Egotists are us

So NYC mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner is asked a question by a voter who wants to know how he can lead a city administration and expect employees to behave in an ethical manner when he can't.  Watch this CNN video.

IMO the problem isn't that Anthony Weiner is a douche who can't control his fantasies, but that he's an egotistical, self-centered ass who can't ever admit that he isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread.   He actually can't tell when he's gone off the rails.  As a result, he can't see the utter contempt that he attracts.  

New Yorkers don't have to settle this low for a mayor.  The rest of us also have our own collections of egotistical, self-centered politicians pandering for votes.  We shouldn't settle that low either.

In a related video, The Daily Show's Aasif Mandvi tries selling a promising congressional candidate on going to Washington DC, despite its 535 obvious flaws.  The conclusion? 

"Washington is too gridlocked to attract the kind of results-oriented politicians we need to break the gridlock."

Debate in the Legislature? Imagine that!

Yesterday, the Illinois House of Representatives had something extremely unusual, a free and open debate on a topic of great interest, including votes on individual components of possible legislation.   It was about gun control and concealed carry of firearms, and was caused by a December Federal Court decision that invalidated the State's existing prohibition on concealed carry of firearms.  I am not a fan of Democratic Speaker of the House Madigan and can't know what his motivation was for the unusual debate yesterday, but it is a welcome breath of fresh air.  

The Republican Party's collective head exploded because it, in their words, was all a publicity stunt.  The Republican minority complained that it was a stunt designed to force legislators to reveal their positions to the public.   Imagine that??

""This is a political stunt," said Rep. Dennis Reboletti, R-Elmhurst, a former prosecutor. "It demeans this process."

A stunt?   Legislators debating a matter of great import and trying to determine, in public what provisions might have enough support to become law?   A stunt?  Apparently being a former prosecutor is not great preparation for being a legislator.

The legislators debating an issue, as opposed to backroom discussions that lead to a final bill to vote up or down at the last minute, is the way legislative deliberation is supposed to work.  The fact that is was so unusual is a damning commentary on how our State government normally operates (I hesitate to use the term "functions").   I can only hope that our esteemed State lawmakers liked the experience and demand similar behavior on subsequent issues.

NRA lobbyists and their sympathizers complained that the list of possible exemptions to allowing concealed carry was so long, there would hardly be any place left to carry a concealed weapon in Illinois.   Pardon me while I shed a tear.  If Illinois was the only State that did not allow concealed carry of firearms until the Federal Court ruled that could not continue, what's wrong with Illinois being the only State with a very long list of places that concealed carry is not allowed?   Nothing.  Schools, churches, mass transit, malls, stadiums, movie theaters, grocery stores?  What the NRA just does not understand is that a lot of Americans do NOT feel safer knowing their neighbors may be carrying a deadly firearm in his/her pocket.   They feel LESS safe knowing that the public, including unknowable numbers of hot-heads and unbalanced personalities, are armed to the teeth.

Democratic lawmakers voted in favor of prohibiting concealed weapons in places like casinos, libraries, hospitals, mental health centers, child care facilities, stadiums and amusement parks.

"When they get done with this, you won't be able to carry anywhere," said Rep. David Reis, R-Willow Hill, expressing a frustration among many gun rights advocates as they watched restrictions get piled on.

Mr. Reis, maybe that's exactly the point.  

Pat Boone Says What?

OK, so I think people should vote and be civically involved, but I'm nervous about all the promoting that "everyone" should vote.  I think those who vote should be at least minimally informed of who and what they're voting on.   If you don't care enough to learn at least something factual about the issues of the day, I say stay home.

I just got a robo-call from Pat Boone (I swear he said "Yes, that Pat Boone.  I'm still singing Love Letters In the Sand").  He was calling to "sing the praise of" and encourage us to vote for Joe Walsh, who is (IMO) the biggest tea party dipshit in Congress.  

