Peace must be built on truth nurtured by reality

Boston Marathon Bombing Memorial (Photo credit: AnubisAbyss)

Once again, life in our seemingly peaceful nation has been shattered. This has to stop. Perhaps it would if we could just start being honest with ourselves. Perhaps we aren't living in a peaceful nation after all. Perhaps life in 2013 America simply isn't what we perceive it to be. Just like the alcoholic, we must first recognize that we have a problem before we can ever begin to solve it.

One thing is for sure--our problems will not be solved by censorship--not by the media and certainly not by our elected officials. The notion that a few have the authority to 'protect' the rest of us is just, plain wrong. We are all in this together. Give us the information and we will make our own sense of things. 

People should have choices. If some want to live in a bubble where life is beautiful all the time, so be it. They have that option to simply turn off their television sets, not read newspapers, and not contribute anything to the life we all share on this planet. Personally, I think that is irresponsible, but that's just me.

It has been nearly two full weeks since the Boston Marathon bombing and I am still trying to sort out how I feel about it. I know I want my psyche to forget the images I've seen. I don't want to revisit them  uninvited in my sleep or during quiet moments. I don't want to close my eyes and see a person grimacing in pain, dazed by the horror of seeing his own legs ripped apart from a bomb blast. I don't want to see a bloody sidewalk where lives were lost on what began as a pleasant spring day. I don't want to witness the face of an attractive young man only to learn that his is the face of a terrorist bent on killing innocent people. I don't want to hear the deafening explosion that changed lives forever or the cries of the wounded. I don't want to hear the hail of gunfire on a suburban street in a seemingly civilized country. But that was the reality of April 15, 2013 in Boston. 

What I want is for these kinds of things to never happen again; I want no one to ever have to suffer. Reality has been much too ugly of late, but it doesn't have to stay that way if we all work together to change it.

As much as I deplore the raw scenes I hate seeing, I know they were necessary to convey the story--a story that must be told. If we are ever going to change today's reality, we have to be inspired to change. There is no denying that we were inspired to catch and punish the perpetrators. Like darkness brings light; our pain must bring about our peace. 

News isn't always pretty, but it is reflective of life, which isn't always pretty either. So just what kind of responsibility does the news media have to present information to the public? That question has been made much more difficult with the advent of cell phone cameras and social media where everyone thinks they are a journalist. The phenomenon has even been given a name--citizen journalism. I'm here to tell you that everybody isn't a journalist. Everybody isn't a photographer. Most of the people driven to play Lois Lane and Jimmy Olsen are more akin to the National Inquirer than the New York Times. Don't quit your day job folks--even good journalists are out of work these days.

How to handle graphic images are just one more topic for the staff in newsrooms across the media spectrum. Their decisions are compounded by knowing the images will be caught on somebody's cell phone and posted on Facebook, Twitter, and elsewhere. Raw footage is hard to compete with, so some professionals don't bother trying. 

Some get around it by completely doctoring images to make them appear less violent. Isn't that dishonest? In my view, that is a cowardly and untrustworthy manipulation. It shows a complete lack responsibility and shows no respect for its audience.   

Other more professional journalists might consider cropping such images, artfully, while not taking away from the story that needs to be told. I believe that is honest. Even knowing that images are available, if I ran a newsroom, I would never try to compete with on-the-scene photographs. If professional journalism is ever going to stand above the online picture-takers, there is going to have to be an adherence to trust, accuracy, and all the other tenets of journalism that have earned credibility. 

I think we need to have it both ways. I believe the truth can be conveyed without quite so much shock value, yet this incident took place in full view of thousands of people who were horrified by them. Telling a news story is to convey that horror to viewers and readers. Often times the words can be just as telling as the pictures, as was evident during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting on Dec. 14, 2012 when 20 first graders and six adults who worked at the school were assassinated by a crazed gunman. Pictures of the tiny bodies were not seen, but the horror was just as palpable. 

For me, the bottom line is that news must never be censored, even if photographs depicting the reality of a scene are considered offensive by some. 

The same is true for suggestive images or specific words. Network television is the worst. I am here to tell you there is no need to protect us from the things that we see and hear everyday. 

One thing that comes to my mind about censorship and the lengths the media will go, is the time delay on live television ever since Janet Jackson's 'wardrobe malfunction' during the half-time show at the Super Bowl a few years ago. The network went half crazy because Janet Jackson's boob was seen on television. Everybody has boobs. We've all seen them. What is the big deal? 

Then there are those seven dirty words http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbZhpf3sQxQ the late, great George Carlin talked about. Have you heard what kids say on the playground lately? We now use the term 'f-bomb.' Oh please, can we grow up now? 

I'm not sure just what it says about a society that will accept seeing a man's extremities blown to bits, but Janet Jackson's boob better not be out there for public consumption. Except that it is! Just google it. We cannot say 'fuck' on television, but we can sing it in songs? 

Our society needs to grow up. If we cannot solve these little things, how are we supposed to be able to keep ourselves safe from people who want to do us harm? 

I think our first task is to recognize there is indeed a problem. Before we start worrying about other people, we need to look to ourselves. The very least we can do is attempt to be honest with ourselves. And by all means, let's keep it real.

Jesse Jackson, Jr. deservedly disgraced

English: Sandi Jackson and Jesse Jackson (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Some of the dastardly deeds of Jesse Jackson, Jr. have finally been noticed and acted upon--at least some of them. Good! Too bad he will likely never pay for all he has done.

The disgraced congressman from Illinois second congressional district has now been indicted for misusing campaign funds to the tune of $750,000. The actual indictment is shown here. Jackson's shame is also shared by his wife the former Chicago alderman, Sandi Jackson. As a result, the two of them could end up in jail, the place for plenty of other Illinois political figures before them.

If only the former congressman would learn his lesson. If only his situation could serve as an example to others who believe they are better than the rest of us and thus deserve more than the rest of us. If only the world could see that working hard is the way to get ahead, not gaming the system.

Sadly, that will likely never happen.

From what I have observed, and I have written about it numerous times in this very blog, Jesse Jackson, Jr. will stop at nothing to get what he wants, despite who or what gets in his way. He plays the game to win. He ignored all the rules and made them up as he went along, never considering that he wouldn't always come out on top.

He is in my view, a classic narcissist, which is a personality disorder that showcases ego and makes a person pre-occupied with all things self. Such personality types have seemingly filled our government at all levels. It has to be a real kick for people like Jackson to have tens of thousands of virtual strangers throw money and support your way in a campaign, but politics only feeds the disorder. Jackson and his famous father seem to share similar entitlement DNA. The difference is that Jesse Jackson's issues have been tempered with performing some outstanding work on behalf of others at times. I wish I could say the same thing for his son.

I know Jesse Jackson, Jr. had the potential and likely still does to be an excellent public servant. If only he could have gotten beyond serving himself first.

