Understanding is key

Albert Einstein...photo by Wikimedia

“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.” ― Albert Einstein 

To me, ideas like that are the reason Albert Einstein was such a genius--that and so much more--of course. If he lived today, folks would simply say 'he gets it.' Just because he lived two centuries ago, doesn't mean we can't still glean wisdom from him.


Since the election of Donald Trump as our 45th President, there seems to be a wider than ever chasm within our country. There are folks who voted for him, that are completely confused as to why some of the rest of us are being so critical.

"Give the man a chance," they say. "Wait and see what he does."

I have been following politics for decades. I watched every minute of the inauguration. I watched nearly every debate. I follow the news from a variety of sources, both print, local, and cable. I was even paid to write it a few years back. What is more important though, is that I've participated in the democratic process, both as an activist and a journalist. I've watched how things work. I'd like to think I understand the process.

I'm pretty active politically on social media sites, where I've met with a wide variety of views. Some are similar to my own, while others are diametrically opposed. This includes a wide range from friendly banter, humor, to disagreement and downright rudeness.

For those who have been really critical, my observation has shown that so many of the most vocal are the first ones to say how much they despise politics. They do not obsess over the coverage of political events. They may catch the evening news or even a cable network. Or, they participate in water cooler discussions at work. Or their talk about current events with friends over a beer on the weekend. Politics is really everywhere, like it or not. 

Sometimes, people are just too busy with their lives to pay close attention. But that limited involvement does not provide a real understanding of this ever-more complicated subject. 

Watching what has gone on in social media is a lesson in misunderstanding. The name-calling is merely a ruse for "I don't know what I'm talking about." It was especially heinous during the Obama years.

Calling Barack Obama Obummer or Hillary Clinton Killary was simply a sign of ignorance, pettiness, and frankly, immaturity that belies credibility that doesn't even measure up to misunderstanding.

To quote our recent Nobel Prize Winner Bob Dylan, “Sometimes it's not enough to know what things mean, sometimes you have to know what things don't mean.” 

In the case of Donald Trump, this is paramount. He says something one minute and contradicts it the next--literally. There is no way to know that without following all that he says. Trump is great at giving lip service, telling people what they want to hear, but he has nothing behind it. Remember when he was pro-choice. Now he orders his Vice President to attend a pro-life rally. No one knows where he really stands on the issue.

While it sounds good to cut regulations, what that actually means is business will prevail over property rights, healthy food choices, clean air and water, to name a few. Making money will be the only thing that matters. Imagine doing away with the regulations that have cleaned up rivers and streams where raw sewage used to be dumped. Regulations protect endangered species, keep from building in flood zones, guard against too many chemicals applied to our food, protects our children from harm, etc. Doing away with regulations is dangerous. Sometimes the price is just too high, even at a cost savings. Trump doesn't get that. Business is all he knows and all he wants to deal with. There is more to governing than a bottom line.

Politics requires study. It just isn't enough to hear news filtered through someone else. 

So don't be so hard on those of us that have real concerns about the operations of this president. He has been in office just one week and has already burnt too many bridges.

The greatest example may be his insistence that Mexico pay for a wall Trump wants. He has talked smack about building a wall on the southern border with no thought as to how his words are received by Mexico, one of our best trading partners and closest global neighbors.

Donald Trump is so arrogant and so hell bent to make money off everything he can, in violation of the oath he took to uphold the Constitution, that I wouldn't be surprised if he had plans to build his wall and then establish an aviation flight school on either side of the border. That way, he could get a little piece of the action from all those rich drug dealers and criminals he claims are coming here. 

Seriously though, Trump wants Mexico to pay for a wall between the U.S. and Mexico. Mexican President Enrico Peńa Nieto said no and is offended at Trump's insinuations, not to mention the words he used about Mexico sending us its rapists and murderers. Just this week, Nieto canceled a trip he had planned to the U.S. Trump is angry that Nieto won't agree, so he is looking at other ways to get the job done. He doesn't seem to care about how much it will harm the people he works for--us! He is talking about imposing a tax on imports. 

Vengeance has no place in governing, yet Trump has exhibited several instances of his need to get even with people who are critical of him, much like he did with Hillary Clinton, who once was an invited guest at his wedding. 

In addition to angering one of our best trading partners, taxing goods in Mexico will include higher priced fruits and vegetables and other imported goods. How is this beneficial to anyone?