Now, if encouraging "everyone" to vote means encouraging people who would be influenced by a recorded message from Pat Boone on who to vote for, then I'm against encouraging "everyone" to vote.   I mean, really, Pat Boone was considered to be a worthwhile influence for the Walsh campaign?  Really?  

I shudder to think about the type of person who would get this message and then say, "I'm no longer undecided, I'm gonna do what Pat Boone asked and vote for Walsh."

Corporate America Listens?

I am pretty skeptical about most corporate decisions and believe they are generally made in the company's interest, not customers.   So I am less than sympathetic to corporate interests when faced with a choice between them and people.  A lot of companies spend a lot of time and energy these days collecting "surveys" from customers, but it's never clear that anything is actually done with most of it.  Many times you can tell from the way survey questions are presented that the company 1) wants certain responses, 2) isn't really interested in honest feedback, and 3) simply wants customers to feel like their opinions matter.   Some politicians have adopted the same practice to "find out" what voters want.   In reality, these surveys simply tell voters what the politician thinks is the "right way."


I recently was startled to discover a company actually listened to its customers and even reversed a decision the company had previously made.  And, to my knowledge, this wasn't a result of a poll, but of actual feedback received from customers.  


A month or so ago, I received a notification from Discover Card, informing me that they were discontinuing Discover's Secure On-line Account Numbers.   Owners of a Discover Card could log into the Discovercard.com website and generate a credit card number that could be used for a web purchase anywhere Discover cards could be used.   The advantage of this system is that the vendor never sees your real card number so there's no chance of your account being stolen or compromised and the generated account number can only be used once.   So a website that wants you to "sign up" for a recurring service (when all you want is to buy something one time) can't process subsequent purchases against the generated number; it just won't work.   


So for whatever reason, Discover decided to drop this program.   I had used it for almost all online purchasing the past couple of years, so I wasn't happy to receive this news.   I sent Discover an email in which I said that the On-line Account Numbers were the main reason I used the account at all, so I wouldn't be using my Discover Card much in the future.  I figured they'd get the email and hit the delete button.


I was wrong.   A few days ago, I received an email from Discover which announced that they had decided to reinstate the program:

We recently announced the decision to discontinue the Secure Online Account Number feature.
Since then, we've heard customers like you tell us how much they love the added control of usingSecure Online Account Numbers for their online purchases.
Based on the feedback we've decided to reinstate this feature. Beginning today you will once again be able to generate secure online account numbers for online purchases.
We appreciate your loyalty and your feedback. Thank you for using Discover card.

I have to admit I am stunned by the notion that a large financial corporation pays any attention to customer comments.  Even more surprising is that they actually reversed a publicly announced decision, apparently due to those customer comments.    Kudos to Discover Card's management.


At least one piece of corporate America listened.  Who woulda thunk? 

Just What We Need (Not)

Washington Post columnist Michael Gerson has identified yet another reason why Michele  Bachmann is just what we don't need in a national leader: more ignorance.  The latest dust-up is Bachmann's position opposing requiring (or encouraging?) adolescent girls to receive the effective human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine.  The vaccine prevents acquiring HPV and, in turn, vastly reduces the future chances of being stricken with cervical cancer, most of which is caused by HPV.


Instead of even attempting to argue logically against the requirement, Bachmann chose to demonize her opponent (Gov. Perry of Texas, another member of the Republicant brain-trust, NOT), for signing a law requiring the HPV vaccination.   She didn't cite religious reasons, or even some sort of government intrusiveness reasons.   She chose to lump the HPV vaccine in with suspect un-named vaccines that cause "retardation."  She went off the rails and downhill from there.


As those friends of yours who think Bachmann is just what this country needs, why it is that we need more ignorance.

Vermont Envy

There are a multitude of reasons to envy the State of Vermont, including it's scenery, downhill skiing, and independent tradition.   Lately, I've found another reason; the US Senator from Vermont, Bernie Sanders.

A recent quote from Senator Sanders will demonstrate why I admire the guy and wish we had 30 more of him in the Senate.