Watching Jesse Jackson, Jr. compromise all principles in his effort to sacrifice  the homes of landowners and farmers in eastern Will County where the state has been trying to cite an airport that has no logical purpose. The airport is evidence that he would stop at nothing. This is a man who cannot admit he is wrong. Yet, it was wrong when Jackson, the good Democrat, joined the efforts of the late Republican Congressman Henry Hyde, the man who was behind President Bill Clinton's impeachment. Hyde wanted to build an airport far away from O'Hare as a means of curtailing and possibly replacing it. He and Jackson teamed up with then Governor George Ryan, to form a trifecta of support for the ill-fated project. Hyde is dead; Ryan is currently under home confinement as he finishes his 6 1/2 year prison sentence for corruption; and Jackson--well he awaits his fate after his indictment. So much for Illinois' airport scheme...

The really sad part about Jackson is that he got people to believe him--to buy his snake oil--even though pathological lying is a symptom of narcissism. He lied to the U.S. Congress about the potential benefit of an airport in the cornfields and he lied to his constituents. He lied to south suburban mayors and clergy who still don't realize it was all smoke and mirrors. He got them to believe the hype--that an airport 40 miles away from Chicago was going to be their salvation.

It is too bad Jackson didn't enlist their support for some kind of real economic development project that might have helped them. In all Jackson's years in congress, some of the towns he represented remain the poorest in the state. It is too bad Jackson didn't use his talents and skills to make something happen that was doable and beneficial rather than merely to look at becoming an airport kingmaker to benefit himself.

When it came to the proposed Peotone Airport, Jackson would say anything to get it built. Never forget, he did it for himself. So many people over the 40-year history of the project have tried to get the unneeded, unwanted airport built. Remember Illinois is a pay-to-play state. Politics there isn't for the good of the people; it is for the good of the politicians who can wield contracts and control votes and campaign cash. No one has been able to build another major airport in Illinois, because right and reason really does trump wrong and foolish. In the end, the project will never be built because it really has no purpose. Air travel is never going to grow so much that O'Hare will be inadequate. It can always be expanded if need be.

I have no idea how long it will take for others just like Jackson to accept that, but one day, the beleaguered project will finally fade away. Jackson breathed the last dying gasps into it. His life will have to take a new turn now.  

The momentum he started more than a decade ago will have to slow at its own pace, but I predict it will, providing someone else doesn't follow in his footsteps. There is always someone willing to put themselves first in Illinois.

Sorrow of loss; lives remembered

These times are hard.

Not only is the world seemingly falling apart around us, but my personal world isn't faring much better. So many people I have known and cared about are dying.

The sadness I feel is like a brisk wind on a hillside, eroding me. I have long believed that what eventually kills us is the act of living. With living comes pain.

I'm almost starting to regret having worked at a job I loved; I was a local reporter in a small town for more than 20 years. I got to know so many people that I likely never would have met otherwise. I had the privilege of really getting to know them, their families, their life stories. I grew to love many of them, who have become lifelong friends.

My interviews were generally so much more than merely a question and answer session. They were usually an emotional, conversational experience for both of us, that included sharing intimate details of life. So much more was said than what could ever have appeared in print. 

My goal was to capture the essence of a person's story, why and what they cared about, as well as what inspired them. To write about them, I wanted to get to know them. Ultimately it was the detail that grew out of those conversations that made the story. More often than not, the exercise resulted in friendship. 

When my husband and I retired and moved away, it was hard to leave all those friendships behind. I have stayed in close contact with many. 

A funny thing happens when you leave a familiar place. Memories remain indelible, unchanged by time or circumstance. It is as though time is irrelevant. I imagine people and places to remain exactly as they were when I last saw them, though the reality is that time has its way with us all.

Time and reality can be cruel. So many of those people have died in recent weeks and months. There are almost too many to count. Just before Christmas, there were five deaths of people I had known and cared about. So many good people have left behind families who grieve for them and sadness to those of us whose lives were touched by them. 

Despite the pain of my own sorrow, I'm grateful that I knew them. I didn't just write about these folks, their life story danced with mine. The dance will stay with me forever, etched in a moment of time. 

So many good souls...

George Ryan finally gets Illinois' get out of jail free card

Disgraced, convicted felon
ex-Illinois Gov. George Ryan

It has taken six years for former Illinois Governor/attorney Jim Thompson to get his client, the disgraced ex-Illinois Gov. George Ryan, out of a federal penitentiary. This week he finally pulled it off. Ryan had about nine months left to serve on his 6 1/2-year prison sentence, but is now home again.

Ryan was not just Thompson's client and member of the Illinois governors club; Ryan was Thompson's Lt. Governor from 1983 to 1991.

Thompson represented Ryan pro-bono; he was first hired in 2002 during the 'license for bribes' scandal that ultimately resulted in Ryan's conviction of multiple counts  of racketeering, conspiracy, mail fraud, obstruction of justice, money laundering, and tax violations.

In the case against Ryan, Thompson's defense included every trick in the book. From hardship to appeal at every level, to requesting clemency of two U.S. Presidents, Thompson tried to get Ryan to remain a free man. He cited Ryan's health, claiming he could die in prison. Ryan did go home briefly to be with his late wife Laura Lynn, who died of lung cancer in June 2011.

Who knew halfway houses were equipped with revolving doors?

Today Ryan is practically a free man. He was released Wednesday, Jan. 30 from the federal penitentiary in Terra Haute, Indiana where he has lived since Nov. 7, 2007.

He was enroute to a halfway house in Chicago where he was scheduled to serve the remainder of his prison sentence. But just hours after arriving, he was on his way home to Kankakee. Ryan will remain confined in his spacious riverfront home until his sentence officially concludes.

Thompson told reporters he was surprised by the decision to allow Ryan home confinement, claiming that Ryan received no preferential treatment despite Thompson's own extraordinary measures to see his client and friend free from incarceration. Thompson claimed he did not arrange for his client's release, but that prison officials made the decision.

I wonder who will release those still suffering from Ryan's decisions. Two instances come to mind.

One is a family--the Willis family--whose six children were killed in a horrific traffic accident; killed by a man who obtained an illegal drivers' license when George Ryan served as Illinois Secretary of State.

The other is a group of residents in eastern Will County that still face a threat of eminent domain proceedings to make way for the Peotone airport that will probably never be built. It was George Ryan, the ex-governor who opened that Pandora's box when he ordered the first parcel of land to be bought for the project, even though it wasn't even in the airport site. It was close enough to begin panic selling that began in 2002 and continues to this day.

Violence prevention and safety initiatives rather than gun control

Detail of Preamble to Constitution of the United States (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Gun control is such a contentious issue, with both sides refusing to listen to the other. Real understanding of the source of some very deep-seated feelings are going to be necessary if this country will ever be able to curb the kind of violence that fills front pages of newspapers across the land.

Opponents view gun control as a way to limit their right to bear arms--their  hard-fought patriotic freedom as they believe God and the country's founding fathers intended.

The gods and guns crowd are largely traditionalists that may have lived in the same place all of their lives--in many cases--occupying the land where their ancestors first settled. Many are educated in the same small town by teachers they have grown up with; reading newspapers run by their former classmates; and filling church pews with an ever-increasing number of extended family members. Their daily lives revolve around the best life has to offer; loving family and good friends. These are not folks that seek change; they like things just the way they are. They are a trusting lot--putting faith in anyone that is like them and being suspicious of those who are not. This trusting trait allows others to take unfair advantage. It is hard to recognize that which is unknown to you.

