If you are looking for more information on the “shift in strategy” that was stated by Bennahum Wednesday on the page in Minnesota and the page in Michigan, I encourage you to reach out to him and/or our parent company directly. I am not a company spokeswoman and it is doubtful that I hold the answers you seek.

What I want to provide is an update to our readers on what’s taken place here in Iowa.

The Iowa team, which was most recently comprised of Andrew Duffelmeyer and me, learned Wednesday of the shift described by Bennahum. Duffelmeyer, who began his tenure with us only a few weeks ago and I cannot praise enough for being a wonderful co-worker and talented and hard-working journalist, was let go. As I’ve already told him personally, I wish I had more to offer than my condolences.

As for me, I have a decision to make by the close of business on Friday. The decision, as it was explained to me, is not one of will I stay or will I go, but is centered on the timing of my departure. Regardless of my decision, the practical future of The Iowa Independent and the content archive that so many amazing journalists have contributed to for almost the past five years is out of my control.

When you boil everything down, I think the day-to-day obligation of a reporter is to gather information and provide readers with the story. The stories reporters tell aren’t always happy or pieces that we enjoyed creating, but we fulfill our obligation and do the job.

I know that was the case for me in 2008 when, after capturing images of the Cedar River engulfing my portion of the state, I ran several rain-soaked blocks back to my car and collapsed in a pool of my own tears on a nearby curb. Similar emotions emerged as a part of the reporting I did in the aftermath of the immigration raid in Postville, except in that case I cried alongside those I interviewed.

And, lest you think I’m just a teary-eyed chick who breaks down over laundry detergent commercials, other reporters have relayed — typically following a few drinks, mind you — that they have driven a few blocks down the road after an interview to pull over to think, smack their steering wheels or cry. Others have stopped an interview in mid-stream because of the emotional toll it was taking on their subjects and themselves.

The truth is that raw emotions cannot simply be observed; they are absorbed. The other truth is that sometimes the most mundane of story lines will unknowingly place a journalist on a collision path with an emotionally fraught individual. By my estimation, that’s the bittersweet part or, if you like, the double-edged sword of working as a reporter: you never really know what the day is going to hold.

There are good days and truly inspirational people all along the way, but the emotional minefield is one that reporters acknowledge and freely transverse. I think we do that because there is something within us that makes us want to tell the stories, to help others to understand something beyond themselves. We want to sound alarms when warranted and calm fears when needed. We want you to know what’s going on around you — even the unpleasant stuff and, perhaps, especially the unpleasant stuff.

I don’t yet know what my decision will be or, if I’m completely honest, if such a decision will continue to exist once I publish this post.

As has happened before, I have absorbed the emotional devastation that surrounds me, and all I really know is that I need to sit on the curb for a little while and make some sense of it before I can be of any help to anyone else.

Between now and Monday, maybe I’ll figure it out. If so, posts will resume here without another mention from me of what’s happened. If not … well, I want to thank you for taking my calls, answering my emails and, above all else, reading. I will forever be grateful for the journey and the people along the way.

In the words of Orson Welles, “If you want a happy ending, that depends, of course, on where you stop your story.”

On his new GBTV network, conservative talk show host Glenn Beck made a point of saying he doesn’t give endorsements, but then appeared to hand an endorsement to former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

A video clip featuring Beck’s words was uploaded Monday by the Santorum campaign.

The campaign also offered the following transcript of Beck:

I don’t endorse candidates, I don’t get involved in politics, I don’t make donations to any politician. Rick Santorum is a friend of mine, but I choose my friends carefully and I would never tell you someone was a friend of mine if I didn’t have great respect for them. I will tell you this. People ask me all the time, ‘who is out there?’ I tell them the same thing, I don’t trust any of them, but if I had to trust the reins of power with one person that is currently in this field and, because I think the next president has got to be Abraham Lincoln, he has got to be somebody who knows exactly who he is, knows exactly where he stands and is willing to, in the end, turn those reins of power back over. The temptation and the pressure is going to be absolutely enormous. If there is one guy out there that is the next George Washington, the only guy that I could think of is Rick Santorum. I would ask that you would take a look at him.

