I miss him like it was yesterday. I miss the way he always was there for me, like a best friend. I miss the way he helped celebrate birthdays, my wedding, and the weddings of all my dearest friends, baby showers and barbeques. And the way he celebrated Christmas.
No one celebrated Christmas like him. No one put the time and the effort into decorating for the holidays like he did. No one—no one—had a bigger, a taller, a grander, more beautiful Christmas tree.
No one opened his doors to so many people, so many different people, from all walks of life, from every corner of the globe like he did at Christmas. Visiting his main house at State Street and Randolph downtown Chicago was nothing less than magical. The way he decorated his windows brought tears to the eye of even the most cynical, most heart-hardened Scrooge. People would get dressed up—ladies in their gloves and beautiful hats and winter’s finest, men in their top coats and their top hats, little girls would dress in their special holiday outfits with white tights and black patent leather shoes. Even little boys would wear their Sunday suits under their winter coats, all just to come see how he’d decorated the windows. People would stop and stare with wild wonder and delight. You could see groups of people gleefully pointing to things in those windows that perhaps no one else had noticed. “Oh, look at this,” they would say. “Look at that.” It was akin to watching fireworks shoot up into the sky and explode into a rainbow of color on the 4th of July.
People would stand 10 deep just to get even a glimpse of his beautifully decorated windows. They would snap family photos in front of them and under his great clocks and under the plaque announcing the history of his home. People would come back year after year regardless of how wickedly cold or snowy or windy it was to see how he’d decorated the windows this time.
His windows told stories of his family. Uncle Mistletoe, Aunt Holly and their friends Olio, Molio, Aunt Judy, Skippy Monkey, Obadiah Pig, Tony the Pony and Humphrey Mouse. You may never have met them, but after a few years, it felt as though you had known them all your lives. They may have come ’round only for four years, but you were sad when they had to leave because it was as if part of your own family had left you.
But eventually, you got used to the new stories he told in his windows. Even if they were simple Disney stories or stories about book characters.
Because, after all, it was Marshall Field, and he could really do nothing but good at Christmas. He was like Santa, bringing you memories and gifts that touched the heart and that truly would last a lifetime.
It was amazing the things Marshall Field offered at Christmas. Anything you could possibly imagine…real cashmere sweaters, dazzling diamond jewelry, handsome timepieces, an array of ties for dad that took one’s breath away, personalized stationery, beautiful writing utensils, the best luggage and trunks for fine world traveling, even pots and pans and vacuum cleaners…Marshall Field had it. And if he didn’t have it, he knew who did and how you could find it.
Oh, and the way he treated us ladies. “Give the lady what she wants,” he always said. “Give the lady what she wants.” No one says that anymore.
He welcomed people into his kitchen and dining room, which he called the Walnut Room. And it was in the Walnut Room where one’s parents or grandparents taught us about manners and how to be a lady or a gentleman, which fork to use first. Which spoon was for soup and which fork or spoon was for dessert. And it was in the Walnut Room where the Great Tree stood, standing tall and proud and shining with what seemed like a million starry lights and almost as many glorious ornaments. At some three stories high, that tree always took my breath away.
He left us though—through no fault of his own, mind you. And someone took Marshall Fields’ place. And Christmas never, never has been the same. When Marshall Field left Chicago, left his homes in the suburbs…a part of Christmas left, too.
People protested, people begged him to stay. But the evil Mayor Richard Daley said, for lack of better words, “Be gone with you.” And he let this…not even a person, not a local face…this New Yorker come in and kick out Marshall Field.
It still hurts. I still miss him. It’s been four years. Four years, and it feels like yesterday. And Christmas…well, Christmas has never been the same. I don’t know what to do with myself at the holidays. No one offered up the holiday goodies like Marshall Field, and no one ever will. They say everyone is replaceable, not Marshall Field.
No one made my heart race at the holidays like Marshall Field did. No one made my heart sing at Christmastime like Marshall Field did. When Marshall Field left, so did some of my Christmas spirit. I still can’t bring myself to visit his replacement. I can barely say his replacement’s name…Macy’s.
Yes, that Macy’s, of “Miracle on 34th Street” fame. Macy’s of some 150 years of history. Marshall Field had been around Chicago since the 1860s in some form or another. Yes, Macy’s may have a lot of history. But it’s not Chicago history. It’s not my history. Marshall Field is my history.
Marshall Field was my go-to at Christmas. Not just for the things he offered, but also for the way his family treated me…like a lady, always—always—like a lady. Marshall Field believed the customer was always right. Who these days still believes that?
Marshall Field may have been just a place, a store to some people. Not to me. Marshall Field was home for the holidays.
And the holidays…well, they just aren’t the same without Marshall Field.
-30-
Copyright Bulldog News Services December 2009. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 13, 2009
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
What has happened to journalism?
I find myself at a crossroads today. As a loyal reader of The Chicago Tribune for some 30 years, and as a professional journalist, I'm afraid I actually may have to cancel my subscription. The Tribune used to be, and proudly proclaimed itself so on its once mighty flag, "The World's Greatest Newspaper." That, for me, at least, no longer is the case. Today's front page — let me reiterate, FRONT PAGE — the most important page, carried above the fold a most unimportant story about the Illinois Lottery lady, Linda Kollmeyer, and her so-called "Lindaisms?"
