long-forgotten naysayers. As we continue to listen to that growing list of candidates, we should ask ourselves which ones have the ability to display not only great judgment, but also compassion and the vision to know that this is a great, big wonderful world and there are billions of fellow residents who deserve the right to live happy and healthy lives. That is what Jimmy Carter learned many years ago.

He will be a tough act to follow.

Iowa sends some quality players to the NFL again

By Jeff Orvis

Okay sports fans. Our long, dreary wait is almost over! The scanning of the TV dial for coverage of the combine, draft, reruns of last year, etc. is about to come to an end. The NFL begins its ultimate trek to the 50^th Super Bowl with the first preseason game a week from now in Canton, OH.

Aside from my total allegiance to the Chicago Bears, when I am watching a game with other teams involved, I try to scan the team rosters to find players who played their college ball in the state of Iowa. As the teams began opening their preseason camps, they published their 90-man rosters, showing who would be vying for spots on the regular season roster. The preseason rosters include the player's position, years pro and the college he attended. So for the past several years, I have poured over these rosters, in an attempt to answer the age-old question, “What ever happened to...?”

Each year, Iowa and Iowa State square off on the football field and for the week leading into the big game, there's a civil war waged in our fair state. I want to see all of our state teams do well, but I freely admit that my main loyalties lie with the Hawkeyes. I don't hate Iowa State, I just know which has historically been the dominant college program in our state and I like to go with a winner. How's that for firing the first volley across the bow?

But if you are visiting your favorite watering hole and a debate begins on which program is the better one, consider this: There are 52 players on preseason pro rosters who played college ball in our state. Thirty-nine are former Hawkeyes. Eight are from Iowa State, four are from Norther Iowa and one is from Coe. If you measure a program's success by the way the coaching staff prepares young men for a possible pro career, Iowa wins, hands down. Of course, if you want to see a team with the best potential for national recognition in the postseason, check out the guys at UNI.

The 52 players with Iowa ties attempting to earn a paycheck in the NFL this season are on 25 teams. Baltimore and Atlanta lead the way with four players each. There are 16 rookies listed. The gray beards with Iowa ties are Atlanta's Jonathan Babineaux, in his 11^th season and Minnesota's Chad Greenway, entering his tenth year. Both played at Iowa.

This state turns out a quality crop of linemen each year. The list this year includes 15 offensive linemen, seven tight ends and nine defensive linemen. There are also eight linebackers, three running backs, one quarterback, one wide receiver, six defensive backs and one kicker.

This is the time of year when dreams are made and dreams are shattered. If a team has 90 men in camp this week, by the opening of the regular season in September, more than 35 of those players will be looking for another profession. Multiply that by the number of teams in the league and you get some idea just how tough it is to make a pro career.

Historically, this state has provided some quality players who have had lengthy NFL careers. Heck, there are probably enough former pros in the Aplington-Parkersburg area alone to have an alumni group!

Here's hoping most of this year's group will cash those nice pro checks for several years to come!

The week that was

By Jeff Orvis

What a week we just experienced! Who would have thought when we began the week that by the end, our Supreme Court would have the courage to affirm what many of us already understood as the right thing to do, not once, but twice. Then our president represented all of us, whether we like it or not, in mourning the deaths of nine folks who were in a Bible study when they were gunned down by a young segregationist.

Such important events. So much to comment on. So many views and I already know that some of my friends will not share my opinion, but that's what makes this country great.

I don't pretend to understand all of the ramifications of the Court's decision on the Affordable Care Act. But it would seem that it at least partly affirms what has been in effect since the passage of what even the President now fondly calls “Obamacare.”

I believe that basic health care is a right, not a privilege. If you want a plastic surgeon to try to take a few years off your face, you should pay for it. If you are the victim of a fire and that surgeon works to restore your appearance to something similar to what you had before your accident, you should get that care, whether you can afford it or not. If you get cancer and you are facing drug costs of $100,000 a year to extend your life, you should have it.

Most of the rest of the modern world knows this. Why don't we? While this may be an over simplification, don't you think if we didn't have all those commercials and print ads touting every drug under the sun, prices would go down? If there were reasonable limits to malpractice awards for those drug companies and health care professionals, wouldn't there be less money needed in the system? If training for those health care workers was free and malpractice insurance was paid for, their salary structures could come down to a more reasonable level.

