The mariner is embarrassed to live in the same state as Steve King (R-4th) because Iowan people actually chose him as a Federal Representative. Already identified by analysis of his work as the worst representative in Congress, Steve has stepped forward to block Harriet Tubman as the face on the $20 bill. The NY Daily News said:
“Republican Steve King had claimed that putting the abolitionist in place of President Andrew Jackson, most famous for the Trail of Tears, would be divisive.
He had attempted to block any attempt to change up currency by sneaking an amendment into a bill about Treasury Department funding, though the Republican-controlled Rules Committee shot down the measure Tuesday night.” (King has never had one piece of legislative language survive his Congressional Committee)
If only to rub salt in the whole “face on money” issue, we aren’t too good at selecting our premier statesmen and citizens. As mentioned above, Andrew Jackson was responsible for the “Trail of Tears.” PBS wrote:
“In 1838 and 1839, as part of Andrew Jackson’s Indian removal policy, the Cherokee nation was forced to give up its lands east of the Mississippi River and to migrate to an area in present-day Oklahoma. The Cherokee people called this journey the “Trail of Tears,” because of its devastating effects. The migrants faced hunger, disease, and exhaustion on the forced march. Over 4,000 out of 15,000 of the Cherokees died.”
Note that racism isn’t a harsh issue in white, plain state Iowa; Steve King’s career as a do-nothing Congressman was not at risk over this issue. To the mariner, this is one reason an aptitude test must be passed for those wishing to represent the citizenry.
Even Steve’s own Republican Representatives kicked this one out.
But to further impugn Steve, Huffington Post covered this gem:
For crying out loud, whether it was a good or bad thing to drag human beings across the ocean to serve as slaves is still, for some reason, a matter for debate. But somehow, perhaps incorrectly, I’d come to accept that America was pretty clear about the matter of pitting dogs against each other for amusement. Dogfighting equals terrible advocates for dogfighting equals reprehensible humans — I figured that this was, by now, axiomatic.
But, lo, here comes Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) with a bee in his bonnet over the Humane Society and its stance on animal torture. Various state measures have been enacted to limit “several horrific farming and food practices,” including Maryland’s prohibition against arsenic being added to chicken feed, which seems eminently reasonable, given the fact we are talking about, well, arsenic.
How does dogfighting get wrapped up into these deliberations? Well, as Scott Keyes reports today, King took a question at a “tele-townhall” about “his opposition to animal rights and recently introduced legislation that would undermine local standards preventing animal torture.” And part of King’s response declared it strange to be so concerned about dogfighting, when humans are allowed to step into a ring and fight for sport themselves.
KING: When the legislation that passed in the farm bill that says that it’s a federal crime to watch animals fight or to induce someone else to watch an animal fight, but it’s not a federal crime to induce somebody to watch people fighting, there’s something wrong with the priorities of people that think like that.
Keyes added in his column: “Manny Pacquiao chooses to step into the ring. Michael Vick’s dogs did not.”
Steve King is 67 years old. By the mariner’s standards, he should have met term limitations seven years ago. Steve has been serving in Congress since 2003 (13 years). Though he isn’t competent enough to cause harm, it might be nice to have a productive representative for the 4th District.
Ancient Mariner