This is what the Tribune has become? Is this what journalism has become? Fluff on the front page? When cities and villages and towns across the state are flooding and residents are crying out for help from their local and county governments to repair, to replace decades-old drainage infrastructure that does little now but...well, does little but increase flooding in many areas now? With scandal now seemingly a constant in state governments, with President Obama desperately trying to turn around the economy, we readers are treated to little more than teasers and advertisements on the front page of major metropolitan newspapers and little more than press releases in our so-called local newspapers? When news of the President of the United States is relegated to quick tidbits on Page 3 (another once sacred news page), shared with a story about how quilting can be edgy, and to left-hand pages once reserved for jumps (the continuation of articles)...is this is what journalism has become?
Have we as readers really caused this blatant dumbing down of newspapers? Is this really what our newspapers should be giving us with our morning coffee? Are our attention-spans so short now that all we can tolerate are little stories with really big pictures and graphics? How can we find out what's really going on in the world around us if so few are willing to invest in real reporting? The Tribune's flag now boasts "The Midwest's largest reporting team." Really? So, what. If you aren't going to use that team to report the news in the Midwest, what good is having the largest team in the Midwest?
There always has been a fine line between giving the readers what they want and what they need to know. But these days, all too often, newspapers in general are light on the things we need to know about, such as how President Obama's new education overhaul really affect us, how will the once bi-partisan funding bill affect you, how will it affect your neighbors? Your parents? Your children? Time was, newspapers used to report that kind of thing. Reporters used to ask the question, "How will this affect the everyday Joe?" Do we not do that any more? Do we not do that enough?
Are we as journalists to blame? Are we no longer asking the right questions? Does anyone even know what the right questions are anymore? In a time when there is less and less room for news because advertising revenues are down and, when there are ads, they take up three-quarters of a page, perhaps few of us journalists see fit to ask how this action or that motion or that new ordinance will affect the everyday newspaper reader. Do we quietly think to ourselves, why bother? So few papers print longer stories today, maybe there's just no room to satisfy all of the questions who, what, where, when, why and how? And that most important question of "How will it actually affect Joe or Jane Doe?"
Maybe it's time reporters take back journalism. Maybe it's time for journalists to take back newspapers. So many newspapers now are owned by conglomerates headed by bean-counters, by bottom-liners, by mega-moguls who admit they have little to no idea what journalism is, or was, all about. Why is that? And what does it mean for the future of our newspapers? What does it mean for our so-called "local" newspapers that today cover "news" no more local than two, three or four towns over, unless all you really want to read is the police blotter. Local newspapers are closing left and right. Why? Because mom-and-pop newspapers can't afford to keep on good reporters and because they can't afford to offend or scare off certain advertisers by printing in-depth or investigative pieces. Mom-and-pop newspapers are hurting because they can't afford the space to answer all the questions because the advertising revenue isn't there to support what's called the news hole. I say, it's a slippery slope we journalists are on. How do we as reporters take on newspapers' new owners? Can we? Dare we try? Would it matter?
If the readers don't care, if the readers are satisfied with softer news, if the readers are content with not learning how the actions of our leaders, of world leaders, will affect them, maybe all of this is moot. Could well be I'm totally off base. Maybe readers really don't care that the goings-on of the White House, that stories about terror suspects and stories about the expansion of Al Qaida are falling farther and farther to the back of the newspapers. Maybe readers really do want more stories about how quilting can be edgy.
If that is the case, then I am truly saddened. I started reading the newspaper because it was full of interesting information about what was going on in my town, about what my local, state and national governmental officials were doing and how it would affect my family and my neighbors. I continue to write for newspapers because I want to be a reporter who reports the news and how it will affect, as one wise scribe once said, "the guy in the green pick-up truck." That could be you driving that pick-up. Could it really be true that trends in quilting are more important to most readers than the latest developments in cancer research or where the U.S. is in hunting down Osama bin laden or what's happening in Afghanistan or how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is doing in her new position?
If so, perhaps newspapers really are doomed. And if that's true, maybe we all are. After all, newspapers have been the cornerstones of so many of our lives for so long. Newspapers have chronicled everything from the "shot heard around the world" to the killings of our national heroes to the election of the first African American president. What if—just think about it—what if, newspapers stopped reporting the news?
-30-
Copyright Bulldog News Services 03/2009. All rights reserved.
This is what the Tribune has become? Is this what journalism has become? Fluff on the front page? When cities and villages and towns across the state are flooding and residents are crying out for help from their local and county governments to repair, to replace decades-old drainage infrastructure that does little now but...well, does little but increase flooding in many areas now? With scandal now seemingly a constant in state governments, with President Obama desperately trying to turn around the economy, we readers are treated to little more than teasers and advertisements on the front page of major metropolitan newspapers and little more than press releases in our so-called local newspapers? When news of the President of the United States is relegated to quick tidbits on Page 3 (another once sacred news page), shared with a story about how quilting can be edgy, and to left-hand pages once reserved for jumps (the continuation of articles)...is this is what journalism has become?
Have we as readers really caused this blatant dumbing down of newspapers? Is this really what our newspapers should be giving us with our morning coffee? Are our attention-spans so short now that all we can tolerate are little stories with really big pictures and graphics? How can we find out what's really going on in the world around us if so few are willing to invest in real reporting? The Tribune's flag now boasts "The Midwest's largest reporting team." Really? So, what. If you aren't going to use that team to report the news in the Midwest, what good is having the largest team in the Midwest?
There always has been a fine line between giving the readers what they want and what they need to know. But these days, all too often, newspapers in general are light on the things we need to know about, such as how President Obama's new education overhaul really affect us, how will the once bi-partisan funding bill affect you, how will it affect your neighbors? Your parents? Your children? Time was, newspapers used to report that kind of thing. Reporters used to ask the question, "How will this affect the everyday Joe?" Do we not do that any more? Do we not do that enough?