Their experience with gun violence and frankly many of society's ills may be limited to an occasional hunting accident or possible suicide by a troubled teen or war veteran. Such occurrences are easily justified as the victim 'having a problem.' After all, even perfect communities and good families have issues. 

Although they read the headlines that deal with much bigger issues related to gun violence, they remain untouched by gang warfare, mass murders, and serial killings that happen somewhere else. 

Cultural justification makes it easy to ignore the big picture. But the gun control debate is big and complex and growing.  

In my view, it is foolish to attempt to protect the second amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which is actually a poorly-worded, undefined, interpretive piece in a much larger document that has so much more meaning than that one entry. The U.S. Constitution is a framework of how to govern a society. It is far more important than the singularly focused right to bear arms. A much higher priority should be placed in the constitution's sister document's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those rights should not be infringed either, but to fear going into a public place and being blown away by some yahoo with a handgun in his pocket has become reality. It is one that has been exacerbated by an over zealous desire to arm every citizen with concealed weapons, assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing bullets that turns a shotgun into a machine gun designed for mowing down multiple people in an instant and inflicting maximum damage to bodily tissue.

From my own observation, the discussion needs to be broadened--centered on violence--not just guns. The one place where I actually agree with the National Rifle Association is that violence in our society has gotten hideous. I abhor the violence on television, in movies, and through video games, much of which is inflicted by guns. 

First, we need to change the debate by changing the verbiage. The term gun control must be abandoned. It is too limiting and conjures up a notion of iron-hand dominance. Instead we need to embark upon violence prevention and safety initiatives.

We need to convey that our laws must not restrict gun-owners freedoms, but instead our aim is to expand overall freedom to include all citizens, no matter their view on firearms. It would be fool-hearty to wait for education through experience; to wait for violence to come knocking on more and more doors. We must change the conversation before that happens, by emphasizing freedom to be safe and secure in our homes and in public places. 

We must address growing crime. Why do thugs believe they can get away with walking into another person's home and help themselves to whatever they want? Why is there so little trust in our system of justice? Why do judges run for office as partisans? Do people trust their police force? Why are there cops on the take? Why in some instances is the penalty for growing marijuana more severe than that of the guy who brutalizes his wife? 

Violence in our society is a house of cards. Fixing any of these problems will lead to fixing so much more. If people aren't afraid to walk into a public place, they won't feel compelled to arm themselves. 

The bigger picture also includes a more critical eye toward the future. 

How many hunters are really sportsmen? How many shoot animals for food? Do we really need to kill animals in the 21st century? Wouldn't it be just as sporting to shoot clay pigeons or other non-breathing targets?

Just because we have long held traditions, doesn't mean we cannot or should not change with the times. The world is really a bigger place than the block where we grew up. Our thinking must also be bigger. We must also be cognizant that our home, a huge blue ball as seen from space, may seem huge to us, but that doesn't make it less finite. Let's face it; our home is our planet. It contains a highly diverse group of people, places, and things that must be seen in a larger context. Our future depends on it.

We mustn't let the 'Annie get your gun mentality' prevail

Guns, guns, guns (Photo credit: paljoakim)

Freedom of choice is on the decline in this country spurred by the Annie get your gun mentality. I no longer feel free to live without fear of an encounter with a crazed gunman. They are everywhere!

I have never been among the gun crowd; I have always hated guns and anything that has to do with them. The thought of shooting an animal turns my stomach. I never bought toy guns for my son. I shun all the shoot'em up movies. I abhor violence of all kinds. The older I get, the more I've embraced my life-long pacifistic tendencies. Until now, I have been free to live my life gun-free, but as I begin the autumn of my life, circumstances are forcing me to change my thinking. I say forced because it isn't something I want to do. My freedom to live peacefully without fear has been compromised.

Hate, fueled by ignorance is all around us. It was so evident in Barack Obama's 2012 election to a second term as President of the United States. I do not understand the kind of hatred that is fueled by racism, so much more prevalent than I ever knew. Folks were more inclined to elect a man who used people to get whatever he wanted. He was a proven liar who would say whatever he had to say to advance himself. Many knew it, yet he was a white guy, so he was a better choice in their minds. When Obama was re-elected, thankfully by the more open-minded, thinking people who recognized his attributes and potential to solve some of the deeply ingrained problems caused by the previous presidential administration, I felt relief.

But it was short-lived. A new horror awakened and shocked the nation. The murder of 26 people in Newtown, CT was the worst. Twenty tots along with six teachers and administrators in a public school were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary School. The country seemed to awaken to a reality it didn't seem to want to face before, even in the light of so many needless deaths. No one could turn their eye from the unimaginable horror that filled the classroom on Dec. 14, 2012, the day the country regained a focus on the need to do something about guns.

The majority of the country gets it. There is a need to keep killing machines out of the hands of people who would do harm to innocents. A discussion has begun in earnest about this situation. And so the battle lines have been drawn. The leader of the opposition movement to a sensible solution is once again led by the National Rifle Association and the same voices that spewed hate during the election of our President. The NRA solution is more guns. They want guns everywhere as they make the claim that a well-armed teacher could have prevented lives. More sensible voices say just the opposite. The NRA with its televangelist campaign style rhetoric is fueling more hatred in the name of making more money by selling more guns. Even while the President moves toward a more saner climate, the NRA is fueling the hatred.

From my observation, it appears there are two scenarios.

The first is total paranoia that the government is going to confiscate all guns in some sort of Twilight Zone move to ignore the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The argument is fatally flawed, but is defended to the hilt. There is talk of banning assault rifles and high-capacity magazines, firearms and ammo that is designed for no other purpose than to kill people with rapid-fire ease. Why are these weapons defended by regular people? Who in their right mind believes average citizens should possess these military-type weapons.

The other scenario is fueled by the heads of the household who maintain a genuine fear of an intruder; someone who wants to rob, rape, or murder them in their own home. They want to keep guns on hand for their own protection. They refuse to think their child might one day find that firearm and use it accidentally or on purpose. They refuse to think about that firearm being stolen and used on them, as was done in the case of the Sandy Hook shooter who used his mother's assault rifle to murder her in her bed. The 'it couldn't happen to me' argument is nothing but a fantasy.

Part of the protection argument that may be the most shocking is not the one made by the head of the household; it is made by his wife. Apparently women continue to fear the men in their lives, so they defend their need to have a gun in the house.

Every day the local news is filled with domestic violence, murder, and mayhem that occurs in a not-so-happy home. So many families have become victims of gun violence.

Women have made so many advances in our society, but so many are being left behind, for whatever reason. I suppose when a U.S. Congressman proposes legislation that is degrading to women or others make foolish statements about women's health, it is a real danger sign.

When people vote against intelligence, capability, and integrity in favor of empty rhetoric and and impossible promises and lies, what can we expect? When hope turns to desperation, what can we expect?

I believe the majority of this country is advancing intellectually and socially, but a growing number of folks relate more to Honey Boo Boo than the men and women of science that have advanced our lives and changed our world for the better. I'm very frightened for the next generation. I shudder to think of what kind of America my grandchildren will occupy. The choices that are being made today are so vital. Their future depends on it.