There have been so many things in the last seven days that are offensive and downright dangerous, like Trump's claim that when we pulled out of Iraq, we should have taken the oil. First of all, that would be a violation of the Geneva Convention. Furthermore, how does Trump's off-handed remark potentially harm our soldiers stationed in Iraq--soldiers charged with peace-keeping duties? I certainly hope soldiers aren't killed because of Trump's bravado.

We all have a long way to go to understand how our government operates. It will be more difficult in time, as Trump plans to silence the media that disagrees with him. This, to me, is the most dangerous thing of all. Without a free press, we might as well be Nazi Germany. 

Don't ever stop asking questions. Don't ever stop trying to understand. But if you do, please don't complain about those of us who do.

Just one Hillary Clinton Criticism

Every day the politics of this country become more and more inane. I think it is time I begin writing about it, because even if no one else ever reads what I write, I will have the satisfaction of purging some of the raging feelings politics in 2015.

Just one Hillary Clinton criticism
So much negativity is being said about Hillary Clinton, even from people who have and should support her. I believe it is time for a woman to occupy the White House. Hillary is the woman who can get it done because becoming President of the United States isn't a walk in the park. It takes experience, tenacity, intellect, and so much more, including guts. It has been interesting to watch the evolution of Hillary since her early days as First Lady. She has matured into a power house of knowledge about the world, the government, the voters, and above all her opponents. She has come a long way from baking cookies in the White House kitchen just to prove a point, to the politically-savvy woman she is today. Hillary is qualified to be the Commander and Chief of this country for many reasons, but most of all, because she's been through the fire and come out the other side. She is stronger, smarter, and more able to fend off her foes. This race will be interesting to watch.

In trying to satisfy my urge to communicate through Facebook posts, I found that to no longer suffice. There seems to be so much that needs saying these days. Besides, I just can't help myself. 

I was inspired by a Facebook meme I saw this morning depicting Hillary Clinton talking to Henry Kissinger. It was apparently a piece by Reverb Press, an online news and lifestyle magazine, entitled "Why Did a War Criminal Advise Clinton For Years?" In it, a litany of questions were asked about which of his policies she supports.

I'd like to know why is there an assumption that she supports any of them. 

This publication appears to have a liberal slant, but it could have come from the other side just as easily. 

The piece outlines how the dastardly Kissinger enabled Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, and protected Chilean dictator, General Augusto Pinochet. 

"We know thanks to the posted emails from the Clinton server that she was in regular contact with Kissinger," the webzine stated, adding, "We know that she considers him a friend thanks to her review of his book last year."

The assumptions are troubling, but what really troubles me is the conclusion, "That Clinton would willingly interact with the man who engineered the genocide in Bangladesh should give us all pause."

These kinds of assumptions harm our politics, malign good people, and rev up a frenzy among unintelligent, non-thinking, reactionary masses of people who hate Hillary Clinton for whatever is their reason du jour.

Can't we just stop it? It is so frustrating to see such jump-to-conclusion journalism with nothing to back it up but assumptions. I'd personally like to see the motive behind these allegations that somehow Hillary has a mutual agreement with Henry Kissinger just because of a few past interactions. The reality is that this woman was the Secretary of State, charged with the handling of all the foreign affairs of this country. She has to interact with everyone who may provide insight, information, or informed opinion available to her. That can't be an easy task, given the climate in today's world filled with so much upheaval, particularly when it comes to the Middle East. I'm sure it is a bitter pill to take, to have to talk to people you agree or disagree with on a regular basis. But that is how it is done! Keep your friends close; your enemies closer. 

Whatever happened to giving the benefit of the doubt, trusting in judgement, refusal to burn bridges, and recognizing that Regular Joe just isn't privy to all the information needed to make an informed opinion on this or any subject. The point is that to run a country, or in Clinton's case, to manage its international affairs, all the information available is not just fair game, but may be vital and necessary. To discount any one person or bit of data or factual truth is to fail. To do the best you can, which is all I believe Hillary Clinton ever did in any job she has ever or will ever hold, there can be no less. 

To make a real judgement, it takes facts, as many as can be obtained, from all angles. I would expect nothing less of her than to seek out friends, enemies, and all parties involved in decision-making before a rush to judgement is ever made. Decisions must be products of calculated thought without speculation.

Regular Joe doesn't seem to get that. And stringing words together does not a journalist make. Regular Joe doesn't get that either. Too many people are believing too many things that simply aren't true based on what they read on the Internet. 

I don't know if Hillary Clinton considers Henry Kissinger her friend. I really don't care. Does it really matter? As long as she is qualified and does the best job she can do, that is all that really matters. I am not in her close circle of friends. In fact, I've never met her. So I don't care about her personal life. I do care about the decisions she makes that affect the country I call home. And if Henry Kissinger can giver her insight into doing that, great! And I believe she will do the best she can to make the right decisions that are best for the U.S. of A., as I believe she has always tried to do. 