Are we as journalists to blame? Are we no longer asking the right questions? Does anyone even know what the right questions are anymore? In a time when there is less and less room for news because advertising revenues are down and, when there are ads, they take up three-quarters of a page, perhaps few of us journalists see fit to ask how this action or that motion or that new ordinance will affect the everyday newspaper reader. Do we quietly think to ourselves, why bother? So few papers print longer stories today, maybe there's just no room to satisfy all of the questions who, what, where, when, why and how? And that most important question of "How will it actually affect Joe or Jane Doe?"
Maybe it's time reporters take back journalism. Maybe it's time for journalists to take back newspapers. So many newspapers now are owned by conglomerates headed by bean-counters, by bottom-liners, by mega-moguls who admit they have little to no idea what journalism is, or was, all about. Why is that? And what does it mean for the future of our newspapers? What does it mean for our so-called "local" newspapers that today cover "news" no more local than two, three or four towns over, unless all you really want to read is the police blotter. Local newspapers are closing left and right. Why? Because mom-and-pop newspapers can't afford to keep on good reporters and because they can't afford to offend or scare off certain advertisers by printing in-depth or investigative pieces. Mom-and-pop newspapers are hurting because they can't afford the space to answer all the questions because the advertising revenue isn't there to support what's called the news hole. I say, it's a slippery slope we journalists are on. How do we as reporters take on newspapers' new owners? Can we? Dare we try? Would it matter?
If the readers don't care, if the readers are satisfied with softer news, if the readers are content with not learning how the actions of our leaders, of world leaders, will affect them, maybe all of this is moot. Could well be I'm totally off base. Maybe readers really don't care that the goings-on of the White House, that stories about terror suspects and stories about the expansion of Al Qaida are falling farther and farther to the back of the newspapers. Maybe readers really do want more stories about how quilting can be edgy.
If that is the case, then I am truly saddened. I started reading the newspaper because it was full of interesting information about what was going on in my town, about what my local, state and national governmental officials were doing and how it would affect my family and my neighbors. I continue to write for newspapers because I want to be a reporter who reports the news and how it will affect, as one wise scribe once said, "the guy in the green pick-up truck." That could be you driving that pick-up. Could it really be true that trends in quilting are more important to most readers than the latest developments in cancer research or where the U.S. is in hunting down Osama bin laden or what's happening in Afghanistan or how Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is doing in her new position?
If so, perhaps newspapers really are doomed. And if that's true, maybe we all are. After all, newspapers have been the cornerstones of so many of our lives for so long. Newspapers have chronicled everything from the "shot heard around the world" to the killings of our national heroes to the election of the first African American president. What if—just think about it—what if, newspapers stopped reporting the news?
-30-
Copyright Bulldog News Services 03/2009. All rights reserved.
Friday, September 26, 2008
Is more offshore drilling the right answer for nation's worsening energy crisis?
The U.S. House of Representatives this week voted to end a 25-year-old ban on oil and natural gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. The Senate is expected to follow within a few days. However, there are some concerns that allowing new drilling will adversely impact the environment, coastal tourism and will not help lower petroleum or natural gas prices anytime soon.
Both of our presidential candidates, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, support offshore drilling, although to different degrees. McCain fully supports lifting the ban and increasing offshore drilling. The Washington Post reported that McCain earlier this week said, "We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.”
In McCain’s presidential campaign eight years ago, he took the opposite position regarding offshore drilling. And, since becoming the GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.
Environmental groups across the country now are criticizing McCain for backing the repeal of the ban. “It’s disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past,’ Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters, told The Washington Post. The Sierra Club’s political director, Cathy Duvall, said McCain had been portraying himself as a “friend of the environment,” casting himself far away from the way President Bush seems to view the environment and the impact offshore drilling would have. Duvall told the Post that McCain “is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn’t.”
Meanwhile, Obama was charged with flip-flopping on his views regarding offshore drilling. According to various newspaper reports, Obama said he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling, but only if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post. Obama added that he would not support a plan that “suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems.”
There has been some discussion among environmentalists, politicians and oil producers that even if offshore drilling begins immediately, it would not help reduce natural gas or oil prices for at least a decade. The Chicago Tribune reported that even if the ban on offshore drilling is lifted, drilling might not necessarily happen. But, the Tribune said, lifting the ban could mean the U.S. Department of the Interior may issue drilling leases in Atlantic waters by 2011.
The issue of offshore drilling now is front and center in the race for president. The issue almost has become more a political one than an environmental one. Part of the reason for that could well be that even amongst scientists, there is some disagreement about the environmental impact offshore drilling may have on marine and land life. More likely, the reason offshore drilling has become of such paramount importance in this election is that taxpayers are hurting. We’re hurting at the pump and we’re hurting at home as temperatures start decreasing and we start thinking about having to turn on the heat. Both candidates think they have the right answer, but with the presidency on the line, one wonders if McCain and Obama are thinking about the drastic impact offshore drilling will have on our lives.
According to a 2000 report titled “A Survey of Offshore Oilfield Drilling Wastes and Disposal Techniques to Reduce the Ecological Impact of Sea Dumping,” by Jonathan Wills, M.A., Ph.D., “Most of the major ingredients of drilling fluids have a low toxicity to marine organisms. A few specialty chemicals sometimes added to drilling fluids to solve certain problems are toxic.” Those “specialty chemicals” include diesel fuel. The same report goes on to say that some of the water-based drilling fluids already being used on the U.S. Continental Shelf include mixtures of clays, barium, chromium, lead and zinc, often at levels that are “substantially higher” than those usually found in natural marine sediment.