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!

Ending gun violence must start with open discussion

The United States Constitution
(Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Like so many people across the country I am sickened by the recent school shooting tragedy in Newtown, CT that slaughtered 28 people, including 20 innocent young children.

The number of gun-related deaths in this country makes is inexcusable. It has gotten to the point that people are afraid. I'm afraid.

I don't buy the fact that everyone should carry a gun. In fact, if I hear one more person say that if those teachers or the principal was armed, this wouldn't have happened. I am at a total loss to reconcile that kind of thinking. Less guns are needed on the streets and in public places; not more. Guns are hideous! The people that use every excuse as to why they have a love affair with them are worse.

No longer can I tolerate that whole second amendment rights tirade. The second amendment to the U.S. Constitution was written long before the kind of carnage assault rifles can create was conceived. Guns were meant to create peace and protection; not devastation and death. Yet that is the ugly reality. The second amendment is at best, outdated. People think nothing of updating their bathroom fixtures, but the laws we must live by, not so much.

Shouting gun control from the highest rooftops has no affect. There has to be a renewed discussion about not just changing the laws, but changing the attitudes.

I've found that good and decent people who think they are doing the right thing by arming themselves to protect their homes and families may in fact be a big part of the problem. The following is eye-opening and should be seen by every law-abiding citizen that supports carrying a weapon.

Concealed Carry Permit Holders Live in a Dream World

Varying views about how to end gun violence include polar extremes with every argument in-between. Some want the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution amended and brought up-to-date. Some believe every person should be armed. Others believed guns should be banned completely. With such a disparity of views about this important problem, one or none of those may be the answer. It may be a combination of them, or one that hasn't yet been proposed. But one thing is for certain--the discussion has to happen. Too much blood of innocent victims has been shed. All sides need to come together to solve this problem and return the United States to the a peaceful and caring nation our forefathers tried to create.

Related articles

• The Second Amendment : U.S. Constitution
• Bob Costas' gun violence comments draw controversy
• Ed Schultz: 'Times Change,' Stop 'Hiding Behind The Second Amendment'

No I will not pay taxes on my two cents worth on taxes

Wait just a damn minute!

Let the tax rates expire; going over the fiscal cliff; the wealthiest two-percent; closing loopholes; blah, blah, blah. Here is the issue. Middle Class Americans pay enough taxes. In fact, for some of us, it is unbelievable how many taxes we pay. Property tax; income tax; personal property tax; death tax; marriage tax; utility tax; ENOUGH!

The tax code is ridiculous 
My poor husband freaks out every year when he has to do our taxes--and we are simply retired folks living on a pension. Our taxes are easy. We can't afford to buy anything, so we don't have many deductions--just our home mortgage. People structure their finances around the money they will get back from their taxes each year. Why is this such a difficult issue? Why do we get a refund anyway? Shouldn't we simply pay the proper amount of taxes all year? Have taxes ever decreased; we know they always increase.

Should we rewrite the tax code? 
What a stupid question? Of course we should rewrite the tax code. No guideline should be 71,684 pages in length, yet that is what the 2010 tax code was. As we say on Facebook, WTF!

For me, the ultimate slap in the face was the implementation of a utility tax. I recall the first time I heard about it. I was writing for a newspaper, covering a local community. They said they wanted to implement a utility tax to make enough money to repair a flooding problem. They claimed the tax would be temporary. Oh yeah, right. It didn't take a rocket scientist to predict that was never going to happen. They would be permanent alright. They are!

When we retired, I learned that no only do we have to pay utility tax, but we are paying personal property tax. This was a new one on me--that was ruled illegal where I used to live.

Too many taxing bodies have their hands out 
Today, we pay taxes on everything. Each unit of government, and there are way too many of those, plays the game of how much can we soak you before you have had enough? I'm crying Uncle! I suppose it is a sign of the times. People want instant gratification. No one wants to plan for their future anymore. We are living for today. Government is the same way. But, they are spending our money!

Then there is the tea party
For years I've told my friends, "We should have a tea party." I never meant we should become crazy mirrors of the Ku Klux Klan, as the current national tea party has done. What I meant was that there should be an effort to follow the guidelines of our ancestors--to insist there be no taxation without representation. Taxation in this country is insane because spending other people's money is just so easy. Government officials are no longer leaders; they are merely spenders.

There is no right or wrong political party 
Both political parties at all levels of government are guilty of creating an environment where the rich have it all and the rest of us struggle to get by. I no longer consider myself to be a member of the Middle Class. My future as an aging baby boomer is not financially pretty. I feel as though I am being taxed to death. When I consider a service, such as satellite television, for example, I'm actually shocked when the bill arrives. The final bill never resembles what I was quoted. State, local, and federal taxes make my bill unrecognizable. And then there is the phone bill, which is probably the best example of how not to run things. There are fees for things I don't even understand on what has become a multi-page two-sided document. Why is a telephone bill more than one page anyway? What are all those crazy charges?

The optimum word when talking taxes is SIMPLIFY! 
It is my favorite word of the day because it defines so succinctly what has to be done. The complexities that are compounded regularly must end.

Simplifying the tax code is necessary without prejudice against the poor or in favor of the wealthy. I don't advocate Herman Cain's 999 plan by any stretch. I don't want an across the board rate necessarily, because all issues have a gray area. They should be accounted for, but with the proper motive--the benefit of the majority of people. That does not mean loopholes to drive a car through just so rich folks can grow their wealth at everyone else's expense. That means using reasonableness and common sense wisdom.

That probably means the end of Grover Norquist, who has his own agenda. The only agenda should be for funding government necessities, cutting waste, eliminating unnecessary perks, and adding fairness. Taxes don't have to be a necessary evil. They can be useful tools to make all our lives better. Shouldn't that be what we all strive to accomplish?

No sympathy for Jesse Jackson, Jr. from airport landowners

The once-promising political career of Jesse Jackson, Jr., seems about to crash and burn, amid allegations of scandal, financial impropriety, and controversy.

The son of Civil Rights activist Jesse Jackson, seemed to have all the tools needed to become an excellent lawmaker. It is too bad he squandered them on himself and his lavish lifestyle rather than for the benefit of the people who needed him--the people who elected him to serve their needs.

Now, according to local, regional, and even national reports, Jackson is the target of a Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) probe into his financial dealings, and more.

All this is very odd, given that just days ago Jackson handily won re-election in a near landslide victory in his bid to retain his job as congressman in the 2nd Congressional district. Despite Jackson's whereabouts being a secret for months prior to the election, either his constituents were overly loyal to him or they simply voted along racial lines. Most assume the latter, since Jackson has little to show for his years in congress. Racism in some of the poorest black neighborhoods on Chicago's south side is well known. Jackson did little to change that and in fact tried to use it to his advantage.

Jackson spent his entire political career grabbing for the brass ring. Instead of trying to make a name for himself by working hard and revitalizing one of the poorest regions of the country and solving real problems there, Jackson's efforts centered on his own need for self aggrandizement. Often times, it was at others' expense. This was evidenced by the biggest promise he made to his constituents--his effort to solve their economic woes by supporting the construction of one of the biggest projects in Illinois history--Chicago's third airport.