Folks need to slow down and think about what they read. It seems we could all take a lesson from Hillary Clinton. Don't discount information, no matter where it comes from. And don't believe everything you see and only half of what you read. 

'All About Ann' - the beginning of the end

I love a good movie, especially if it has a good story behind it. I'm all about the story. This morning I watched "All about Ann: Governor Richards of the Lone Star State.

Those were the days!

Texas Governor Ann Richards-Wikipedia

I remember Ann Richards very well, as her tenure in the Texas mansion, occurred during what was the dawn of my own political interest. I was in the thick of it--fighting Illinois Republicans' effort to build a new airport in Illinois--where even today, its only success has been on paper.
I admired Richards. She was spunky, unafraid, and really quick-witted, but with a caring side steeped in a love of the people she represented. It was easy to relate to her. All the cards seemed stacked against her, yet she continued to work hard, driven by what she believed in. She would not be bullied by the good ole' boys; those traditionalists we know today as the gods and guns crowd. She fought the good fight to become the first woman to be elected governor in the State of Texas. Texans were better for it too. She was a popular governor, accomplishing much of what she set out to do. She was a champion for women, minorities, and generally, all the people in her state. She established alcohol and drug abuse programs for prisoner inmates. She knew from where she spoke, as as admitted alcoholic. Such honesty and high achievements didn't sit well with the state's elite, who was used to doing it only one way; their way. They suffered through one term by the liberal governor, but were not about to deal with another. Thus began in my opinion,  America's darkest days, days for which we have yet to emerge.

Just a one-term governor, Ann Richards' tenure came to an abrupt halt in 1994 when she was defeated by George W. Bush.

I remember watching the election returns. Her defeat was a blow to me personally and to the country as a whole. Hers was one of the most important races in the country, because if she fell, others would too. And they did. 

As I watched the movie this morning, I could recall the moment I heard she was defeated. It was like a stake in the heart of everything I believed politics to be. After all, my own personal cynicism had not yet taken hold by that time.

I admit I was more interested in local politics then; I was just beginning to learn the players on the national stage. I hadn't watched the Texas governors' race closely, but I knew enough to know that defeating Ann Richards was big in 1994, and not in a good way. 

Looking back, I think that moment in time was the beginning of the end of our democracy. That one race made a difference that set in motion a destructive turn of events.

If only Richards had won re-election, Bush would not have been governor of Texas. That would likely have precluded his moving to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I can only dream of how great that would have been. Imagine: no Iraq war, no Supreme Court nominees, no September 11, 2001, no homeland security, no Dick Cheney, no Rumsfeld's war machine, no NSA spying,... Al Gore would likely have been allowed to serve after being elected. The problems we are now facing with climate change would have been minimized rather than exacerbated. The things connected to Bush's presidency are mind-boggling and to me, represent everything I abhor in politics.

The movie portrayed Bush's campaign against Richards as a whisper campaign, orchestrated by the brilliantly devious Karl Rove. The campaign quietly, but effectively painted a false picture and used television ads and lies and innuendos on campaign fliers about Ann Richards. They called her a lesbian because she employed people who happened to be gay or lesbian. The National Rifle Association (NRA) opposed her, even though she had her own firearms and knew how to use them. Rove was relentless. These are people who want to win at all cost and don't have the ethics not to cheat to do it. Think hanging chads, a biased Supreme Court decisions, gerrymandered congressional districts, voter registration purges, Citizens United, and the latest campaign finance free-for-all. It all started with Karl Rove and George W. Bush. It continues with no end in sight.
 
Whisper campaigns are nothing new; these types of campaigns have gone on for as long as the country has held elections. But today, whisper campaigns are on steroids with the advent of unlimited spending, unscrupulous media sources, and completely unethical behavior. The whispers are now deafening. Efforts to persuade voters has become commonplace, because potential voters are becoming less interested and less engaged in politics. 

People don't like politics. It is a dirty word. Admittedly so, but participation of an informed electorate is the only hope for a working democracy. With a constant assault on the Middle Class and women's rights, worker's rights, and the ever-widening chasm between the have's and have-not's, it is more important than ever that potential voters be informed.

In fact, that is the only way to once again elect decent representatives that will work for the good of all the people and not just their pals. Potential voters have to be able to see through the tactics and know enough to differentiate fact from fiction. They need to take issue with falsehoods and those who tell them. Truth needs to be defended with honor again. There need to be more candidates like Ann Richards. 