The report also says that “the composition of drilling fluids is so variable and the circumstances of their use so different that there is an extremely wide range of concentrations that cause different toxic effects, ranging from the practical absence of toxic effects to lethal toxicity.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council surveyed the adverse effects of offshore drilling and reported that, “Offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) could do serious, irreparable damage to our oceans, coastal communities, and marine life,” including, but not limited to damaging coastal lands, economies and communities.
“Offshore oil and gas operations have detrimental effects onshore. These operations require roads, pipelines, and processing facilities to be built on America’s beaches, wetlands and coastal areas,” the NRDC report states. “Current drilling projects in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico have destroyed more wetlands than exist between New Jersey and Maine. These activities hurt local communities and damaged economies that depend upon these resources for tourism, coastal recreation and fishing.”
The NRDC report further states that fish and marine life consumed by humans possibly could be contaminated by “huge quantities of waste that contain toxic and radioactive pollutants.” Some of those pollutants are mercury, lead and cadmium. Cadmium is known to cause cancer and is largely used in batteries and pigments for plastic products. Other pollutants left in the water by offshore drilling include radium, an extremely radioactive material, as well as other toxic chemicals such as benzene, arsenic, lead, radium, naphthalene, zinc, and toluene. Naphthalene is best known as the primary ingredient of mothballs, while toluene is widely used as an industrial feedstock, but also as a solvent. Toluene is also used as an inhalant drug for its intoxicating properties.
One must think: If these chemicals are in the water, where we swim and fish, they must be in the marine life we eat. But the health hazards don’t stop there. The NRDC report states that emissions from drilling an average “exploration well,” which may or may not produce oil or natural gas, includes “50 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 13 tons of carbon monoxide, six tons of sulfur dioxide, and five tons of volatile organic compounds.” Drilling from an operational well includes 50 tons of NOx, 11 tons of carbon monoxide, eight tons of sulfur dioxide and 38 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbons. The most common VOC is methane, which is the primary component of natural gas. There also are artificial VOCs, including paint thinners and dry cleaning solvents.
If that’s not enough to make your flesh crawl and ponder a life without natural gas and oil, consider this: The seismic surveys used to determine if oil or natural gas is present can seriously affect gray whales, sperm whales, beaked whales and bowheads, and can injure fish at substantial distances. “Fish are particularly vulnerable to hearing loss that can significantly threaten their survival. Many fish, including salmon, which are endangered in portions of the United States, have swim bladders that can rupture when exposed to intense sounds like those emitted through these types of surveys,” according to the NRDC. Bony fish like salmon have “swim bladders” to help them maintain buoyancy in the water. The swim bladder is a sac inside the abdomen that contains gas. Oxygen makes up the largest percentage of gas in the swim bladder, while nitrogen and carbon dioxide make up the rest. So, if a salmon’s swim bladder ruptures, it is possible that the fish next to will absorb some of those gases, and those gases would be in the salmon you eat.
All of this may be a bit boring, but it is information that must be considered with the doors to more offshore drilling about to open. And while the above information is important — if not a bit frightening — even more so is the possibility of more oil spills.
Between 1981 and 2005, there have been more than 180 large oil spills in the Outer Continental Shelf, each spewing more than 2,100 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, according to the NRDC. And as storms and hurricanes have intensified so have the number of oil spills. The NRDC reports that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone resulted in 125 spills of oil products from drilling platforms and rigs, as well as pipelines on the OCS. Those two spills sent some 685,000 gallons of oil products into the water. The cost to clean up the Katrina spills far exceeded $150 million, according to a Homeland Security report.
The question is, then, is offshore drilling the answer to the nation’s fuel woes? If the first drilling leases aren’t even going to be handed out for three years, how will lifting the ban on offshore drilling help us now, today, when we fill up at the gas station or heat our homes? One must wonder if lifting the ban is simply a political move to make it seem like the government is stepping in to help, or is this really going to help? One also must wonder how much is this going to cost us in dollars and cents, and would investing in alternative energy sources be less costly, less harmful, and more sustainable?
Right now, there’s not much the average Joe or Jane can do about the ban; it’s in the government’s hand. But every Joe and Jane in these United States can take a stand, either for more offshore drilling or against it, by contacting his or her senators and representatives, and by voting on Election Day.
-30-
Copyright 2009 Bulldog News Services
Both of our presidential candidates, Arizona Sen. John McCain and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, support offshore drilling, although to different degrees. McCain fully supports lifting the ban and increasing offshore drilling. The Washington Post reported that McCain earlier this week said, "We must embark on a national mission to eliminate our dependence on foreign oil. We have untapped oil reserves of at least 21 billion barrels in the United States. But a broad federal moratorium stands in the way of energy exploration and production. . . . It is time for the federal government to lift these restrictions.”
In McCain’s presidential campaign eight years ago, he took the opposite position regarding offshore drilling. And, since becoming the GOP nominee in March, McCain has presented himself as a friend of the environment by touting his plans to combat global warming and his opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and in the Everglades.
Environmental groups across the country now are criticizing McCain for backing the repeal of the ban. “It’s disappointing that Senator McCain is clinging to the failed energy policies of the past,’ Tiernan Sittenfeld, legislative director for the League of Conservation Voters, told The Washington Post. The Sierra Club’s political director, Cathy Duvall, said McCain had been portraying himself as a “friend of the environment,” casting himself far away from the way President Bush seems to view the environment and the impact offshore drilling would have. Duvall told the Post that McCain “is using the environment as a way to portray himself as being different from George Bush. But the reality is that he isn’t.”