To place the Santorum-promoted piece in context, visit The Right Scoop blog, where a nearly 17 minute clip has been posted of the same exchange.

“We think all of the candidates suck,” Beck said after Santorum joined him by phone.

Beck added that there are only two candidates, in his opinion, that don’t have “scary policies.” Those two being Santorum and U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann.

“So, what do we need to do to get you and Michele Bachmann to be the president? Vice-president? I don’t care — you can switch chairs whenever you want. You can work it out. What do we do?” asked Beck.

Santorum’s response was his website address and an ask for campaign donations.

U.S. Sen. Tom Harkin said he was “pleased” Monday that the nation’s highest court had decided to “promptly resolve conflicting lower court decisions” regarding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Labeling lawsuits launched against the landmark health care reform as “politically-motivated,” Harkin said in statement that he was sure the U.S. Supreme Court would find the law constitutional.

Here’s Harkin’s full statement:

“I’m pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to promptly resolve conflicting lower court decisions concerning the Affordable Care Act. These politically-motivated lawsuits are a waste of judicial resources, and an unnecessary distraction from the important work of moving ahead with implementing the health reform law.

“I am confident that the Court will uphold the Act’s constitutionality, affirming the common sense notion that, as a Republican-appointed D.C. Circuit judge wrote last week, the Constitution gives Congress the power to ‘forge national solutions to national problems.’ Virtually all Americans will use health care, whether or not they choose to purchase insurance. Thus, the Constitution gives Congress the power to make that marketplace fairer and more affordable. The Affordable Care Act does just that.

“I look forward to the Court ending this period of legal uncertainty, allowing us to focus on expanding coverage and improving health care quality for all Americans.”

Gov. Terry Branstad is among Republican officials from 26 states and a small business advocacy group that asked the U.S. Supreme Court to strike down the entire law. SCOTUS announced Monday that it would hear the case.

A total of 28 telephone utilities have been given federal money to build and expand broadband access in rural service territories that span portions of Iowa and 17 additional states.

U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Utilities Service Deputy Administrator Jessica Zufolo made the announcement Monday morning during an annual meeting of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners in St. Louis.

In a following statement, U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said, “Today’s funding will provide residents of these rural communities with high speed internet connections to improve health care and educational opportunities and connect to global markets. In addition to providing much needed services to rural businesses and residents, these investments will increase jobs, not just in the near term, but through expanded opportunities in rural areas.”

The USDA provided three examples of how the funding would improve quality of life for rural residents. In Minnesota, they said, Rural Development Broadband Loan Program funds will be used to extend Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone Cooperative’s existing Fiber-To-The-Home (FTTH) network to serve rural communities in north-central portions of the state. The program will offer service to more than 45,710 households and businesses through a company that has been operating since 1952.

In North Dakota, the funds will expand Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation’s broadband system throughout 18 exchanges to provide voice, video and high-speed data systems. When the project is completed, all of Polar’s subscribers will have access to broadband.

Perry-Spencer Rural Telephone Cooperative Inc., based in Indiana, will begin the process of designing and building broadband services to its 5,711 subscribers spread over 1,148 miles.

USDA is providing $478.6 million in funding to companies that meet eligibility requirements. Companies slated to receive funding, by state, are:

Colorado

• Eastern Slope Rural Telephone Association, Inc.–$18,725,000 will be used to upgrade the existing fiber-to-the-node (FTTN) network, capable of providing modern broadband services to subscribers in 10 exchanges.

Idaho and Utah

• Albion Telephone Company–$17,075,000 in loan funds will be used to install 453 miles of buried fiber optic cables throughout the proposed FTTP system, providing nearly 60 percent of subscribers with FTTP.

Illinois

• McNabb Telephone Company–$3,700,000 in loan funds will be used to make system improvements, including constructing new FTTP facilities. A total of 115 miles of buried fiber optic cable will be deployed to improve service to subscribers.
• Shawnee Telephone Company–$30,286,000 in loan funds will be used to construct FTTP facilities, allowing Shawnee to provide voice and data services at speeds of up to 100 Mbps to both residences and businesses.
• McDonough Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$15,728,000 in funds will be used to upgrade the rural areas with FTTH technology. Approximately 766 miles of buried fiber cable will be deployed to provide over half of the subscribers with access to improved broadband service. McDonough has been serving its rural subscribers for over 60 years.
• Wabash Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$21,867,000 will be used to install 777 miles of buried fiber optic cables and related equipment throughout the proposed FTTP system. The FTTP system will enhance service to 70 percent of Wabash’s subscribers.