“I think it’s very clear that the function of the Republican Party today in congress is to represent the wealthiest people in this country & the largest corporations. They couldn’t care less about the middle-class & working families… the President can not keep trying to compromise with people who do not want to compromise.”

Senator Sanders caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate, but does not belong to a political party and is officially an Independent.  He has had the courage to publicly declare his admiration for "European social democracy" and argues forcefully for the rights of middle-class Americans.


Another of Bernie's recent observations:

"Enough is enough! The American people must fight back. We need a government which represents all people, not just the wealthy, campaign contributors & lobbyists. In these tough times, despair is not an option. This fight is not just for us, it is for our children & grandchildren & for the environmental survival of the planet."

I wish every State had a Senator Sanders.

Throw Them All Out

Over the years I've found politics in general to be fascinating and positive, but in recent years, I've come to the conclusion that something is very wrong with the political process in this country.   Our nation's current inability to adjust the debt ceiling, the latest of a long series of governmental paralyses, is truly frustrating and apparently never-ending.

The people who are arguing ad nauseum in Washington, D.C. over how to raise the debt limit, have one thing in common with the politicians who find ways to also justify their personal peccadilloes.  Like Congressman Joe Walsh (no relation to the great Eagles guitarist) who has been ranting and raving that President Obama is a "liar" and that there are lots of ways to fund the government's programs without raising the debt limit.  He has accused the "other" party of mismanaging the economy and recklessly spending our money.  He was elected by about 300 votes in 2010.

Now we have news that the Congressman is arrears more than $100,000 to his ex-wife for child support.  He has dismissed the reports as a political hatchet job, but the court records and extensive "negotiating" with his ex-wife, as well as other reported financial problems he seems to have had, tend to lead me to the conclusion that he is just another politician who is a hypocrite and hack.

I've come to believe that the major cause of our political paralysis is because so many (all?) of our politicians and so-called "leaders" are egomaniacs convinced that they have all the answers.  This world-view means that they are unable to even consider that someone else might have some insight on a particular subject and that it would be in the national interest to actually negotiate with them to reach a compromise.   In fact, the very notion of a compromise is anathema to them.  To reach a compromise is admit they didn't have all the answers.

And this is why we have the Speaker of the House walking out of discussions with the President and frantically trying to pull his House majority together, including the Tea Party zealots, to make a symbolic, but meaningless (because it has no chance of passing the Senate), effort to raise the debt ceiling by further debilitating the middle class.  The Republicant Party has sold itself to the Tea Party egomaniacs and corporate interests and can't reach out to actually negotiate. 

While I think the Republicant Party has made egomania and hypocrisy an art form, politicians of both major political parties seem to believe they are the font of all knowledge.  We need to throw them all out.

These are very scary times we live in. 

A Simple Proposal

Terry Newell, Founder, Leadership for a Responsible Society, recently made what he called a "simple proposal" to address two problems with the current public appetite with budget cutting.  The first problem:  Americans have very inaccurate understandings of what their government currently spends money on.

For example, almost three-fourths of Americans in a 2010 Zogby Poll think we spend 6% or more of the federal budget on foreign aid. More than a third think we spend 11% or more. We actually spend about 1%. Needless to say, cutting foreign aid -- often the most popular choice of Americans to fix the budget, wouldn't make the dent in the deficit we might think.

The second problem is that a depressing number of Americans don't understand how they personally benefit from Federal spending and tax policies.   A simple example:

... 60% of those who claim the mortgage-interest deduction report that they "have not used a government social program." Percentages for student loans (53.3%), social security (44.1%) and Medicare (39.8%), to cite three other examples, highlight the fact that those who attack "social spending" are attacking their own benefits in many cases.

Newell proposes a "simple solution."   He suggests that the government issue an annual report to each citizen which sets out in two pages how Federal money was spent in the past year and how those funds applied to that citizen.   Much of the data can be culled from everyone's tax return, and other data is already in government computers.   His idea is very similar to the one proposed last year by the The Third Way, a think tank, about which I blogged last October.  It also relates to another post from April of 2010 which contained a long list of government programs and benefits which many people use, but don't often think about when demanding cuts to all those "socialist entitlements" that other people get.