Meanwhile, Obama was charged with flip-flopping on his views regarding offshore drilling. According to various newspaper reports, Obama said he would be willing to compromise on his position against offshore oil drilling, but only if it were part of a more overarching strategy to lower energy costs.
“My interest is in making sure we’ve got the kind of comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices,” Obama told The Palm Beach Post. Obama added that he would not support a plan that “suggests this drilling is the answer to our energy problems.”
There has been some discussion among environmentalists, politicians and oil producers that even if offshore drilling begins immediately, it would not help reduce natural gas or oil prices for at least a decade. The Chicago Tribune reported that even if the ban on offshore drilling is lifted, drilling might not necessarily happen. But, the Tribune said, lifting the ban could mean the U.S. Department of the Interior may issue drilling leases in Atlantic waters by 2011.
The issue of offshore drilling now is front and center in the race for president. The issue almost has become more a political one than an environmental one. Part of the reason for that could well be that even amongst scientists, there is some disagreement about the environmental impact offshore drilling may have on marine and land life. More likely, the reason offshore drilling has become of such paramount importance in this election is that taxpayers are hurting. We’re hurting at the pump and we’re hurting at home as temperatures start decreasing and we start thinking about having to turn on the heat. Both candidates think they have the right answer, but with the presidency on the line, one wonders if McCain and Obama are thinking about the drastic impact offshore drilling will have on our lives.
According to a 2000 report titled “A Survey of Offshore Oilfield Drilling Wastes and Disposal Techniques to Reduce the Ecological Impact of Sea Dumping,” by Jonathan Wills, M.A., Ph.D., “Most of the major ingredients of drilling fluids have a low toxicity to marine organisms. A few specialty chemicals sometimes added to drilling fluids to solve certain problems are toxic.” Those “specialty chemicals” include diesel fuel. The same report goes on to say that some of the water-based drilling fluids already being used on the U.S. Continental Shelf include mixtures of clays, barium, chromium, lead and zinc, often at levels that are “substantially higher” than those usually found in natural marine sediment.
The report also says that “the composition of drilling fluids is so variable and the circumstances of their use so different that there is an extremely wide range of concentrations that cause different toxic effects, ranging from the practical absence of toxic effects to lethal toxicity.”
The Natural Resources Defense Council surveyed the adverse effects of offshore drilling and reported that, “Offshore drilling in the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) could do serious, irreparable damage to our oceans, coastal communities, and marine life,” including, but not limited to damaging coastal lands, economies and communities.
“Offshore oil and gas operations have detrimental effects onshore. These operations require roads, pipelines, and processing facilities to be built on America’s beaches, wetlands and coastal areas,” the NRDC report states. “Current drilling projects in the Outer Continental Shelf in the Gulf of Mexico have destroyed more wetlands than exist between New Jersey and Maine. These activities hurt local communities and damaged economies that depend upon these resources for tourism, coastal recreation and fishing.”
The NRDC report further states that fish and marine life consumed by humans possibly could be contaminated by “huge quantities of waste that contain toxic and radioactive pollutants.” Some of those pollutants are mercury, lead and cadmium. Cadmium is known to cause cancer and is largely used in batteries and pigments for plastic products. Other pollutants left in the water by offshore drilling include radium, an extremely radioactive material, as well as other toxic chemicals such as benzene, arsenic, lead, radium, naphthalene, zinc, and toluene. Naphthalene is best known as the primary ingredient of mothballs, while toluene is widely used as an industrial feedstock, but also as a solvent. Toluene is also used as an inhalant drug for its intoxicating properties.
One must think: If these chemicals are in the water, where we swim and fish, they must be in the marine life we eat. But the health hazards don’t stop there. The NRDC report states that emissions from drilling an average “exploration well,” which may or may not produce oil or natural gas, includes “50 tons of nitrogen oxides (NOx), 13 tons of carbon monoxide, six tons of sulfur dioxide, and five tons of volatile organic compounds.” Drilling from an operational well includes 50 tons of NOx, 11 tons of carbon monoxide, eight tons of sulfur dioxide and 38 tons of volatile organic hydrocarbons. The most common VOC is methane, which is the primary component of natural gas. There also are artificial VOCs, including paint thinners and dry cleaning solvents.
If that’s not enough to make your flesh crawl and ponder a life without natural gas and oil, consider this: The seismic surveys used to determine if oil or natural gas is present can seriously affect gray whales, sperm whales, beaked whales and bowheads, and can injure fish at substantial distances. “Fish are particularly vulnerable to hearing loss that can significantly threaten their survival. Many fish, including salmon, which are endangered in portions of the United States, have swim bladders that can rupture when exposed to intense sounds like those emitted through these types of surveys,” according to the NRDC. Bony fish like salmon have “swim bladders” to help them maintain buoyancy in the water. The swim bladder is a sac inside the abdomen that contains gas. Oxygen makes up the largest percentage of gas in the swim bladder, while nitrogen and carbon dioxide make up the rest. So, if a salmon’s swim bladder ruptures, it is possible that the fish next to will absorb some of those gases, and those gases would be in the salmon you eat.
All of this may be a bit boring, but it is information that must be considered with the doors to more offshore drilling about to open. And while the above information is important — if not a bit frightening — even more so is the possibility of more oil spills.
Between 1981 and 2005, there have been more than 180 large oil spills in the Outer Continental Shelf, each spewing more than 2,100 gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico, according to the NRDC. And as storms and hurricanes have intensified so have the number of oil spills. The NRDC reports that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita alone resulted in 125 spills of oil products from drilling platforms and rigs, as well as pipelines on the OCS. Those two spills sent some 685,000 gallons of oil products into the water. The cost to clean up the Katrina spills far exceeded $150 million, according to a Homeland Security report.