Indiana

• Perry-Spencer Rural Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$29,139,000 in loan funds have been awarded to Perry-Spencer Rural Telephone Cooperative Inc., (PSC) which provides telecommunications services to nearly 6,000 subscribers over approximately 1,150 square miles in southern Indiana. This loan will enable PSC to start the process of designing and building FTTP to enhance broadband services across the service area.

Iowa

• Mediapolis Telephone Company–$13,401,000 in loan funds will be used to make system upgrades to the transport system and the network architecture from the existing copper Digital Subscriber Lines (DSL) to FTTP broadband systems.
• Griswold Cooperative Telephone Company–$12,747,000 in loan funds will be used to complete a system-wide FTTP network, enhancing broadband service to all subscribers.
• La Porte City Telephone Company–$9,867,000 in loan funds will be used to make system improvements, including installation of a FTTP broadband network that will serve all of the borrower’s subscribers. A total of 297 miles of buried fiber optic cable will be deployed, enabling downstream data rates of up to 20 Mbps.

Kansas

• The S & T Telephone Cooperative Association–$29,814,000 will be used to implement a full FTTH design to allow the migration to 10-20 Mbps broadband speeds to all subscribers and to provide IPTV in the near future.

Minnesota

• Paul Bunyan Rural Telephone Cooperative–$19,749,000 in Rural Development Broadband Loan Program funds will be used to extend Paul Bunyan’s existing FTTH network to serve the exchanges of Park Rapids Rural and Trout Lake in North Central Minnesota. With this extension of their network, Paul Bunyan will be able to provide advanced telecommunications services to over 45,710 establishments (households and businesses) across all service areas. Paul Bunyan has been operating since 1952 and has been a telecommunications borrower with the Rural Utilities Service since 1953.

Nebraska

• The Hemingford Co-operative Telephone Company–$10,280,000 will be used to upgrade the outside plant with optic cable, fiber optic drops and FTTP equipment. These funds will add 377 fiber miles of fiber optic cable.

New Mexico

• Roosevelt County Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$12,358,000 will be used to deploy new equipment and install FTTP equipment to enhance the broadband network.

North Dakota

• BEK Communications Cooperative–$26,746,000 in loan funds will be used to expand a FTTH broadband system. Upon completion of this RUS-funded project, 100 percent of BEK’s subscribers will be served by fiber.
• SRT Communications, Inc.–$24,832,000 in loan funds will be used to install 2,143 miles of buried fiber optic cable and related equipment throughout the proposed FTTP system. The FTTP system will be constructed in areas outside of towns in twelve of the borrower’s twenty-six exchanges. The service areas in the towns will continue to be offered DSL at speeds of at least 55 Mbps with its relatively new copper plant.
• Polar Communications Mutual Aid Corporation–$32,939,000 in loan funds will be used to expand the Borrower’s FTTP broadband system throughout the borrower’s eighteen exchanges. The upgraded system will help meet current and future requirements for delivery of voice, video and high speed data to subscribers. Upon completion of this RUS-funded project, 100 percent of Polar’s subscribers will be served with broadband via various technologies.

Oklahoma

• Terral Telephone Company–$4,855,000 in loan funds will be used to convert the existing copper network to a FTTH system, and connect new subscribers. The proposed FTTH deployment includes construction of over 62 miles of fiber plant in and around Terral, and the replacement of the existing softswitch and power plant. This FTTH deployment will create nine jobs and save seven jobs.

South Carolina

• Sandhill Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$5,930,000 will be used to provide for system improvements, including purchase of a new switch.

Tennessee

• North Central Telephone Cooperative Corporation–$27,069,000 will be used to upgrade portions of North Central’s outside plant and network infrastructure by deploying a FTTP network.