Either proposal would go a long way to counter the current uninformed budget cutting fever, which is based on ignorance, rather than intelligent debate.

What Do You Expect?

I am a big supporter of public education and always have been.   I've been an elected public school Board of Education member since 1988 and graduated from public elementary and secondary schools.   Most public schools are not nearly as ineffective as some politicians would have us believe, although there is certainly room for improvement.   I've long campaigned for better funding sources for schools and a move away from the centuries old property tax system used in the U.S. to fund schools.   But money isn't the only thing we need to fix in schools.

I think the most important aspect of education that needs to be addressed is our expectations; what do we expect the schools to accomplish?  Every year, State legislatures generate a host of new objectives for schools to achieve, ranging from studying a particular subject (Lupus education), observing "Emancipation Proclamation Week," establish "diabetes care plans" for students, and requiring certain sex education courses to teach pupils about the dangers associated with drug and alcohol consumption during pregnancy. This is a very short list of recent legislative changes in Illinois.  Whether these goals are laudable is not the point.   Some legislative educational mandates are somewhat silly, but that's not the point either.  Rather, the common thread is that a hugely wide variety of social objectives find their way into a finite school day.  For every item added to the curriculum, something else disappears.

Therein lies the problem; public education seems to be focused on social issues and goals, at the expense of education.  Society expects our public schools to teach kids everything, including things that parents should be addressing or very narrowly defined topics of study.  Is it really necessary to formally require instruction on specific diseases in elementary/secondary schools?  


In a recent Marketplace article, educator Michelle Rhee points out that operating schools based on social goals rather than, economic objectives, results in one very large problem whenever the economy sours.  

(In America w)e see education as a social issue, not an economic one. And what happens to social issues in times of economic hardship? They get swept under the rug.

Joining those social issues underneath the rug, are our educational system support and issues.

Ms. Rhee suggests that we are not honest with our children about their abilities and accomplishments, and instead flood them with trophies, ribbons, and other confirmations that whatever they've done, it meets expectations.   Even if it's pretty mediocre performance.   

I think she's right, and it's not limited to sports.  Just look at all the "reality" TV shows to which many Americans are apparently addicted.   Many, if not most, glorify mediocre so-called "accomplishments" and behaviors.  Is that all we expect from people, including our kids?  Is that why the talking heads seem to think we all want a person "just like us" to be leader of the U.S.?   Let's be honest about this expectation also.  I want someone "smarter than the average bear" to lead the nation.

Rhee proposes we change from this culture of complacency:

In Korea, they have this culture that focuses on always becoming better. Students are ranked one through 40 in their class and everyone knows where they stand. The adults are honest with kids about what they're not good at and how far they have to go until they are number one. Can you imagine if we suggested anything close to that here? There would be anarchy.

Maybe we could use a little anarchy in this country.

Vacation More Important Than Doing Their Jobs

So, the House finally passed the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act by a vote of 206-60 on 12/22/10.   You might notice that there were only 266 House members voting.   You might notice that there were about 169 Representatives missing in action.  The majority of the missing Members apparently are Republicans who left town early (i.e., before the House adjourned) for the "Holiday."  According to the Washington Post:

The bill passed Wednesday evening by a vote of 206 to 60 after House leaders had held open the vote for more than an hour, presumably for members who were still hustling to make their way over to the Capitol on the final day of the 111th Congress' lame-duck session.

Missing Wednesday's vote were nearly 170 House members, 100 more than had been missing in action for the previous day's votes. Thirty Republicans had joined all but one Democrat, Mississippi's Gene Taylor, in supporting the measure

It's just another example of why most people hold politicians in such low regard.  