An effort by chambers of commerce on Chicago's south side in 1985 culminated in 1992 when a committee of leaders from Illinois and Indiana as well as the City of Chicago rejected what has become known as the Peotone Airport, so named because its close proximity to Peotone, a small rural town in eastern Will County, about 40 miles south of Chicago.

Two years later, the project was revived by then Illinois Gov. Jim Edgar, who once lived in the southern suburbs. At the time there were only two pockets of support for the project--the south suburbs and the western suburbs that bordered O'Hare International Airport. O'Hare neighbors considered a new airport as their solution to O'Hare expansion, which they opposed.

In 1995 the point man who would bridge the gap between the two regions was an energetic, articulate new south suburban congressman, Jesse Jackson, Jr., who filled the unexpired term of U.S. Rep. Mel Reynolds who had been arrested in a sex scandal involving an underage campaign worker.

It wasn't long before Jackson glommed onto the project, making it the centerpiece of his congressional career. He lobbied several Illinois governors who tried to hold onto the prospect of trying to duplicate the state's prized economic engine--O'Hare Airport--even at the expense of that prize, the project never really gained footing. The City of Chicago was on the other side, opposing a new airport. Jackson formed his own airport authority with the hope of controlling, managing, and building an airport.

The longtime and sometimes raucous opposition didn't daunt Jackson nor his supporters. Jackson also ignored the growing problems of his district in order to seize the opportunity to land the big project. He promised that the airport would be a boon to their economy, would lift people from poverty and provide thousands of jobs. They believed him.

Jackson continued singing the same song to his constituents and his colleagues in congress, always painting a rosy image and coloring facts. Then he saw an opportunity to help his cause and better his career--a seat in the U.S. Senate--vacated when Barack Obama was elected 44th President of the United States.

That is when Jackson's problems began. In addition to an extra-marital affair, one of the many investigations into his financial dealings involved suspicion that he offered a huge sum money to ex-Governor Rod Blagojevich in return for appointing him to Obama's senate seat. The emissary who apparently made the offer--Rughuveer Nyak--was arrested by the FBI last June.

Incidentally Blagojevich was arrested on several counts of corruption in December '08 and is currently serving time in a federal prison in Colorado. Blagojevich's predecessor, George Ryan, who also worked with Jackson on the proposed build-the-airport project is also serving time in a federal penitentiary for his corruption while in office.

In 2011 the Congressional Ethics Committee found probable cause to continue to investigate Jackson.

Shortly after Nyak was arrested, in June 2012, Jackson disappeared from public view. He wasn't at his campaign office in Chicago nor was he tending to his duties in Washington. It was later learned that he had a medical condition. Apparently Jackson is suffering from a bi-polar disorder and gastro-intestinal issues related to a previous weight-loss surgery. The public learned after months of not knowing of his whereabouts that he spent some seeking treatment at Mayo Clinic.

There is little sympathy for Jesse Jackson, Jr., by residents of eastern Will County, where lives have been upended for decades because of the turmoil suffered at Jackson's hand.

The people of what had been the 11th congressional district despised Jackson's efforts to claim their area as his own fiefdom. They have been pawns in his game or airport roulette. At their expense, his efforts were somewhat legitimized when the state legislature redrew the 2010 redistricting map. The boundaries of the 2nd congressional district were moved to include much of Will and Kankakee counties.

It is too bad the man is ill, if he really is ill, but it is also too bad that his actions have destroyed lives, land, and hopes of so many. It is too bad Jackson didn't use his skills for good rather than evil.

For that, he needs to pay restitution, even if it is with his own freedom.

Watch out when they push 'jobs'

Barack Obama, Carol Henrichs 

It is Election Day Eve. It has been a never-ending election season, and yet, in many ways, it is hard to believe we are finally here. As a supporter of four more years for President Obama, I have personally spent months commiserating with like-minded voters and debating and debunking the merits of a Mitt Romney administration.

I have made lots of new friends and probably lost some too.

For me, this election comes down to a continuance of the last 25 years I have spent fighting the State of Illinois’ proposal to build an airport south of Chicago—an airport that is unnecessary, isn’t approved by the Federal Aviation Administration, is opposed by the airlines and the local residents and governments that would have to live with it, and just plain doesn’t fit into the rural area where it is proposed.

I have heard all too often the term “jobs.” This project started as a Republican initiative back in the 1980’s. It is now favored heavily by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr., a Democrat. The line has been blurred between the two. “Jobs” has been the promise--jobs for the poorest suburbs in the Chicagoland area. Trouble is, that would likely not be the result, for a multitude of reasons.

This project has taught me that “jobs” is often nothing more than a political buzzword used by politicians to make it look like they are actually doing something for someone. “Jobs” can also mean total degradation of the environment, whole communities, and destruction of private property, not to mention people’s lives.

That is what I see when I hear Mitt Romney talk about creating “jobs” on day 1, if he is elected. In the context of Romney-speak when he talks about drilling on federal lands, it makes me cringe. When he talks about renewing an energy policy that puts people to work, what he is really talking about is profits for oil, gas, and coal companies at the expense of the natural resources it would destroy. There has to be a balance between the quality of life of people living in the areas rich resources with extracting those from the earth. Romney doesn’t understand that balance. All he understands is profit.

To me, this election is about the intangibles that translate into profit and people. It is always a delicate balance. I just don’t think Romney gets that.

What about the ecosystem that sustains mankind? What about the endangered species that are about to vanish from the earth—species that one day could prove to be a cure for human illnesses? What about the indisputable climate change that has raised temperatures to new heights, caused droughts in the country’s mid-section, and ramped up the effects of storms, like Hurricane Sandy. What about the global conditions that have not yet been felt. The buzzword “jobs” pales in comparison. Survival always trumps jobs numbers. Mitt Romney knows nothing of these complex problems.

Then there are women’s issues. I wrote my first pro-choice letter to the editor years ago. Choice isn’t about the pros and cons of abortion. Nobody likes abortion. Choice is about private, personal decisions being made by a woman with guidance from her family and physician. It is not the concern of the government, let alone to be mandated by government.

There are so many other reasons that a Mitt Romney administration scares me to my core.

Beyond these issues, I could never vote for a candidate whose policies were so opaque, for a candidate who changed his position to accommodate each audience he spoke to, or one that is so beholding to his religious views that he would impose them onto others. Mitt Romney is an elitist that doesn't seem to understand truth, transparency, or compromise. 

It is why I am voting for Barack Obama for President. I am not unhappy with the man who has governed this country for the last four years; he is a man that was able to bring the economy back from the brink after eight of the most trying years of my political lifetime. I am excited to hear Barack Obama speak about “all people.” This should be a country of opportunity for men and women, no matter the age, race, religion, sexual preference, or geographic boundary. I am encouraged by his ability to bring people together, to be able to sort through the layers of complex issues. I love that he has been so tolerant, keeping a steady hand, even when all odds were against him. He has even been able to get things done, despite the bullies in the U.S. House who have thwarted his every initiative. I am proud that he has looked beyond his own personal view to support gay marriage and to follow through with “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.” He really is a trustworthy leader, who understands people, of this country and beyond, and can relate to them. Barack Obama gets it. I love his demeanor and how he has handled difficult times with good humor and compassion. I am proud to call him my President.