Ann Richards died seven years ago, but she left behind a legacy and an example. We should settle for no less.


In November, there is an opportunity for voters to do the right thing for today and tomorrow. We must vote for candidates that can see farther than the nose on their faces; candidates that emphasize what is good for all and that which will better our world community as a whole. Candidates stuck in the 1950's will not solve the problems of the 21st Century. We must all get informed and to whatever extent, get involved.

Politics does not have to be a dirty word

US Constitution (Photo credit: kjd)

Say the word "politics;" people react negatively. Why is that?

There are many definitions of politics in Miriam-Webster, but my favorite is nearly the last definition: "The total complex of relations between people living in society."That is how I see it.

Yet most people think of politics, as it is defined in the first definition: "Activities that relate to influencing the actions and policies of a government or getting and keeping power in a government."

That definition made the hair on the back of my neck stand up. It would rile anyone. There is no hint of cooperation when the words "influence and power" are used. Politics doesn't have to be that way. It shouldn't be about influence and power. It should be about thoughtfulness and insight, intellect and understanding. And to use a different definition, it is up to us.

I've long been and remain a student of politics. I see it in the interaction among family members, on the school playground, i our communities, and all other places where a group of people are expected to peacefully interact.

I can't help but think that if we cared more about all of the people in a society rather than one political party over another, our government would be more inclusive, thus, run more efficiently.

But even party politics isn't a bad thing. In fact, it is necessary. I see it almost as a team sport with cheerleaders and the ability to win a game played by individual players. But where the rub comes in is after an election, when partisanship continues. It should not. Once an election is over, it is time to govern on behalf of all the people, not just those who voted for one person over another. And politics certainly isn't all about fundraising. Money does nothing for politics except act as a lopsided and corrupting influence.

While it is clear to me that we need to change the way our government responds to the critical issues that affect our society, any change has to be up to the people being governed.

We need to step it up when we select the people to represent us. We must step take personal responsibility with the way things are. If you are happy with that, read no further, but if you are not, it is time to get serious about changing the way we do things.

We need to start thinking, and thinking hard, about public positions and policies that affect our own futures. We must ask questions and demand answers from our leaders. It isn't enough to assume they will do right by us because they won't. They must be held accountable to those of us they represent, not just those who subsidize their decision making. When it comes down to it, corporations can throw millions of dollars at a politician, but it is the votes that count. The responsibility is ours. When we vote, we must know who we are voting for and why. Uninformed voters do a disservice to the rest of us.

Clean air and water, assurance of a healthy food supply, and protection of the health and welfare of all living species on earth are perfect examples of how our government is failing.  

We get the government we deserve. We deserve better. But that won't happen until we change our ways. If we want government to work on behalf of all the people, we need to think of all the people when we make our own decisions about how we feel about issues.

It isn't enough that we draw upon our life experiences to make decisions about how we feel about the ways of the world, our collective problems, and how to solve them. We must have empathy and understanding of those who are not walking in our shoes, the less fortunate, the downtrodden, the under-privileged. While our own life experiences are vital to our decision-making processes, there has to be more. We must look beyond ourselves when we decide about a myriad complexities such as social issues, like religion and abortion, as well as our natural resources, energy, and the environment to name a few. In many cases, we must look past even our locale to think of how the world is affected. We are after all an entire species of human beings and other living things that occupy a finite space. We have to learn to live together for the benefit of us all.

It is no longer enough to look to tradition to guide our principles. Our parents and grandparents did not have all the answers. And some of the answers they had were just plain wrong. Some of them were right, and need to be revisited.

We don't have to like where we are right now. We always have the ability to change, to move forward to a better place. What is our life good for anyway, if it is not to continually try to better ourselves, to learn more, to be more.

So, while no one likes to talk about politics, it is all about politics--the laws we live by, the happenings that affect our lives every day, the things that make us comfortable and happy or conversely, irritated and miserable.

But think for a moment about the men and too few women that make decisions for the rest of us. Right now, we are in a culture where our government leaders are making decisions for their own benefit and that of their friends. They don't consider us, yet, if we didn't supply the money, they couldn't afford to even take the field to play their games. It is our money that gives them the ability to do their job and our votes that put them there. Don't we have the right and responsibility to demand better?