And of course, if we were all issued a health card by the government, the complicated, bloated health insurance industry would just fade away.

I've already written enough to make a lot of folks mad and just maybe more than a few of you are nodding your head in agreement. But time to move on to my next topic of the week.

When the Court ruled in favor of gay marriage, the reaction was immediate and loud. Some devout believers mourned the ruling. Some candidates who unfortunately use religion as a prop for their campaign were the most vocal, while they were secretly smiling because they now had more ammunition to gain campaign contributions and support.

When I heard the news, when the shock subsided, I was very happy. I should say here that I am a lifelong heterosexual. Some of my best friends and were and are female. But I also have some friends who choose a different lifestyle. Putting aside the Biblical questions for a moment, I recognize that they find most comfort with members of their own sex. Not for a moment do I question their devotion to their partners.

Amid the hundreds of people who instantly appeared on the steps of the Supreme Court to celebrate the ruling, a couple of moments made me tear up a bit. One of the men who sued the state of Ohio to allow his name to be placed on his partner's death certificate as his immediate next of kin, held up a picture of his departed partner and tried to explain what this ruling met to him. The other emotional moment came when an all-male chorus broke into a splendid spontaneous rendition of “The Star Spangled Banner.” It was their way of saying they were still proud to be Americans.

The ruling which seems to say we can no longer discriminate against people based on their sexual orientation brought to mind another time in our history. There was a time when women were not allowed to vote. There was also a time when people of different races were considered second class citizens in parts of this country. The Court's ruling blasted another stumbling block toward equality.

The other major event in this country this past week was a gathering of more than 5,000 mourners in South Carolina for the funeral of a young pastor. The funeral was attended by the president and vice president and their wives, along with several members of congress and other officials.

The President delivered a very moving eulogy, capped by his singing of “Amazing Grace.” It was a fitting tribute to the victim and his family and hopefully a comfort to a stricken community, state and nation. It also delivered a message to those misinformed folks who still maintain that our president is a Muslim. How many Muslims do you know that can sing that old spiritual with such emotion?

While President Obama may have been the first president to sing while speaking at a funeral, he is not our first Mourner in Chief. Unfortunately, wars and other tragedies have forced our presidents of both parties to be our spokesmen. We may not agree with their politics, those that I have observed over the years have represented us well.

We are in the last 18 months of this administration. This week showed that President Obama has a chance at a positive legacy. But that can only happen if the opposition will abandon its smokescreens regarding gay marriage and affordable health care and concentrate on dealing with the real problems we still face.

Some thoughts on Facebook posts

By Jeff Orvis

One of the gifts my parents left with me is the ability to see both sides of most issues. Another is the gift of optimism, what I like to call “The Glass is Half Full” outlook. These gifts served me well when I was in the news game. They have also helped when presidential election season comes around, which, unfortunately, has become a full-time thing.

I am fortunate to have many friends on Facebook. Quite a few of them don't share my political beliefs, some do. Sometimes I have been surprised at someone who finally comes forward to unveil a political belief that I never imagined they would have.

What has alarmed me recently is the venomous tone some who post on Facebook use when commenting on political figures. Sometimes they cite sources they are sure are truthful, while it shouldn't take more than an elementary education to realize its propaganda, not fact. Fox News comes to mind immediately. My remote finger skips right past that channel on my TV, because I truly believe that much of what they say is right wing junk. To be fair, I also realize that the apparent goal of MSNBC is to counter the Fox plague by going too far in the other direction. I don't spend much time on that channel either.

Getting back to Facebook for a moment, some of the posts look like they have been pulled off the front covers of such stellar pillars of the printed word as the National Enquirer and The Globe. One of the most recent posts indicate that First Lady Michelle Obama is about to be charged with treason. Another indicates that President Obama is the worst president we've ever had. Other posts long for the days of the second Bush administration, evidently posted by those with very short memories or those who still believe we should be fighting in the Middle East.