Barack Obama must win a second term

US President Barack Obama 

I feel confident that Barack Obama will win a second term in the White House. I say that partially because I cannot imagine any other scenario. Like so many others, I have watched this race with Mitt Romney intensely. I've studied the debates; read all the pundits; and engaged every way possible. There should be no contest. On character alone, Obama is head and shoulders above his challenger. Obama wins on substance, temperament, intellect, diplomacy, integrity, and just about every other way.

I have not, however, donated money to the campaign, for two reasons. 

First, I stand by the principle that elections should not be bought. The Citizens United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that basically threw out any monetary restrictions in campaign finance is immoral and unethical, in my opinion. I plan to support any effort in the future that will negate this blunder by the corporate-heavy, prejudicial court. 

Probably more importantly, I just don't have money to throw into the political arena. Paying bills and taking care of necessities is a much more responsible avenue in my fixed-income household. I'm at least grateful there is enough to pay for the necessities. 

Just because I am not throwing money at my President does not mean I don't support his candidacy. In fact, any of my Facebook friends will attest that I am a big Obama supporter. I have literally devoted hours in an effort to debunk the lies, distortions, and misrepresentations from my 'friends.' If I got paid for the 'writing' I've done on the subject, my personal economic situation would be greatly improved. That however, is not, nor has never been my goal. I have long endeavored in support for causes that I believe in, not because of what I could get out of it, but for what I could put into it. 

While I definitely do not agree with every policy or decision, I have been proud of the leadership in the White House. I cannot say the same thing for challenger, Mitt Romney. To me, Romney epitomizes everything that appalls me. Born with the proverbial silver spoon in his mouth, he really doesn't stand for anything. Despite his participation in his church, he doesn't appear to me to be a moral character. That is another topic for another time.

While Mitt Romney may have done some good things in his life, I'd be willing to bet he benefited by them. He is the kind of man whose deeds are the main course; while any other benefit to anyone else is merely a side dish. He is a bully, void of empathy. He has harmed countless people for his own gain. To me, that is the lowest form of human behavior. I certainly don't want that type of person leading our country.

I've been amazed at how many people simply hate Obama. It is painfully obvious that irrational feelings of hatred stem from varying levels of racial bias because Obama's father was African-American. The election of this President has caused bigotry to rise to the surface, largely by fringe groups of white, Christians who still judge people by the color of their skin, but even by some who don't admit their prejudices. I find it incredible and frightening that in 21st Century America there are still people so filled with racism--a racism so ingrained in them that it colors their views and perceptions. It is so appalling.

Mitt Romney is the stereotypical white, rich guy that probably never knew the joy of getting his hands dirty. A man of privilege for his entire life, he doesn't know what he is missing. 

How could anyone think he could lead a country where only one percent of the population is like him? Romney's role on the national stage should be limited to that of economic adviser, because that is what he knows. But as the leader of a country that is so diverse, a Romney presidency would be worse than what was experienced under the George W. Bush administration. I never dreamed anyone could be worse than Bush, but I believe Romney would be. While he may be a good business manager, running a country is far more complex and requires skills he does not have. A country is all about its people--something Romney is not very good at. 

Running a country is not about simply descending the stairs from a perch in an ivory tower, writing a few pink slips, and then retreating to the country club to joke about it with friends. 

I am sickened at how the marketing of Mitt Romney has influenced so many people--including many of my friends and family. How can people be so blind as to fall for the faux facts, targeted policies aimed at the audience, plans that change with the wind, and his refusal to answer questions? Where is the substance in this man? 

Mitt Romney has turned the leadership of the country into a game. He wants to win it and he will win at any cost. This isn't about leadership of the country we all hold dear; it is about winning. 

What appalls me the most is that people are not just allowing it but are encouraging it. They have convinced themselves that he is what they see in front of them. In reality what they see is an actor--a made-up for the camera robot with no heart. Funny, they voted for George W. Bush because they thought he was a nice guy, only to learn how wrong they were. These are people who lack the depth of understanding to vote for the person that will do the best job managing our country as just one of many in an increasingly  complex world. I just don't think Mitt Romney is up to the task. 

Family garage sale bonds siblings

Last weekend, we had a garage sale. That's me in the background, overseeing the 'stuff' in our garage.

It was an extravaganza, but not just because of the usual garage sale activity, but because my husband's two sisters joined us. Betty lives right around the corner from us. Thank goodness, because she and her husband John brought lots of goodies to sell, not to mention their own tables and even a crock pot filled with sloppy joes to eat.

Jean lives in Indiana. She packed up a rental car and drove some 600 miles just to partake.

Family garage sales have always been a good time for us. Not only do we get rid of extra 'stuff' around the house, often times to one another, but we get to visit with each other and socialize with those who come to visit. And, we even made a few bucks.

This weekend was no exception. It was really fun to get together. It had been quite some time since we were all together in one place. In fact, it was during our last family garage sale, several years ago. Only that time, brother Steve was also here. We missed him this time.

I recall the first time we did this. It was just after we lost my mother-in-law, one of the saddest days I've ever known in my life. Betty and Jean lost their mom, and it was a stressful time for all of us. I adored my mother-in-law and felt her loss almost as deeply as they did.

Dividing a household can be a time of great stress. It has also been known to cause bickering among siblings as mementos and precious items are divided among those who are left. That didn't happen with us. Mom was so organized. She wrote the names on the backs of pictures, for instance, that she wanted each of her children to have. She knew who cared about what because she paid such close attention to those details. She listened when we talked. She pretty much got it right too. We knew how hard it would be to sell those pieces of her life that meant so much to us. There were no fights among us--no animosity, jealousy, or pettiness. We pretty much agreed on everything. There were plenty of tears along the way, but the three of us girls along with our husbands, all named John, by the way, made the most of a bad situation. We had a pajama party of sorts at Mom's house for the last time, as we priced items long into the night.

I'll never forget how hard it was to watch someone carry away the dining room table that had held so many happy family memories. It was indeed hard. But we tried to make the most of it. We convinced ourselves that a new family would make their own family memories, just as we had. We ended up laughing about one thing or another as the memories kept us going.

I think that experience, which was overall a positive one cemented our friendships and strengthened the bonds of our family ties. I suspect that is why we enjoy our family garage sales so much.

It is always good to whittle away the excesses. There is no pain associated with it now. There is only joy; joy at being together, not to mention the joy of cleaning out the clutter.

It was an exhausting weekend, but one I wouldn't trade for anything.

C'mon media--do your job! Ask questions!

Chicago media is all abuzz over the fact that the State of Illinois has issued yet another airport layout plan to the Federal Aviation Administration. How is this a news story?

Airport sentiment near Peotone!

What is wrong with the media? Instead of asking real questions, newspapers have merely stated the obvious--printed the press release. After covering this project for 25 years, doesn't the public deserve better than merely printing what some government PR guy throws out there? Isn't it time to ask some real questions?