But in order to demand better, we have to be better. Our public policy needs more thought, more insight, more intellect. Knee-jerk reactions to social ills is not the way to govern a complex society. It is not acceptable to step on the people hovering at the bottom--those who lack the money, education, youthfulness, or good health--in order to reach those with privilege at the top. Everyone has something to contribute in order to be successful. But to contribute, ideas must be well thought out. And everyone needs to participate. The time for change is now. We owe it to our children to make proper decisions, based on as much information as we can glean. We need to demand better and with this being an election year, there is no better time to start than now.

Good riddance 2012!

DEZEMBER 2012, December 2012 (Photo credit: eagle1effi)

It is a thrill to put 2012 behind us. As years go, this year was a disaster.

I just wish it were as easy to turn the page on politics and gun violence as it is to turn the page on the calendar. It seems we have experienced an all-time low in repulsive behavior on those two fronts.

Since I've been paying attention, I have never observed more petty, abhorrent, vile behavior as during the 2012 GOP election season. Fox News'  outright lies would have been humorous, had the stakes not been so high. Still, they had the trust of large numbers of people who actually believed them. The entire staff under the moniker of 'media' accomplished near decimation of an already suffering communication industry. Who can trust the media now, after all that has been done to destroy journalistic credibility by what we now know to be an admitted farce?

The GOP campaign, led by corporate giants with nearly unlimited amount of cash thanks to the wrong-headed conservative U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision tried to steal the election through no-responsibility campaign ads. Fortunately their candidate for president was a buffoon with little to no campaign smarts and zero integrity. His handlers weren't much better. I'm so grateful that enough of the public woke up in time to cast ballots for the incumbent.

But even more disheartening than the election debacle was the horrific gun violence in 2012 where 16 mass shootings resulted in 88 dead. The last one--on December 14--the needless slaughter of 26 innocent people, including 20 precious, little first-graders at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, CT, may be and should have been the final straw to break the back of an undisciplined society gone awry.

The incident of worst-nightmare proportions brought a President to tears and so affected the general public that cries for better gun laws have begun to echo across the nation. Still, that is little consolation for the tiny unsuspecting east coast town that lost its innocence.

Changing the way the country looks at gun violence could be a start in the long road to help the healing. An end to gun violence could help if that were the end of the story. But it isn't!

Sadly, some of the same voices that supported artificial news during the presidential campaign are the same ones that now cry for more guns, not less. The National Rifle Association, which many fail to realize is little more than the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers lobby, has some of those same Fox News devotees squarely in its sites. They see no reason guns shouldn't be placed in the hands of school teachers to keep the students safe. Never mind that it didn't help at Columbine High School or at Ft. Hood where weapons actually belong and are issued to all the soldiers there.

It is unbelievable to me that anyone could believe that more guns could keep people safe from gun violence. That is like saying that keeping water in a toddler's bathtub will deter drowning.

I'm sick to death of the excuse that guns are for protection. Too often guns purchased for protection simply result in injury and death during a heated argument, or in an instant of despair resulting in suicide, or perhaps an accident by a curious child. Responsible gun owners should lock their weapon securely. So what kind of protection is that? Gun owners want it both ways, but it doesn't work that way. Protection from bad guys would require access to a loaded gun. Protection for family members requires locking away and securing the gun and ammunition.

Though this is a discussion that will likely span the entire new year, at least it is has begun. It is a topic that is long overdue, which is reason enough for optimism in the coming new year.

So once again, we wipe the slate clean. A new beginning with high hopes where anything is possible is upon us. Our future begins now. What we do with it is our choice.

Peace!

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s irony

It is indeed ironic that Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. would complain about ex-governor Rod Blagojevich "wheeling and dealing."
Note the following from an April 15 column in the Southtown Star, "Jesse Jr. re-emerges in Blagojevich case." by Kristen McQueary.

Months after Blagojevich's December 2008 arrest, U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), of Chicago, told me it was impossible to interact with Blagojevich without "him wheeling and dealing and trying to extract something out of you."

Blagojevich reportedly told Jackson early on that he didn't hire his wife, Sandi, as lottery director because her application wasn't accompanied by a $25,000 campaign donation. Jackson said he turned to federal prosecutors for help when private developers willing to build a south suburban airport experienced Blagojevich's extortion.

"I have worked with four governors," Jackson said back then. "It wasn't until I came into contact with the Blagojevich administration that they sought to shake down the developers. (Blagojevich's) behavior was so unacceptable to me that I took that information to the U.S. attorney because how can we build our state if every time someone wants to invest and create jobs, they have to go through a political gauntlet of 'gimme, gimme, gimme?' "

"Jackson's interpretation was ironic considering that he emerges, again, in the government documents released Wednesday," McQueary said.