The question is, then, is offshore drilling the answer to the nation’s fuel woes? If the first drilling leases aren’t even going to be handed out for three years, how will lifting the ban on offshore drilling help us now, today, when we fill up at the gas station or heat our homes? One must wonder if lifting the ban is simply a political move to make it seem like the government is stepping in to help, or is this really going to help? One also must wonder how much is this going to cost us in dollars and cents, and would investing in alternative energy sources be less costly, less harmful, and more sustainable?
Right now, there’s not much the average Joe or Jane can do about the ban; it’s in the government’s hand. But every Joe and Jane in these United States can take a stand, either for more offshore drilling or against it, by contacting his or her senators and representatives, and by voting on Election Day.
-30-
Copyright 2009 Bulldog News Services
Friday, September 19, 2008
Palin not a true “reformer,” not experienced, not qualified enough for country’s second highest office
Sarah Palin, current governor of Alaska and vice-presidential candidate, is on the attack, and for good reason: she has almost nothing to show Americans that she is ready to be second in line to the presidency. Since she has virtually no record compared to Barak Obama and his running mate Sen. Joe Biden, she has taken to slinging nasty comments, off-hand remarks and outright lies about her opponents.
So far, all many of us know about Palin is that she is being a hailed a “bulldog,” and a “maverick” by residents of her tiny hometown, Wasilla, Alaska (population estimated between 5,000 and 7,500), and governor of one of the largest yet least populated states in the land. If those are the only credentials needed for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” then Palin could have a great chance of being elected. If being a former beauty queen and local weather girl/sportscaster were pre-requisites for becoming our next vice-president, certainly her chances of being elected alongside Arizona Sen. John McCain would be substantial. Perhaps voters will consider her four years on the Wasilla City Council and six years as mayor of Wasilla enough “experience” in domestic affairs to supersede the experience of the Obama-Biden ticket.
If one looks closely, one will learn that Palin has virtually no experience in foreign affairs, unless you count her one and only trip to neighboring Canada and last year’s brief trip to Kuwait and Germany last year. She’s also visited Mexico, but haven’t many of us? Palin also took college courses in Hawaii and Idaho. In an recent interview with ABC News, Palin admitted that she has never met a foreign head of state.
Yet, Palin claims to have more experience in governance than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a Harvard graduate who spent three years as a community organizer, was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, created a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters, spent 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spent eight years as an Illinois State Senator representing a district with more than 750,000 people (more people than the entire state of Alaska), became chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spent four years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees.
In her acceptance speech during the Republican National Convention, she, as well as other speakers there, mocked Obama’s experience as a community organizer, saying that is not a real job. Perhaps she forgot that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a community organizer, as were Abraham Lincoln and Ghandi. And then there was Jesus Christ, a fellow whose workings, teachings and community organizing brought millions upon millions of people to Christianity. Palin herself is a Christian, or so she says, and subscribes to Jesus’ teachings. But if you follow her line of thinking regarding community organizers, Palin would not consider Jesus qualified to be President of the United States. Would she have considered Dr. King a good candidate for president? One wonders.
Jesus Christ was, and still is, considered by millions to have been a reformer. Palin describes herself as a “reformer,” much as McCain considers himself to be a "reformer." Webster’s Dictionary defines “reformer” as one who practices “reform,” a transitional verb meaning: 1) to put or change into an improved form or condition, 2) to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses, 3) to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action, 4) to induce or cause to abandon evil ways.
An examination of Palin's record contradicts her self-portrait. According to an article written by reporters with the New York Times and the Star Tribune, Palin is anything but a reformer. “When there was a vacancy at the top of the state Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year job. A former Real Estate agent, Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. Havemeister was one of at least five high school classmates Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.” It remains unclear if any other appointees professed a love of cows. If that procedure for hiring family and friends as staff members sounds familiar to you, it should. President Bush and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich have done much the same thing.
The article goes on to say, “As governor, [Palin] assembled her Cabinet and made other appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear: She surrounded herself with figures drawn from her personal life — former high school classmates, people she had known since grade school and fellow churchgoers.” Is this Palin’s idea of “reform?”
The New York Times/Star Tribune article also said, “Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by the New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.” Putting a premium on “loyalty and secrecy” also may seem familiar to you, as that is what the Bush Administration has practiced for nearly eight years now. It also sounds a bit like the way disgraced former President Richard Nixon ran his White House. Is that what Palin means by “reform?”
Reminiscent of Blagoviech’s foolhardy and possibly illegal and unconstitutional political antics, Alaska legislators currently are investigating accusations that Palin and her husband, Todd, pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with Palin's sister. Palin, of course, has denied the accusation. Blagojevich himself is under multiple federal investigations involving corruption, pay-to-play state jobs and contracts, and fundraising
Blagojevich steadfastly has refused to live in the governor’s mansion in Springfield, choosing instead to conduct most of his official business and sideshow antics from Chicago. Blagojevich takes a state plane from Chicago to Springfield, on the rare occasions he actually goes to Springfield; each trip costs taxpayers $6,000. Similarly, Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, charging the State of Alaska a per diem for each night spent there since becoming governor, according to various newspaper reports. The Washington Post earlier this month reported that Palin earns $125,000 a year, but she claimed and received $16,951 from the state because “her official ‘duty station’ is in Juneau,” some 600 miles away. The New York Times/Star Tribune article said, “She is often described by Democrats and Republicans alike as a leader missing in action. Some legislators became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing yellow "Where's Sarah?" pins.” Perhaps our legislators here in Illinois should wear similar pins asking, “Where’s Rod?”