Fix the Filibuster - Sooner Rather Than Later

This is an issue whose time has definitely come.   Even if you believe that the filibuster could someday protect the Democrats as a minority party in the Senate, you really can't argue with the fact that the filibuster didn't prevent GOP Presidents from stacking the Supreme Court with conservatives who gave us Bush as President and the recent infamous "corporations are individuals" who get to flood politics with corporate bribes.  Possibly because Democrats aren't as regimented and organized as much as the GOP is - and therefore can't pull off real filibusters as well as the GOP.

Credo has this one right.  Sign the petition. 

See my list of filibuster votes near the bottom of this page.

You Should Get A Receipt

In a report from a think tank called Third Way, the group argues that taxpayers should get a receipt in order to clearly understand what they're paying for.  The sample receipt includes both income and Social Security/Medicare taxes and how much of your money goes where.

Image from National Public Radio (npr.org)

A recent article about the so-called "Tea Party" groups included a conclusion that tea partiers are opposed to government spending - except for the money spent on them.   Perhaps that's at least partly because most Americans have no idea where their tax payments go.  A receipt might help; it certainly wouldn't hurt.  As the Third Way points out, it doesn't require complicated math and would be pretty easy for the IRS to implement on its web site.  

It's a great idea that will never happen. An educated electorate is every politician's nightmare.

The report can be found here.

Watching Our Schools Crumbling

The State of Illinois is currently imploding financially and the politicians of both major parties seem unwilling to actually deal with the problems.   They persist in pointing fingers at the "other" party and sticking their heads in the sand.   For decades, both Republicans and Democrats have trumpeted "no tax increase" and convinced the public that State government (including all that it supports such as public schools) is bad and fat.   The result is that Illinois has one of the lowest and most regressive income taxes in the nation (3%) and a $14 Billion dollar deficit.   Schools throughout the state are now laying off teachers for next school year (some estimates say the layoffs may reach 17,000 teachers or more), and social services organizations are closing their doors because the State hasn't made payments due this fiscal year.  To put the deficit into perspective, if the State fired every State employee right now, that would amount to $4 Billion, leaving us with a $10 Billion hole.

I wrote a letter to the editor of the Daily Herald and Chicago Tribune a couple weeks ago, but neither has printed it.   I am publishing it here in the hope that a few people will find it of interest and use.  It's a little long, but IMO it addresses the core issues.

Put Pressure Where It Belongs-Springfield

In recent weeks, many people have become aware of the financial difficulties being faced by school districts around the State.   In many cases, the Districts are confronted by huge revenue shortfalls and are considering draconian cuts to staff in order to meet these changes.  As a Board Member of a District directly impacted by the State of Illinois' deadbeat status, I'd like to offer several observations.

1. The budget shortfalls currently facing most Districts is directly related to the unwillingness of Illinois legislators to meet the State's financial obligations.

2. The underlying weakness causing the immediate financial problems in public education is an over-reliance on property taxes.  As the basis for public education, property taxes cause huge inequities between Districts which have lots of commercial property and those that do not.   Those that are forced to rely on homeowners as the major source of property taxes tend to have higher tax rates and tax burdens on individual homeowners.  Commercial properties bring revenue into school districts without adding students.

3. The State legislature has repeatedly refused to change the funding of public education from property taxes to the income tax over the past couple of decades.

4. When legislators wring their hands over the potential bankruptcy of public education, and say "we understand the problem, but we just don't have the money" they are being disingenuous, at best.   If the State of Illinois doesn't "have the money" it's because the legislators have refused to deal with reality and alter the State's ridiculously low and regressive income tax in order to fully meet the State's responsibility for funding education.

5. The public is rightfully concerned about the potential long-term damage to our schools, and the resultant long-term damage to our children's education caused by the current financial melt-down.

6. State legislators of both major parties should be held accountable by the public for their refusal to work for the "greater good" and ensure that all our public schools are fully funded. 

7. Local school board members have remarkably little control over how to respond to the current financial constraints.   If their Districts do not have enough revenue coming in, they have no choice but to cut staff.