IDOT submits airport layout plans to the federal government as frequently as some people change their socks. 

In its zeal to put this news out there, the media failed to note that IDOT's new plan is merely a resolution for its own blunder in 2007 when IDOT submitted dueling airport layout plans to the federal agency. 

One was IDOT's own plan, created out of a 1994 decision by Gov. Jim Edgar for state sponsorship of a new airport at the Peotone site, two years after it was rejected by regional consensus. The map submitted was the result of numerous revisions of the reduced, readjusted, and overall massaged airport layout plan that had been rejected two years prior because there was no regional consensus on the project.

Perhaps that is the question the media should be asking--how does the state plan to achieve a regional consensus for the Peotone Airport?

The other configuration the state submitted in 2007 was for the layout plan conceived by the Abraham Lincoln National Airport Commission (ALNAC), the self-appointed airport authority spearheaded by U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. with a little help from the state’s consultant EarthTech, formerly TAMS.

At that time, the FAA rejected both plans and told IDOT to come back with just one. So, apparently it took five years for the agency to whittle down the differences in the two nearly identical plans,  in order to submit one of them. 

Perhaps the real news is: why does it take so long for the State of Illinois to draw a map when they have had their crayons for decades. But the media didn't bother to ask that question either.

Some news outlets wrongly make the claim that the submission of another airport layout plan is somehow a sign that Gov. Pat Quinn is moving the airport forward. Like most of what has fueled the Peotone  Airport since its inception, this is a mighty big assumption. The fact is that the project has been on the drawing board since 1985. Every governor since Big Jim Thompson, Jim Edgar, George Ryan, Rod Blagojevich, and now Quinn has given it lip service, so how is this newsworthy? Yet, the reality is that the Peotone Airport is nothing more than a stack of yellowing papers on a shelf.

One component of the state's layout plan is the general aviation component of the Peotone Airport. How does the state plans to reconcile the existence of Bult Field, a privately-owned FAA-sanctioned general aviation airport, into which lies inside the Peotone Airport fence?

Back in 2008, IDOT reportedly assumed that Bult Field would be acquired and incorporated into the proposed airport. It is expected that existing facilities at Bult Field would serve the General Aviation (GA) needs at SSA (South Suburban Airport). Major improvements have been made to Bult Field since it was developed in October 2004. The cost to acquire that airport would drastically increase the cost of developing the proposed airport. How does the state plan to acquire and pay for a private airport for its own purposes? Is Bult Field even for sale?

Maybe reporters should ask IDOT what it plans to do with an airfield that airlines are opposed to and say they will not use. How does the governor plan to entice the airlines to get on board with his newly-reported support for a Peotone Airport? 

Instead of addressing the myriad questions surrounding the state's arguably longest-running boondoggle, the media has opted to report, practically word-for-word, the state's press release. It was only later in the story that throwing $70 million toward land purchases was mentioned. 

Isn't that more important? Isn't it actual news that the governor of the cash-starved State of Illinois that has been bullying landowners near Peotone for decades wants to continue the process. To me, that is much more newsworthy than merely jumping through a procession of legal hoops to prepare a Master Plan for an airport that may never be built anyway.

Parade Route

Politics often provides such a clear distinction between the candidates.

It was at a parade that I met Barack Obama, the Democrat running for a second term as President.

The following picture of the two of us posing in front of my house was taken Beecher, Illinois back in 1994 when Obama was campaigning for  a seat in the U.S. Senate.

I was a small town reporter taking pictures of the Fourth of July parade. We lived along the parade route, so I often combined business with pleasure. I recall being totally excited and amazed that a candidate for the U.S. Senate was walking in our little, small town parade. I had no idea at the time that the man with whom I took this picture would become the 44th President of the United States.

Obama obviously loved campaigning. He loved being around people. He enjoyed meeting them. His huge smile was evidence of how much fun he was having. He reached for as many hands as reached out to him. He was friendly and took time to talk with folks along the parade route. In fact, there were many times he had to run to catch up after being sidelined by questioners and interested future constituents.

Then there is the other side. A video was made of Paul Ryan, the Republican Vice Presidential running mate of Mitt Romney, who is challenging Obama.

I could go on about Romney, but this is a story about parades, so the object is Paul Ryan, the same man whose speech at the Republican National Convention was picked apart by fact checkers the following morning.

Watch how Paul Ryan greets the people along the parade route.

There is no doubt in my mind which man I would rather see lead this country.

Newspapers need to step up

MSNBC's Chris Hayes
 (Photo credit: thecommongoodusa)

One of the best show on television, for anyone who cares about current issues and events, is Up with Chris Hayes, on weekend mornings. 

I find this young man to be energetic, optimistic, enlightening, and highly intelligent. I've seen more of him lately, what with all the political goings on as we move closer to the November 6 election, which to me translates into hope for the future of journalism. I had feared that our best days were behind us. I find Chris Hayes' the MSNBC contributor whose off-the-cuff analysis in many cases, is downright genius.
I tuned in to UP recently where the discussion, while centering on fact checking spurred by the Paul Ryan speech at the Republican National Convention, morphed into a talk about news media, journalism, one-newspaper markets, and how it all relates to politics. It was a fascinating program. With a guest panel that included various journalists, like Bob Herbert from demos.org. and who also writes a column in the New York Times, the discussion made me feel like I was at home. I wanted to jump into the television to join in; I would have loved to relate my experience, working at a local newspaper that cornered the market in the small town where I lived. With no competition, I wanted to explain how often times I had to fight for a story that didn't follow the deeply-engrained thinking. I usually won, except for twice when the owner pulled a story that he thought to be politically damaging even though it was true. He was a Republican; I was a Democrat. Another one told the truth about a school election. He couldn't afford to harm those people. They were all friends and advertisers.

Small local newspapers with no competition worked when a town was small enough that everybody knew one another. It worked when the local gossip mill was as informed as the morning headline. But when the town started to grow it became a different story. About the time when the townsfolk realized they really should start locking their doors at night, it was also time to bring competition to the news market. But that didn't happen.

"WATCH YOUR LOCAL NEWSPAPER^^" - NARA - 535653 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Objectivity, which was never the priority anyway, ceased to have a chance. What happens is people are so concerned with the obvious changes in their town that they never even considered the below-the-surface needs that they have come to take for granted--like the lack of objectivity in their newspaper. When they finally did notice, the local newspaper was among so many other pressing problems that it became relegated to bottom rung of the priority ladder. As the town grew, more and more people became subscribers, it certainly not for the news value. Folks kept up with shopping ads, little league scores, and the latest obituaries. They were unaware of how things had always been and they didn't care. Often times, they continued subscribing to the newspapers from where they came from, recognizing that the local newspaper was nothing more than an extension of the good ole boy network that ran the town. The news was completely skewed and self-serving to its owners. As long as the small paper's owners didn't lose business, they didn't feel a need to change policies. The status-quo worked for them.

It never worked for me. I have long said that a lack of objectivity in the local newspaper contributes to the decline of understanding, information, and ultimately the politics of a region. This allows the local leaders to completely take advantage of the public for its own gain. News is force-fed in the form of one-sided opinion and commentary through what was once a valuable resource that exposed such behaviors. Today, they are contributors. The political leanings of the owner of a newspaper has become evident in all his editorial decisions. He has the ability to sway the better part of an entire populace, if they aren't paying attention. 

