“I don’t want to tell you what I was thinking.”

“Oh go ahead… if I’m planning to go out like this, I obviously don’t care what people think.”

So she said, “I was thinking you look like Mike Wazowski.”

Ah, the tribulations of an apple body.

Turns out the party was fun, but I never removed my wrap. And, I found my other costumes – on Sunday, while putting away laundry.

That’s the only conclusion one can reasonably draw from a report in the Oct. 30 Register revealing that the State now considers pumpkins Halloween decorations instead of “edible squash,” which therefore makes them taxable. According to the Register, “…the department ruled that pumpkins are taxable if they are advertised for use as jack-’o-lanterns or decorations, or if it’s understood that they will be used for that purpose.”

If it’s “understood”? Does that mean the check-out clerk will ask you why you’re buying a pumpkin? “Paper or plastic? ID for the liquor? Jack-o-lantern or pie?”

No, turns out asking isn’t quite good enough: if you’re actually going to eat the pumpkin, you can only get the exemption from the tax if you fill out a form! Good thinking, that won’t hold up the check-out line at all!

Encouraged – well, thrilled actually (hooray forward-thinking legislators!) – I wandered over – and was immediately taken by surprise to find out it’s only the Democrats!

“Welcome to the Iowa House Democratic Caucus website!” the front page proclaims, and goes on to give only contact information for Democratic leadership and feature Democrat legislators. So, while it’s a neat idea, I’m disappointed it’s not a cooperative venture between both parties. I’m also thinking that news release is just a little misleading.

At any rate, the new site promises live audio from the House, schedules and debate calendars. The news release says the site will use content “from” YouTube and Facebook, but I’m guessing they are mis-speaking and mean they will be posting content ON YouTube and Facebook. Anyone want to “Friend” the Iowa House Democrats??

A fun little sidenote: our DD was invited by KCCI’s Geoff Greenwood to do a brief television interview after the program. She said that listening to Harrington taught her to “Go for your dreams, and don’t give up.” That was the clip that Greenwood used in his news story on the 10 p.m. news. After calling all her friends to encourage them to watch, she was amused (disappointed?) that such a short clip was used, but I assured her that was normal. I think she might be more interested in Geoff’s TV career than in working for NASA…

1. Cigarettes. I don’t smoke, but if every non-smoker would commit to buying just two packs, that’d be… well, lots of additional money in the state coughers coffers. Heck a few of those folks might even become addicted, making it possible to fund that pesky portion of the SCHIP/HAWK-I program that we’re bound to lose because of that no-good Satan George Bush.

2. Ethanol. Yep, I’ll support this shameful crime against humanity by buying a FULL tank (for a change!). Hell I might even take a joy ride and have to fill ‘er up a second time!

3. Pumpkins. And lots of ‘em, SUCKA!!

Here is a corollary example of how Fair Share might play out: I work for a membership organization whose work affects the entire community. It’s not a stretch to argue that every resident and every business in our area benefits from the work we do. Our members support our work through their memberships because they believe in the work and they seek the opportunities we create for them to connect with each other. Some, however, choose not to be members. We could, therefore, conceivably seek to pass local regulations stating that every resident and every business owner in our region has benefitted from our work and should therefore pay us a user’s fee.

I’d be very curious to see how many union leaders (and people in general) would scream bloody murder about having to pay that fee, when they have chosen not to be members of our organization.

It is undeniable that unions did much in the early days of industrialization to improve working conditions, raise wages, and give workers a collective voice. But today, the fact that unions are seeking the right to collect “user fees” from non-members speaks volumes about their waning strength and influence: because they are apparently unable to make a strong enough case for membership, they are seeking a legislative mandate to allow them to collect funding from people who have purposely exercised their right NOT to fund them.

 Doesn’t seem all that “fair” to me.