8. If the public wants to effect meaningful change, it must put unrelenting pressure on its elected State representatives to deal with reality and stop finger-pointing and political posturing.   The public needs to tell our State legislators that it is well past time for Illinois to actively support public education and fund it accordingly.

Until State legislators of both major parties in both the House and Senate feel like there is a political consequence to ignoring the State's financial plight, nothing will change.   Your child's classes will inevitably get larger, and the elements of a well-rounded education, such as exposure to the arts, will become rarer.  If you truly care about your children, and equally importantly, the children of your neighbors, you need to express your outrage to your State representatives.

Public education is about the education of everyone, including your child and the children of your neighbors.  Just as we all benefit from good roads and bridges, we all benefit from good public schools.  And, one way or the other, we will all pay for the destruction of public education in Illinois.

So you want compromise? Really?

We've heard a lot in recent years about how the American electorate is tired of the partisan bickering and polarized politics.   Americans want cooperation to resolve problems and an end to the current governmental paralysis, or so we've been told.

Recently, Scott Brown was elected to the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy from Massachusetts.  Brown is an avowed conservative and the election sent shock waves across the country.  It was the end of the filibuster-proof 60th vote in the Senate.

This week, Senator Brown voted with the Democratic majority (along with 4 other Republicans) in favor of a job creation bill endorsed by the Obama Administration.  Was that vote the beginning of a new "bipartisan" approach?   Was it evidence of an attempt to move away from polarization?   Nah, fuggedabout it.

Almost immediately, Senator Brown was castigated in the blogosphere and elsewhere by the right-wing ideologues that helped elect him.   He was a traitor to the cause, a RINO (Republican in Name Only), and doomed to be a one-term Senator.

I don't know; perhaps the shock is because so seldom have we seen any cracks in the GOP wall in the Congress.   The GOP is much more disciplined than the Democratic Party.  

I'd prefer to think that this vote by Brown is an indication that he might actually be an "independent" Republican and will vote for his State's interest over party interest.   That would be a breath of fresh air.

Anti-rape Amendment Signed Into Law

Back in October, I wrote about Jon Stewart's lampooning of Republican Senators who had voted against a Defense Dept. bill to ban contractors from restricting employee rights to go to court over workplace discrimination, including workplace rape.

Well, the legislation introduced by freshman Senator Al Franken was eventually passed and has now been signed into law by the President. You can read about it at ThinkProgress.org. There are also links to articles about how the Republicans were startled that Americans were unhappy with their votes against the measure.

Go figure.

Politics and Global Warming

I'm not sure what to make of the fact that there seems to be a vocal minority in the US that still doesn't believe than humans created the world's pollution levels and that the pollution has caused global temperatures to rise over the years and that this temperature rise is a threat to us. If you use the commentary section on newspaper web sites as an indicator, it would appear that there are an awful lot of these folks out there; more on that later.

In a recent news report on the current Governor's race in Illinois, the Daily Herald reported that five of the seven candidates for the Republican nomination don't "believe" that humans have caused global warming. One candidate allowed that humans "contribute" to global warming, but wasn't sure how much. The seventh candidate hedged his bets and stated he believes global warming research is "still evolving." I'm surprised he was brave enough to use the word "evolve."

The question was raised to elicit comment from the candidates on their views of "cap and trade" legislation at the Federal level. As such, it's really of small importance to the potential Governor of Illinois, but these candidates felt the need to explain their opposition to cap and trade. Rather than simply stating that they felt that a cap and trade approach to reducing pollution would have an unacceptable detrimental impact on business and employment (presumably because they think cap and trade will add costs to doing business), these politicians felt that they needed to attack the very notion that humans caused the climate changes scientists are observing. The public comments these people made are positively stunning in the depth of ignorance they displayed:

"I don't accept the premise that man is the cause of global warming, if global warming even exists," Kirk Dillard, a state senator from Hinsdale, said at a candidate forum last week.

"Global warming is not created by man and anybody who says that, it's just bad science. It's not true," said Bob Schillerstrom, chairman of the DuPage County Board.