Ironic indeed, but let's take that one step farther.  The irony is that Jackson complained about Blagojevich doing what he himself has been doing for years. His entire motive for building a new airport near Peotone was about gimme, gimme, gimme.

Jackson is all about control of contracts, concessions, votes, and whatever else might be beyond my imagination.

Many suspect that Jackson got his nose out of joint because Blagojevich didn't satisfy his needs. His wife didn't get the political job he wanted for her—heading the state lottery—and he didn't he get approval for his pet project. So he complained to the authorities.

Both Jackson and Blagojevich are poster children for what is wrong in Illinois politics.

But, if you ask me, Blagojevich shaking down fat cats is far less bothersome than Jackson trying to feather his own nest off the backs of innocent people.

Jackson has misrepresented the truth to his own colleagues to make Peotone look viable, manipulated facts by making people think a runway will solve economic woes in his district, and tried his own version of shaking down four governors, with the promise to deliver votes.

Not an informed voter, stay home!

Is this not the most disgusting election season in history?

The entire premise that rich people can buy elections has been around for decades, but never before has it been more obvious, at least to some. But some people still don't get it.

The I'm-mad-as-hell-and-I'm-not-going-to-take-it-anymore attitude is normally one I would endorse, but not this year. I am a strong advocate of exercising your right to vote, but only if you are an informed voter. If you are the kind of person that simply falls for the television commercials or glossy brochures that come to your door, please stay home.

Candidates of both parties are lying, manipulating, and waging the battle of their lives. I wish I could calculate the monumental costs of this election, but throw more than six zeros at me and I admit getting a little blurry-eyed. In truth, six figures is about all I can comprehend. Yet there are tens of millions being spent every day across this country. Doesn't anyone have a problem with that?

I used to bristle at the fact that only the wealthy could afford to run for public office. Now, I find myself completely freaking out about how unlimited corporate donations and anyone with tons of money and an agenda can turn any wacko into a candidate.

I've often wondered where this wealth comes from. I certainly don't have it, but then I'm a hard-working, honest person who tries not to hurt or take advantage of other people. My goal in life is not to be rich—I'd rather be happy. I would never step on other people just to get ahead. I don't rip people off. I try to tell the truth. I care about total strangers. I don't think I'm better than anyone else.

It isn't just the act of buying elections that is bothersome. I am horrified about the what if's. What if these nutjobs actually become representatives of our government? These people are going to speak on our behalf. They are going to make decisions that will ultimately affect us all.

I'm not sure what the answers are, but we have to learn from our mistakes. Why aren't we?

Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s irony

It is indeed ironic that Congressman Jesse Jackson, Jr. would complain about ex-governor Rod Blagojevich "wheeling and dealing."

Note the following from an April 15 column in the Southtown Star, "Jesse Jr. re-emerges in Blagojevich case." by Kristen McQueary.

      Months after Blagojevich's December 2008 arrest, U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-2nd), of  Chicago, told me it was impossible to interact with Blagojevich without "him wheeling and dealing and trying to extract something out of you."
Blagojevich reportedly told Jackson early on that he didn't hire his wife, Sandi, as lottery director because her application wasn't accompanied by a $25,000 campaign donation. Jackson said he turned to federal prosecutors for help when private developers willing to build a south suburban airport experienced Blagojevich's extortion.
"I have worked with four governors," Jackson said back then. "It wasn't until I came into contact with the Blagojevich administration that they sought to shake down the developers. (Blagojevich's) behavior was so unacceptable to me that I took that information to the U.S. attorney because how can we build our state if every time someone wants to invest and create jobs, they have to go through a political gauntlet of 'gimme, gimme, gimme?' "

"Jackson's interpretation was ironic considering that he emerges, again, in the government documents released Wednesday," McQueary said.

Ironic indeed, but let's take that one step farther.  The irony is that Jackson complained about Blagojevich doing what he himself has been doing for years. His entire motive for building a new airport near Peotone was about gimme, gimme, gimme.

Jackson is all about control of contracts, concessions, votes, and whatever else might be beyond my imagination.

Many suspect that Jackson got his nose out of joint because Blagojevich didn't satisfy his needs. His wife didn't get the political job he wanted for her—heading the state lottery—and he didn't he get approval for his pet project. So he complained to the authorities.

Both Jackson and Blagojevich are poster children for what is wrong in Illinois politics.

But, if you ask me, Blagojevich shaking down fat cats is far less bothersome than Jackson trying to feather his own nest off the backs of innocent people.