Washington

• Inland Telephone Company–$24,823,000 in loan funds will be used to expand Inland’s FTTP broadband system and connect new subscribers.
• The Toledo Telephone Co., Inc.–$18,091,000 in loan funds will be used to install 292 miles of buried fiber optic cables and related equipment throughout the proposed FTTP system, offering enhanced service to all Toledo subscribers.

Wisconsin

• Union Telephone Company–$13,308,000 in loan funds will enable Union to deploy approximately 336 miles of fiber, which will provide approximately 60 percent of Union’s subscribers with access to improved broadband services.
• Marquette-Adams Telephone Cooperative, Inc.–$19,781,000 Marquette-Adams will use loan funds to complete a system-wide FTTP network, including over 370 miles of new or modified buried fiber, providing enhanced broadband service to all subscribers.
• Vernon Telephone Cooperative–$24,143,000 in loan funds will be used to install 1,206 miles of buried fiber optic cables and related equipment throughout the proposed FTTP system. The FTTP system will offer enhanced broadband service to 90 percent of subscribers.

Wyoming and Colorado

• Dubois Telephone Exchange, Inc.–$11,391,000 in loan funds will be used to expand the FTTP system to provide video and data services over an optic network with speeds up to 100 Mbps. Included in this loan is $9,462,000 for construction and engineering in Wyoming and $1,929,000 for construction and engineering in Colorado.

Offering comparison charts of educational town hall meetings over the past several months, Iowa Senate Democrats charged their party’s offerings have been held at more more family- and teacher-friendly times.

“Iowans believe strong local schools are key to our state’s economic future,” Sen. Brian Schoenjahn (D-Arlington) said in a statement. “Teachers, parents and students have lots of ideas on improving our schools. At the same time, they are wary of a one-size-fits-all approach imposed from above and about a lack of state support.”

Schoenjahn, chairman of the Senate Education Appropriations Subcommittee, and his fellow Democrats have held more than 25 evening meetings throughout the state. The Branstad administration has also been holding meetings, and Democrats are quick to note that of the 21 executive branch meetings since Sept. 1, only two began after 5 p.m.

“To achieve real education reform, you need to get everyone on board,” Schoenjahn said. “For example, when we made high quality preschool available to every Iowa four-year-old, we did it by involving parents, teachers, employers as well as public and private preschool providers and funders. By holding meetings this fall when everyone can attend, we will be better able to represent the voices of working parents and Iowa teachers when the education debate begins at the statehouse next spring.”

Here’s is the chart of forums offered by legislative Democrats:

Here is the chart of forums offered by the Branstad administration:

In October, the Branstad administration rolled out its proposed state education reforms, One Unshakable Vision: World-Class Schools for Iowa. The administration has signaled that it wants the proposal considered as one comprehensive package instead of as individual ideas to be voted on separately by the legislature. An exact cost of the package, however, has not yet been disclosed and is not expected until after the 2012 General Assembly convenes in January.

A lawsuit hoping to repeal landmark health care reforms will be heard by the U.S. Supreme Court, and a decision will likely be handed down in advance of the 2012 general election.

The U.S. Supreme Court announce Monday that the justices will hear a challenge to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in late winter or early spring of 2012. Specifically, the justices will be asked if a requirement within the law that mandates health insurance or financial penalties is proper.

Once oral arguments have been made before the court, any decision should be made public by the end of June 2012.

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments this week on a controversial California law that requires nonambulatory livestock at slaughterhouses to be immediately euthanized and removed from the food supply and, based on their questions, it appears the justices are leaning toward a ruling in favor of the meat industry and the Obama administration.

The 2008 law, which was set aside by a federal judge pending this further legal action, was prompted by whistleblower video at a slaughterhouse that showed nonambulatory, or “downer” cattle being shocked, kicked and hit with heavy equipment at one California facility. As The Iowa Independent earlier reported, state lawmakers sought to prohibit the sale of meat for human consumption from such animals, and mandated under its penal code that any “downer” livestock be immediately euthanized.

Federal law, however, requires that “downer” livestock be moved away from other animals and inspected. If inspectors find no disease or “adulteration” of the animal, it is allowed to continue through the slaughter process as a part of the food supply.