Dan Proft, a Chicago-area public relations consultant, said Al Gore and other global warming activists are "kind of enviro-terrorists."

The State of Illinois is staggering under huge budget deficits, a regressive state income tax that hasn't been changed in a generation, more corrupt politicians than you can shake a stick at, and a public education system that is going bankrupt due to its reliance on property taxes. One could argue that the position of a potential Illinois Governor on global warming, climate change, and whether humans or polar bears caused these problems is of little relevance to the Chief Executive of the State. One would probably be mostly correct.

On the other hand, the fact that five candidates for statewide office had no compunction making such patently ridiculous statements in a public forum is disturbing for another reason. These politicians are so busy pandering to the "GOP base," that they can't accept what every middle school student knows is true; there's no explanation for global warming and its impact on climate besides humans and the pollution we have generated.

Now back to the online comments made by newspaper readers. This article generated the same kind of vitriolic and ignorant rants that cause me to generally avoid reading such commentary. Virtually all of these comments are posted by people using pseudonyms and their anonymity empowers them to make broad assertions as if they were facts. While they lambaste other commenters for making unsubstantiated or false "liberal" or "left-wing" statements about global warming, these posters make just as unsubstantiated claims masquerading as fact. Some of them make simple blanket statements about how well wildlife is faring in the Arctic, as if to settle the fallacy of global warming for everyone.

The ignorant comments of the public after news articles (about ignorant comments of politicians) are even more worrisome than the politicians' statements. The anonymous public vitriol tends to discourage rational discussion, and is little more than online bullying. For an excellent post on what's wrong with the public comment sections of news related web sites, read Steve Dahl's excellent 11/11/09 article "Everybody is a know-it-all these days."

In the end, it's impossible to debate with these folks and expect that they will ever be able to modify their viewpoint. If they don't "believe" in global warming by now, they never will.

Jon Stewart Lambastes 30 Republican Senators Who Voted to Sanction Rape

I know why a lot of the younger generation get most of their news from Comedy Central; that's where Jon Stewart lives. I don't know why the "mainstream" media didn't find time or space to blast this story all over the country, but fortunately Jon Stewart did.

Seems that Senator Al Franken introduced legislation that would ban the Pentagon from contracting with any company that forces women employees to sign waivers to not sue the company if they are raped as a result of their employment. Why on earth would we need a law like that? Because one of the biggest military contractors on the face of the earth, Halliburton, has a subsidiary (KBR) that does exactly that. And asserted that one of its employees, a 19 year old woman, couldn't sue KBR because of the waiver, after she was gang-raped by fellow employees and temporarily held captive in Iraq.

You need to watch the clip of Jon Stewart and listen to various Republican Senators explaining on the floor of the Senate why they voted against the amendment. Most of these same Republicans just recently were so outraged by Acorn's bumbling that it was their patriotic duty to ensure that group didn't receive "one penny more of government funds." Banning companies from government contracts if they cover up rape? Not the Senate's business in their view.

Fortunately, 68 other Senators who still had brains voted for the bill. Here's a link to the broadcast ** from The Daily Show. Here's a link to Buzzflash posting of the episode. And it's one sorry episode indeed.

** the link to the Daily Show may not work, and I don't know why... :-(

Sara in Wonderland

Clarence Page, in his Chicago Tribune opinion column on 7/8/09, seems to share at least part of my confusion about what on earth she's talking about most of the time. He quotes from her recent speech and Facebook postings in which she claims that "countless others" have left their positions for a "higher calling" without finishing a term without the criticism leveled at her. He observes:

"Countless others?" Like who? "Higher calling?" Like what? "Different standard?" Like how? So many questions, so few answers. Yet, when her coverage implies that she might not be ready for prime time on the national stage, Palin calls the media sexist, elitist and too dense to understand "it's about country."

No, governor, it's about you.