One post says Laura Bush was a classy first lady. I don't doubt that. She knew how to smile and stay in the background, raising her family. She is a stark contrast to our current first lady. Michelle Obama is not only very intelligent, a woman of the 21^st century, but she is serious about serving her country in partnership with her husband.

Remembering my mom's belief that there's usually more than one side to most stories, I respect some of those who don't agree with me. They are the ones who are undoubtedly more intelligent than I am and state their beliefs well.

Those opposed to my beliefs that make me sad and can even scare me are those who don't even try to contradict my beliefs with solid arguments. They're easy to spot. They're the ones who quite often misspell some of their posts. I suspect these folks went running for the nearest computer the night President Obama was elected. Had we elected a white man with the last name of Smith or Jones, you probably would not have heard from some of these people.

Remember what I said, I respect some people who don't agree with my political leanings. They are the kind of people I hope and pray are elected, if there is a changing of the guard in 2016. But as you begin to listen to the dozens of candidates over the next few months, please try to stay informed. Listen to the ones who, if they don't think the country is going in the right direction, will put forth ways to make things better, more prosperous and peaceful for all of us.

Maybe we will realize that President Obama was not the greatest president ever. But while history is the best judge, it's clear we've had worse. And don't expect to see his wife led out of the White House in handcuffs any time soon, despite what American News or Fox may tell you.

Prescription drug companies, are you listening?

By Jeff Orvis

In the past, I've commented on how corporations are cutting quantities of products, most notably in the grocery stores, in an apparent sneaky attempt to boost profits at the expense of consumers. When was the last time you were able to buy a one-pound can of coffee, apart from those trendy natural food places? Major brands have been cutting the number of ounces in their least expensive sizes for a number of years now.

There seems to be more water in a can of vegetables, more liquid in soup cans and even air bubbles in toothpaste tubes.

I realize companies are in it to make money. But what about integrity? Is this any way to reward customer loyalty?

My near constant companion these days is TV. It's the first thing I turn on when I walk in the door after being gone. I may not pay constant attention to what's on, but I've learned how to multitask with a baseball or hockey game on.

I have become a bit amazed at the number of ads for prescription drugs on shows at any time of the day or night. We've all heard horror stories about the high price of some prescription drugs. Big Pharma will try to tell you that those increasing costs are due to the costs of research of new medications. But I would bet we would all be amazed if suddenly these companies were forced to open their financials to public inspection. What do you think it costs to produce a thirty second TV ad on the nightly network news? Then how much does it cost to buy the commercial time?

What is especially appalling is how you will see an ad for gastrointestinal distress, for example and after spending 15 seconds extolling the qualities of the product, complete with a happy couple frolicking in a meadow on a picnic, you hear a voice telling you that certain people might die if they take this stuff, or at the very least, you will quit breathing or your nose will fall off. Of course, the companies were undoubtedly advised to say these disclaimers in their ads to avoid nasty lawsuits in the event that something goes horribly wrong.

What I've noticed is even as they are running through the possible side effects of their product, you still see the couples frolicking in the meadow, or paddling in a canoe or moms baking cookies with their kids. That way, the visual effect will make you want to use that drug and make you forget the warnings that are playing in the background.

I think somebody ought to make these companies hire actors to simulate the possible side effects of their drugs, while these warnings are being read. The first time a drug company has to portray certain bodily functions or show a person's nose turning black and falling off, the TV networks would have to decline to sell them air time.

At the end of these ads, you are urged to ask your doctor if this miracle drug is right for you. With the dwindling number of general practice physicians, they often have little time to explain what is wrong with you, let alone explain to some woman why a product to improve erectile function is probably not right for her. I've asked doctors if there is any good reason for their patients to suggest a drug they have seen advertised. The doctors usually shake their heads and roll their eyes.

The point is we are not doctors. We may know that we are not feeling well, but if you trust your doctor, wouldn't it make more sense spending his or her valuable time briefly explaining how you are feeling, then let the examination commence? Drug companies are trying to put pressure on doctors, through their patients, to sell drugs. If the TV and print ads suddenly disappeared and the drug companies went back to giving doctors free pens, an occasional meal or maybe even a vacation, I'll bet the cost of prescription drugs would plummet. The companies could also use part of their savings on some of that expensive research, giving their investors a dividend and bribing a congressman or two.