The National Meat Association, which sued on behalf of the pork industry, has asked SCOTUS to strike down California’s edict on grounds that it over-stepped the federal rule. California’s attorney argued mostly on the grounds of scope and semantics. The latter appeared to be an argument that did not resonate with the Court.

“In other words, you’re saying, ‘Well, just because the federal law says you can, doesn’t mean the state can’t say you can’t,’” noted Chief Justice John Roberts during the testimony of California Asst. Attorney General Susan K. Smith.

When Smith affirmed her argument, Roberts added, “Isn’t the exact flip side of saying … you can’t sell it, is that you can? So when federal law says you can, that preempts the rule from the states that says you can’t.”

Smith was arguing that because California was immediately removing “downer” livestock from the food supply, and the scope of federal law had to do with slaughterhouse operations leading to the food supply, that the state’s requirements remained outside of the scope of what federal authorities had already mapped out as their own territory. In other words, California needed to prove that it’s new law was attempting to “preempt,” or cancel out, existing federal law, which the Constitution holds as the winner in all conflicts.

The meat industry argued that the Federal Meat Inspection Act over-rules any state law that addresses cruelty or humane treatment of livestock slated for slaughter.

The state believes it has the right to explicitly decide what types of livestock can be slaughtered for human consumption, and that its decision in such matters is outside of the federal regulations regarding slaughterhouse operations because it is making its requirement in advance of the federal law. So, if the state decided that no purple hogs or white cows could be slaughtered for human consumption, the state believes the requirement would automatically remove such livestock from jurisdiction by the Federal Meat Inspection Act.

“The federal law doesn’t say you must,” argued Smith. “It does not say that you must sell the meat or you must…”

Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, saying, “We are not talking about conflict preemption. If it said you must and the state says you can’t, then there would be conflict preemption. But we are talking about express preemption, which says in so many words no additional requirements. And I don’t know how you can get around the fact that this an additional requirement.”

The audio file embedded below provides a portion of the oral arguments in which the justices question Smith:

The Nebraska legislature, meeting in a special session to deal specifically with the Keystone XL pipeline that would cross their state, may be on the verge of passing a bill that could give the governor control over the route that pipeline would take.

On Wednesday, the Natural Resources Committee voted 7-1 to send a bill to the full legislature that would require all oil pipeline companies to have the routes of their pipelines certified by a state panel headed by the governor before starting construction.

LB4, introduced by Schuyler Sen. Chris Langemeier, would adopt the Oil Pipeline Route Certification Act. Under the bill, authority to issue a route certification for a proposed pipeline ultimately would rest with the governor. It would also establish a panel of experts and landowners to advise the governor, and require the Nebraska Department of Natural Resources to receive applications and hold public meetings regarding a proposed pipeline route. Finally, the proposal requires a route certificate to be obtained before eminent domain rights could be exercised by a pipeline carrier.

It is an open legal question whether the passage of such a bill would be legally viable, since the approval of the project is generally viewed as a federal question. Nonetheless, Nebraska lawmakers are set to begin their first round of debate on Nov. 14 at 1:30 p.m. Four amendments have been filed in advance of that debate.

Heineman came out against the pipeline route earlier this year, citing the importance of the Ogallala aquifer to regional residents and the agricultural industry.

On Thursday, the U.S. State Department announced it needed time to further review the route proposed by TransCanada. A final decision is not expected until 2013.

In light of the federal news, Nebraska Sen. Langemeier told Kevin O’Hanlon of the Lincoln Journal Star that he would consider setting the bill aside.

“The bill is out to have a discussion, but at this point, maybe a discussion is not needed in a special session,” he said. “This might be able to be further discussed … in January,” when the legislature returns to regular session.

Ed Brayton contributed to this report.

In a rare bipartisan effort, members of the U.S. Senate voted Thursday, before returning to their districts to attend Veterans Day ceremonies, to approve a portion of Obama’s American Jobs Act that provides tax breaks to companies that hire veterans.

Tom Harkin

“We have a solemn obligation to do right by the men and women in uniform who put their lives at risk for our nation.”