Mr. Page goes on to discuss Palin's remarks during the Presidential campaign in which she advised Senator Clinton to avoid "whining" about media bias, and he asks

Why doesn't Sarah Palin take Sarah Palin's advice?

Because you can gain a lot more mileage these days as a victim, even if you have to inflate your victimization.

Page speculates we haven't seen the last of Governor Palin on the national political scene, and I suspect he may be right. He mentions her huge popularity among conservative Republicans and white Evangelical Republicans, and her undeniable "star power."

Who else could knock the run-up to Michael Jackson's funeral off cable TV news as easily as Palin's resignation announcement did?

Indeed. Check out this timely political cartoon by Mike Luckavich.

It's Called Quitting

OK, so the only apparent Republican on the national scene under age 60 quit her job as Governor of Alaska the other day. There's a lot of commentary and opinion flying around now about what it means and why she did it. I generally can't understand 90% of whatever Governor Palin says because it sounds like some sort of encrypted code most of the time.

"Many just accept that lame-duck status, and they hit that road," Palin said. "They draw a paycheck. They kind of milk it. And I'm not going to put Alaskans through that."

Barely half-way into her first term as Governor, she decided to walk away from her job and tried to paint it as a patriotic and high-minded act. Lame-duck status? They hit that road? They kind of milk it? What on earth is she talking about? Palin asserts she's not a "quitter," but that's exactly what she did. It's called quitting in the middle of your term. So the former Republican candidate for Vice-President who had hardly any credentials to begin with, now has less. Unless, of course, you count her responding to some sort of "higher calling." I'm afraid to even hazard a guess as to what that means.

I never had any use for Palin as a candidate, so I'm hoping she'll just go away now. We should be so lucky.

What Makes One Curmudgeonly?

I've been an elected member of our local elementary school board since 1988 and throughout those years, we've been faced with serious underfunding issues. In Illinois, public education is funded primarily by property taxes at the local level. Without getting really detailed and boring, that system was workable up to the first half of the 20th century, but it's hopelessly maxed out now. Schools are subject to the same kinds of increasing costs (mostly related to salaries and benefits for staff which may consume 80% of a School District's budget) as the rest of the world, but property tax revenue is pretty much tapped out. In addition, as an early effort to pander to the voters, Illinois placed property tax limitations on schools in the Chicago suburbs years ago, so school districts are left with nowhere to go for necessary funds. Oh, did I mention that Illinois has a 3% flat income tax, one of the lowest in the nation? The State itself is now going broke itself with an estimated $11 billion deficit.

There are a lot of other reasons for our financial problems (like too many districts, too many local government units, etc), but IMO the biggest problem is our political leaders' inability to actually lead. Rather than suggest to us what we should do to solve societal problems, our so-called "leaders" devote their energy to telling us what they think we want to hear.

This is a leading cause of curmudgeon-ness (at least for me). No matter what political party is in power (and right now the State legislature and executive branch is controlled by Democrats), 99% of the politicians in Illinois are unwilling or unable to actually provide leadership. The pandering to the public is mind-numbing and relentless ("Taxes are too high," "Cut waste in government before we raise taxes"). The result has been gridlock. And don't get me started on our ex-Governor Blago; he was the King of Pandering. He's (in)famous for handing out free rides to everyone in the State over the age of 65 on public transportation (without providing any cash to the transit systems, of course). Well, that's only one of the things he's (in)famous for...

What politicians won't tell the public is that while Illinois has made graft, waste, and cronyism an artform) most of the State's budget issues are related to human services (education, health care, senior citizen care, highways, and the like). Citizens are all for cutting services that benefit someone else, but not so keen on cutting something that might affect themselves. And that's the underlying problem, for which we can maybe thank Ronald Reagan. We have lost that concept that there is a "public good" and that we as a people do things for the benefit of the many, not just for the benefit of the few. This was pretty much assumed back in the 1950s, but no more. As a society, we're preoccupied with "not in my backyard" and "what's in it for me?"

To quote Ashleigh Brilliant: "I don't have any solution, but I certainly admire the problem."