Jackson has misrepresented the truth to his own colleagues to make Peotone look viable, manipulated facts by making people think a runway will solve economic woes in his district, and tried his own version of shaking down four governors, with the promise to deliver votes.

Eminent domain for Peotone Airport must be halted

The Illinois Green Party has aligned with the anti-airport group STAND (Shut This Airport Nightmare Down) as they call for the state to halt spending on land in eastern Will County. They say the state's plan, to use eminent domain to take two parcels totaling 500 acres, is simply not justified.

Locator Map of Will County, Illinois, 1853. 

At the same time that Gov. Pat  Quinn talks about controlling spending, he continues to support squandering $105 million to condemn family farms at the site of the proposed Peotone airport in the far southern reaches of the Chicago Metropolitan Area.

The reality is that the state is $13 billion in debt.

George Ochsenfeld, president of STAND, who is also running as a Green Party candidate for State Representative in the 79th district, expressed outrage that Quinn's land purchases are going forward despite the fact that the FAA is at least two years from making a decision whether or not to authorize the project. He says spending millions to purchase land at this time is a gamble. According to the state's official website, IDOT recently spent $2.2 million to purchase a 160-acre property. Their pending 500-acre purchases will likely cost millions more.

"Buying the land now may bring political benefits for the airport's sponsors, and there may be some short-term financial benefits for contractors and developers," said Ochsenfeld, "but this airport is going to be a hard sell for travelers, and it has already done significant damage to long-time residents of the region."

Two eminent domain cases are pending for a 300-acre parcel and a 200-acre parcel. The cases will be heard in the Will County Circuit Court in Joliet.

STAND contends that eminent domain should be halted until five criteria are met:

Funding (either private, public, or some combination of the two) is secured
The FAA issues a final record of decision for airport construction for the project and is made public
Funding for necessary surrounding infrastructure is secured
A panel of independent transportation experts is convened to determine whether there is a need for the project
A major airline has committed to using the facility
Jobs Outlook Questionable

State officials continue to make the claim that jobs are the impetus behind the airport, yet there is little evidence to suggest that the number of jobs they predict will ever materialize. The state continues to make bloated claims of job-creation. Using old data and outdated jobs forecasts for an expanded 22,000-acre project during a robust economy and healthy aviation industry, state officials continue to blur the line between aviation reality and the fantasy that a new airport will bring economic prosperity to some of the poorest regions of the state.

"The airport plan has been marketed by its proponents as a jobs program, but it's doubtful that the jobs will ever come," says Scott Summers, Green Party candidate for Illinois Treasurer. "Today, the State of Illinois is spending $3 for every $2 it takes in. We're basically broke, and yet the governor is gambling on a project that does not have local support, federal approval or any commitments from the industry that is supposedly going to be using it.

"Illinois has many examples of unnecessary and under-utilized infrastructure, from the MidAmerica Airport near St. Louis to the Thomson prison. We ought to know by now that building unnecessary infrastructure means the jobs may never materialize as promised," continued Summers. "This airport promises to be yet another long-term financial burden on the taxpayers."

"The state does not have financing to build the airport or for necessary surrounding infrastructure," said Ochsenfeld. "Not only that, the airline industry is against the project, O'Hare is being expanded, the Gary airport is being expanded, the airlines are in disaster mode, with O'Hare having the lowest number of flights in 15 years."

"We have more than 30 resolutions and referendums from surrounding villages, townships, other units of government, and from citizens' groups against the project," Ochsenfeld said. That doesn't include the thousands of signatures on petitions that have been delivered to the state through the dozens of years this project has been stuck in perpetual planning mode.

Sustainability is an issue

The State of Illinois plans to acquire a total of 22,000 acres (34 square miles) of mostly prime farmland, much of which is owned by 4th- and 5th-generation local farmers. "This is a crime against future generations, who will need productive soil," said Bob Mueller, a Will County native and candidate for State Representative, in DuPage County's 47th district.

"Rural Will County is rapidly disappearing, and with it will go, not just a way-of-life, but the self-sustainability of the region. Yet for many politicians involved, it may take a major food or energy crisis before they realize the folly in paving over highly productive farmland."

Gubernatorial candidate Rich Whitney, a long-time opponent of the Peotone airport project, said: "We as a society need to be moving toward more energy-efficient and less-polluting and potentially non-polluting modes of transportation, like high-speed rail, not promoting more of the same wasteful modes of transportation that have created the crisis.

"The Peotone Airport is a horribly misguided investment of public capital, that may enrich a few speculators and politicians but will likely end up being a white elephant —  with taxpayers left to cover the inevitable losses and all of us paying for the consequences of unsustainable modes of transportation."