Government officials estimate that roughly 240,000 veterans who served in the Middle East are currently unemployed. The bill approved by the Senate provides tax breaks of up to $9,600 to businesses that put them to work.

The tax breaks were included in the Obama administration’s American Jobs Act, a $447 billion package that was wholly refused by Republican lawmakers last month. U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley says the initiative dates back to May 2010 and this past January, when he and U.S. Sen. Max Baucus introduced and reintroduced the Veterans Employment Transition Act, or the VETs Jobs bill.

Chuck Grassley

The legislation reinstates a tax credit that expired at the end of 2010, and makes it easier for veterans and small businesses to use. The credits will range from $2,400 to $9,600 in 2012, depending on the veteran hired. Tax exempt organizations are eligible for the credit.

• $9,600 for veterans with service-connected disabilities unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $5,600 for veterans unemployed for 6 months or longer in the past year
• $4,800 for service-disabled veterans hired within 1 year of being discharged
• $2,400 for veterans who do not fit any of the above categories and are unemployed for between 4 weeks and 6 months in the past year

Any veteran who has left active duty in the past five years who has discharge paperwork showing 180 days of qualified active duty would be eligible for the credit. This would include those men and women who were activated by their states as members of the National Guard. The bill also helps service members market themselves to prospective employers by requiring the military to educate service members about how the credit works.

The only senator to vote against the Vow to Hire Heroes Act of 2011 was South Carolina Republican Jim DeMint, who indicated the measure gave veterans an unfair advantage.

“I cannot support this tax credit because I do not believe the government should privilege one American over another when it comes to work,” DeMint said on the floor Thursday.

Dave Loebsack

“Tomorrow, we set aside time to honor the men and women who have served our great country in uniform. As we pause to pay tribute to them, we must also remember that we have a moral obligation to serve our troops and veterans with the same dedication and honor with which they serve us. Yet our troops are returning home from the battlefield to face the same economic reality that families across our country are facing,” Loebsack said in a Thursday statement.

“The World War II generation returned home and became part of our nation’s economic recovery. Today, as we work to recover from the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression, it is up to all of us as a grateful nation to ensure that those who have fought for us overseas do not have to fight for a job here at home. This generation of veterans can and will be part of our economic recovery, but we must give them the opportunity to do so. This bipartisan legislation demonstrates the progress we can make when both sides of the aisle work together.”

Two members of Iowa’s federal delegation are veterans. Harkin served as an active-duty jet pilot in the U.S. Navy from 1962 to 1967. U.S. Rep. Leonard Boswell served 20 years in the U.S. Army, including two one-year tours of duty as a helicopter pilot in Vietnam.

According to a January 2011 report by Jennifer Rizzo of CNN, only 20 percent of the members of Congress have served in the military — 25 from the Senate and 90 from the House. It is the lowest level since World War II.

Members of the occupy movement interrupted U.S. Rep. Michele Bachmann’s scheduled foreign policy speech in South Carolina Thursday, forcing the candidate to exit the stage.

Similar to a recent protest of Wisconsin’s Gov. Scott Walker in Chicago, the demonstrators read and echoed sentiments on prepared pages. Eyewitness reports indicate that roughly 20 demonstrators affiliated with Occupy Charleston took part in disturbance.

A statement on the Occupy Charleston Facebook page read, “Today Occupy Charleston shut down a speech by presidential candidate Michele Bachmann. Together in unison we took advantage of the moment to address the system and the people within it as to the unjust role of corporate money in politics. Michele Bachmann was not our target in this action; she is a representative of the institutional and legal corruption that has infected our country — a system of corruption that values profit over people and is driven by the financial interests of the few against the many.

Political candidates have the finances to create a spectacle to promote the interests of the 1%. This is an ability that is not afforded to the vast majority of the people. Our actions were an attempt to break that spell and to give voice to the 99% and their interests which have too long been ignored by the political establishment. This is not a Democratic or a Republican issue, this transcends petty party politics.”

After the demonstrators had left the USS Yorktown aircraft carrier where the event was being held, Bachmann returned to the stage and asked those remaining in the crowd, “Don’t you just love the First Amendment? It’s great. We have a great country and I want to thank you all for your understanding.”