By the way, Palin also has charged the state of Alaska for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.
Palin also calls herself a "reformer" because, as governor, she refused to accept federal financial assistance for “earmarks,” also commonly known as “pork” or “pet” projects. One such project, for which Palin initially pushed hard, was the now-infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” According to journalist Andrew Sullivan, whose work you may have seen in TIME magazine, Palin routinely and repeatedly has used the phrase: "I told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere” in her campaign speeches. In McCain-Palin ads, the claim is that she actually "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," Sullivan reported.
Those statements are unabashedly untrue. The fact of the matter is in 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "Build-the-Bridge" platform, attacking “spinmeisters” for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere” and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,” according to Sullivan and, of all sources, Wikipedia. About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals—a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from, of all people, McCain—and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding. Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government. Instead, Palin is spending a portion of the funding—some $25 million—on a Gravina Island road to the place where the Bridge to Nowhere would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned, according to Wikipedia. Is that what Palin means by “reform?”
Palin also is supporting a $600 million bridge and highway project to link Anchorage to Wasilla, according to The Associated Press. The project is moving “full speed ahead,” reports The AP, despite concerns that the bridge could actually worsen traffic. There is some concern that the Anchorage to Wasilla bridge may threaten a population of beluga whales.
The AP also reported that McCain has derided both the “Bridge to Nowhere” and Palin’s new bridge project as “wasteful.” Read any newspaper, magazine or online news account, and you’ll come to the conclusion that Palin's record on the “Bridge to Nowhere” has emerged as a central point of controversy in the campaign over her recent public claims that she had originally opposed it, when indeed quite the opposite was true. Some people could consider this a lie, a misunderstanding or even a half truth. Some people believe that Palin made the statement simply in an attempt to align herself with McCain's anti-earmarks philosophy.
Getting back to the beluga whale issue, the National Marine Fisheries Service is evaluating whether the isolated beluga whales that breed and feed in the Wasilla bridge waterway's strong tides should be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Palin has publicly urged the government not to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered. (Palin also believes that polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list.)
Palin got herself into another sticky situation by declaring during her acceptance speech at the RNC that she sold the previous governor's state airplane because it was too costly to keep. She said, "I sold on e-bay." But that also was not true. Palin did put the plane up for sale on e-bay, but it didn't sell there; it was sold to a private entity. Was she lying? Stretching the truth? Making a good sound bite? That's up to voters to decide, but it's statements such as that that make some people wonder exactly how truthful Palin has been so far in this campaign, and if elected, how truthful will she be as vice-president.
As a “reformer,” Palin has forced Alaska’s schools to teach “abstinence only,” with no other option for sex education, including information about condoms, the Pill or other forms of birth control. This coming from a woman who was pregnant when she married and now has an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. Apparently, Palin is not terribly concerned about practicing what she preaches. Palin has openly and vehemently stated she is absolutely against all forms of abortion, unless the procedure is needed to save a woman’s life. She has stated time and again that she will work to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision granting women the right to terminate an unintended, unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy. That would be a reform, certainly, but would it be for the betterment of America? Would that be better for women? Do Palin and McCain (who also wants to overturn Roe) really think that doing so will end abortion altogether? If so…well, perhaps they ought to rethink that idea.
As Palin and McCain continue campaigning during the next 40-some-odd days leading to Election Day, voters will need to listen carefully to all the candidates, including Obama and Biden, and vet out the truth however we can. Meanwhile, Palin and McCain likely will continue to mock and dismiss the political records of Obama and Biden, but a quick peek at Obama’s resume on his Web site may convince some voters that perhaps Palin is all bark and no bite when it comes to determining who has more legitimate experience.
Look for yourselves and you will learn that as a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided more than $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state, according to his Web site. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, Obama, with the help of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), passed a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. Obama also has been championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress. Abramoff, you might remember, was the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted to running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials. He currently is in prison.
Obama’s online resume states that, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.
Obviously, one must take any political candidate’s online resume with a grain of salt and do his or her own homework on the candidate. After all, every candidate lists only the best of his or her political achievements. Once duly informed with the facts, one can cast an educated vote for the people she or he believes to be the better choice for all of the United States.
Palin may indeed be a “maverick” and a “reformer,” but voters must consider her record under such labels. Do Americans really need a vice-president who already is under investigation for allegedly firing a former state trooper/brother-in-law to help out her sister? Do Americans really need a vice-president who has no foreign policy experience? Do Americans really need a vice-president whose domestic policy has affected fewer than 700,000 people?
The United States does need reform, does need change. But she does not need a self-confessed “reformer” who lies, does little more than belittle her opponents in her campaign speeches and changes her story to fit her campaign needs and those of John McCain. The United States does not need another ethically challenged leader who needs to carry around colored note cards with her when she is being interviewed about national and international issues. Sarah Palin has barely enough practice as governor for the residents of her own state to judge her performance. The United States does not need a “maverick” who is ready to turn our Constitution upside down. The United States does not need a vice-president whose experience is little at best and questionable at worst.
-30-
So far, all many of us know about Palin is that she is being a hailed a “bulldog,” and a “maverick” by residents of her tiny hometown, Wasilla, Alaska (population estimated between 5,000 and 7,500), and governor of one of the largest yet least populated states in the land. If those are the only credentials needed for being “a heartbeat away from the presidency,” then Palin could have a great chance of being elected. If being a former beauty queen and local weather girl/sportscaster were pre-requisites for becoming our next vice-president, certainly her chances of being elected alongside Arizona Sen. John McCain would be substantial. Perhaps voters will consider her four years on the Wasilla City Council and six years as mayor of Wasilla enough “experience” in domestic affairs to supersede the experience of the Obama-Biden ticket.