University Park bad behavior

I do not condone writing mills, those quantity vs. quality online writing sites that pepper the internet with works of well-intentioned writers who are paid far too little for their efforts. My criticism is of the sites, much more than of the writers.

In some cases, the content is worth far more than what the writer ever receives in compensation.

Such was the case in a recent article by Peter Bella, for Examiner.com.

Entitled "University Park or Gorky Park?", Bella discusses the behavior of a village official in University Park, a south suburb of Chicago. This story is worth noting, because it was not the subject of Chicago's mainstream media.

Congressional candidate Isaac Hayes, R-Park Forest, a congressional candidate who is mounting a challenge against U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., D-Chicago was invited to a private networking event in his neighboring town of University Park, according to Bella. The April 7 event was hosted by Jennifer Day of Daylight Media, Bella explained.

He went on to describe how University Park Village President Al McCowan threw him out of the event because he was a Republican.

McCowan is a well-known supporter of Jackson, who was not at the event.

"About one hour into the event, Hayes was angrily asked to leave the event immediately by University Park Mayor Alvin McCowan," Bella wrote. "The mayor then brought the hostess to tears with a tirade about inviting a Republican to the event. It should be noted also that many of Mr. Hayes staff members are White and were treated in a bigoted manner (sic) my the mayor and his staff." Both McCowan and Hayes are black.

“I guess this Mayor doesn’t believe his community has a right to decide for themselves, considering Rainbow Push’s material was placed in full sight and not taken down”, said a Hayes spokesman, according to a Hayes Press Release. “If Jesse Jackson Jr. had a sponsored table here tonight it would be business as usual”.

Bella concluded, "Alvin McCowan is disgusting, despicable, deplorable, and detestable.  Evidently he thinks he can just do what he wants, when he wants, and get away with it.  He is right too.  No one in the local Chicago media have covered this so far.  There has been no condemnation, no editorials, nothing.

University Park is a little bit of the old Soviet Union right here in our own backyard."

Indiana did what Illinois couldn't get done

To Indiana legislators, building the Illiana Expressway is a jobs-creator. It would do that on the Illinois side and so much more.

Instead of it merely connecting Interstate 57 and I-65, as proposed, the legislation refers to the extention of the Illiana west to I-55 near Joliet.

The Indiana legislation is a dream come true for Illinois officials who have long envisioned building a southern leg to I-355, passing by the proposed Peotone airport which would then connect it to intermodal traffic at Elwood and Joliet.


Illiana Expressway was once the South Suburban Expressway


The Illiana has been talked about in Illinois for as long as the proposed Peotone-area airport – since around 1968.

Indiana became involved two years ago when Gov. Mitch Daniels decided to fast-track an ambitious road-building plan. Daniels proposed the Illiana run north and east into Lake and Porter counties. He withdrew the extension plan, however, because of  public opposition.

Daniels' predecessors – the late Gov. Frank O'Bannon and former Gov. Evan Bayh – opposed the Illiana Expressway. They recognized the new roadway as a way to bolster Illinois' efforts to gain support for a new South Suburban Airport, (SSA) near Peotone, which was in a direct competition with the existing Gary/Chicago Regional Airport.

The Illiana Expressway, at one time was part of the airport layout plan. The plan included the location of the northernmost connector road to the facility. Since the airport has been downsized, the expressway is no longer part of the plan, however, its association remains.


Illiana Expressway, Peotone airport; both mired in politics


Just a few months ago Gov. Pat Quinn, who received an endorsement in his bid for re-election by organized labor, voiced strong support for the Illiana. He even referred to it as his future "legacy."
Kirk Dillard, a Hinsdale Republican who is still fighting to become the Republican nominee to challenge Quinn for Governor, also endorsed the project at a recent gathering at the operating engineers' local headquarters in Wilmington.

U.S. Rep. Debbie Halvorson, D-Crete has weighed in with strong support of the plan. Will County officials support it too.

Locally, the battle for governance over the airport, which has yet to receive FAA approval, between Chicago's south suburbs and Will County, is well-documented.

But dreams to build the Illiana is not without sticking points. Quinn's potential legacy may not enjoy smooth sailing. His most recent endorsement has come from U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., who initially was critical of Quinn's interest in the Illiana.

Jackson favors the airport over the roadway. On his congressional website he noted that progress in planning for the road lags far behind what has already been accomplished with the airport.

"There will be no groundbreaking for the Illiana Expressway under a Quinn administration," Jackson said, "no matter how many terms he wins."