The problem has only been exacerbated by the economic downturn of the newspaper industry, which further denigrates what newspapers used to be--a trusted source of fact. With the focus shifting from the readership to merely selling advertising, newspapers as we have known them have ceased to exist.

I always believed that the local newspaper, an information and education resource, is the basic form of communication in a community. It must be balanced to cover the community it serves, but with a much broader perspective. If the perspective of editorial content remains too narrow, readers are left uninformed or worst, misinformed.

In the town where I worked, most of the people have a narrow focus, believe and rarely question what their parents and grandparents believed. They go about their daily lives unaware of what they are missing. They are confidant that all is well as they live in a bubble away from all outside influence. That is until something happens to burst that bubble. Where I lived, it was a state-sponsored proposal to build a huge airport, displacing some of the region's best farm fields with concrete and asphalt.

That bubble and its naive sense of well-being makes whole populations completely vulnerable to outside forces that recognize their innocence and take full advantage of it.

It is my hope that newspapers can retain their profitability if they recognize their value is less profit-oriented, and more of a social and education necessity.

Watching RNC painful; reminder of lessons learned

Mitt and Ann Romney (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

I felt great anticipation; I knew this was going to be painful.

That statement might refer to sitting in a dentist's chair awaiting a root canal. Or it might be the moments just before the start of the Republican National Convention. I knew it would hurt, but I didn't realize how much.

For me, the agony was in reliving the past. I have a little understanding of the political process, due to my long history battling Illinois politicians over their foolish notion to build a third Chicagoland Airport 40 miles south of the city near rural Peotone, Illinois.

I know how feudal it can be to try to have a decent conversation with politicians who have their minds set and their marching orders in hand. I know it can be infuriating when they refuse to listen, even though that is, or at best should be, part of their job description. I know truth is often buried beneath surface rhetoric; sometimes it is buried so deeply that it cannot be recovered. I know there are mean-spirited people with humongous egos who talk down to everyone around them. I know there are always questions that will go unanswered. I know that perspectives can be skewed, the thought process rarely strays from the pre-approved talking points, and the opposition is the enemy.

I learned these things at the hand of the GOP in Illinois. This may sound confusing to some who may recognize that the loudest voice on behalf of the Peotone Airport is U.S. Rep. Jesse Jackson, Jr. The Peotone project may appear to be a Democrat-inspired battle.

Although it may no longer be widely known, the Peotone Airport began with the Republicans in the Illinois General Assembly. It was definitely a GOP airport. In fact, for years I kept an article in the top drawer of my desk from the Chicago Sun Times, Oct. 1988. The headline read, "Du Page plum for GOP pals // Political ties bring profits in airport expansion," The article detailed an aggressive plan, by the DuPage Republicans who at the time were the leaders of the state. They planned to expand the DuPage Airport, located at the edge of the county. This is the same county as O'Hare neighbors and foes, the municipalities of Bensenville and Elk Grove Village.

The DuPage Airport was a completely self-serving project, paid for by taxpayers to the tune of $90 million. That was not chump change in 1988. I have long maintained that this project was a model--a how-to method--to build a third airport. Remember, the Peotone plan was hatched by the DuPage GOP as a means of  resisting expansion at O'Hare--or so they thought.

Though Jesse Jackson, Jr. happened to be a Democrat, he brought his own skill set to the table. He was a community activist of sorts who knew how to turn everything he touched into a racially-charged issue. He was a shoe-in as a congressional representative. And he had a rebel-rousing, well-known black activist father. DuPage Republicans didn't have much experience with race relations, since DuPage was predominantly white in 1988. This would need to be a numbers game. The more people to sign on the better.  If it worked, Jackson could make a really big name for himself. That was very appealing to him. His strong dislike for then Chicago Mayor Richard Daley gave him a kind of kinship with his GOP pals. He teamed up with the late Congressman Henry Hyde, a DuPage GOP kingpin. Hyde died and Jackson became the front man of the project, while still cooperating with those DuPage GOP. He made the project his obsession, still wanting to make that name for himself.

Given that kind of base, watching the shenanigans at the RNC was all pretty predictable.

I heard governors talk mostly about themselves and their accomplishments despite their facts being largely exaggerated at best. Much of what they said failed this morning's fact checking. It was easy to recognize the pattern when I heard it. The main point they wanted to get across was based on their need for self aggrandizement.

If all these wonderful statistics were true and the governors who spoke turned their states into such job havens, why wouldn't those great benefits fall under the umbrella of Obama's economic policies? If their states were doing so well, wouldn't the numbers for the whole country look better? Trying to look at only a partial picture is a pretty typical political move. I know it to be one the GOP uses all the time. Politicians are largely one-trick ponies. They learn one trick and use it over and over and over again, even when it ceases to work.

Nikki Haley's harangue about Obama suing South Carolina over Boeing was only half the story. She forgot to mention that all those new jobs from Boeing in South Carolina, a right to work state would have saved Boeing lots of money that it was paying its workers in Seattle, who incidentally got laid off. That is another typical political move--cherry-picking information, using only what makes you look good and hoping no one notices.

It is really nice that after all these years, that Ann Romney really loves her husband. Perhaps if he bought me fancy cars, beautiful homes, and all the riches I could ever ask for, I'd love him too. Well, maybe not because to me, those things don't translate into love. I'm not sure she convinced everyone to love her husband just because she does. Or do I trust him just because she does. Perhaps she is really naive because I don't trust people that tell as many lies as he does.

Gov. Chris Christie's keynote address was a barn-burner alright. It was the best speech of the night. He really is a great speaker. Trouble is he forgot that he was supposed to talk about Mitt Romney. Instead he merely set the stage for his own run for the White House in 2016. Politicians are such self-serving egomaniacs.

And then there was Mitt Romney. The one thing he has going for himself is that he lacks that whole ego thing.   Romney doesn't have enough personality even for his own ego. He seems unfeeling, unemotional. I suppose that is a defense mechanism that is necessary when you do as much harm to people as he has during his economic life at Bain.

I don't care what his wife thinks of him. I don't trust anything he says because it has become quite clear that what he said yesterday may not be what he says tomorrow.

Just the other day, I saw a videotaped piece where Mitt Romney said he didn't invest in the Cayman Islands to save money on taxes; that he didn't get any tax break for his offshore investment. Liar! That is the only reason to invest in the Cayman Islands.

Even if he didn't lie about everything he touched, or released his tax returns, I would still disagree with Romney's philosophy of running the government like a business. Businesses are profit driven. I don't think that should be the objective of government. Making money is not what it is all about. Government is about people. Mitt Romney doesn't seem to have a sense of how to deal with people. I hate that he doesn't want to answer questions. That is also a part of government that I feel is very important.

I'm anxious to see if there is anything redeeming about Paul Ryan's speech tonight, although I feel like I'm about to sit in that dental chair again. I suspect the pain is going to escalate as the convention wears on. All I can say is, thank goodness, the RNC has been shortened by one day.