If one looks closely, one will learn that Palin has virtually no experience in foreign affairs, unless you count her one and only trip to neighboring Canada and last year’s brief trip to Kuwait and Germany last year. She’s also visited Mexico, but haven’t many of us? Palin also took college courses in Hawaii and Idaho. In an recent interview with ABC News, Palin admitted that she has never met a foreign head of state.
Yet, Palin claims to have more experience in governance than Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama, a Harvard graduate who spent three years as a community organizer, was the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, created a voter registration drive that registered 150,000 new voters, spent 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spent eight years as an Illinois State Senator representing a district with more than 750,000 people (more people than the entire state of Alaska), became chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spent four years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment, Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees.
In her acceptance speech during the Republican National Convention, she, as well as other speakers there, mocked Obama’s experience as a community organizer, saying that is not a real job. Perhaps she forgot that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a community organizer, as were Abraham Lincoln and Ghandi. And then there was Jesus Christ, a fellow whose workings, teachings and community organizing brought millions upon millions of people to Christianity. Palin herself is a Christian, or so she says, and subscribes to Jesus’ teachings. But if you follow her line of thinking regarding community organizers, Palin would not consider Jesus qualified to be President of the United States. Would she have considered Dr. King a good candidate for president? One wonders.
Jesus Christ was, and still is, considered by millions to have been a reformer. Palin describes herself as a “reformer,” much as McCain considers himself to be a "reformer." Webster’s Dictionary defines “reformer” as one who practices “reform,” a transitional verb meaning: 1) to put or change into an improved form or condition, 2) to amend or improve by change of form or removal of faults or abuses, 3) to put an end to (an evil) by enforcing or introducing a better method or course of action, 4) to induce or cause to abandon evil ways.
An examination of Palin's record contradicts her self-portrait. According to an article written by reporters with the New York Times and the Star Tribune, Palin is anything but a reformer. “When there was a vacancy at the top of the state Division of Agriculture, she appointed a high school classmate, Franci Havemeister, to the $95,000-a-year job. A former Real Estate agent, Havemeister cited her childhood love of cows as one qualification for running the roughly $2 million agency. Havemeister was one of at least five high school classmates Palin hired, often at salaries far exceeding their private sector wages.” It remains unclear if any other appointees professed a love of cows. If that procedure for hiring family and friends as staff members sounds familiar to you, it should. President Bush and Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich have done much the same thing.
The article goes on to say, “As governor, [Palin] assembled her Cabinet and made other appointments, those with insider credentials were now on the outs. But a new pattern became clear: She surrounded herself with figures drawn from her personal life — former high school classmates, people she had known since grade school and fellow churchgoers.” Is this Palin’s idea of “reform?”
The New York Times/Star Tribune article also said, “Palin runs an administration that puts a premium on loyalty and secrecy. The governor and her top officials sometimes use personal e-mail accounts for state business; dozens of e-mail messages obtained by the New York Times show that her staff members studied whether that could allow them to circumvent subpoenas seeking public records.” Putting a premium on “loyalty and secrecy” also may seem familiar to you, as that is what the Bush Administration has practiced for nearly eight years now. It also sounds a bit like the way disgraced former President Richard Nixon ran his White House. Is that what Palin means by “reform?”
Reminiscent of Blagoviech’s foolhardy and possibly illegal and unconstitutional political antics, Alaska legislators currently are investigating accusations that Palin and her husband, Todd, pressured officials to fire a state trooper who had gone through a messy divorce with Palin's sister. Palin, of course, has denied the accusation. Blagojevich himself is under multiple federal investigations involving corruption, pay-to-play state jobs and contracts, and fundraising
Blagojevich steadfastly has refused to live in the governor’s mansion in Springfield, choosing instead to conduct most of his official business and sideshow antics from Chicago. Blagojevich takes a state plane from Chicago to Springfield, on the rare occasions he actually goes to Springfield; each trip costs taxpayers $6,000. Similarly, Palin has spent 312 nights at her Wasilla home, charging the State of Alaska a per diem for each night spent there since becoming governor, according to various newspaper reports. The Washington Post earlier this month reported that Palin earns $125,000 a year, but she claimed and received $16,951 from the state because “her official ‘duty station’ is in Juneau,” some 600 miles away. The New York Times/Star Tribune article said, “She is often described by Democrats and Republicans alike as a leader missing in action. Some legislators became so frustrated with her absences that they took to wearing yellow "Where's Sarah?" pins.” Perhaps our legislators here in Illinois should wear similar pins asking, “Where’s Rod?”
By the way, Palin also has charged the state of Alaska for travel expenses to take her children on official out-of-town missions. And her husband has billed the state for expenses and a daily allowance for trips he makes on official business for his wife.
Palin also calls herself a "reformer" because, as governor, she refused to accept federal financial assistance for “earmarks,” also commonly known as “pork” or “pet” projects. One such project, for which Palin initially pushed hard, was the now-infamous “Bridge to Nowhere.” According to journalist Andrew Sullivan, whose work you may have seen in TIME magazine, Palin routinely and repeatedly has used the phrase: "I told the Congress 'Thanks, but no thanks,' for that Bridge to Nowhere” in her campaign speeches. In McCain-Palin ads, the claim is that she actually "stopped the Bridge to Nowhere," Sullivan reported.
Those statements are unabashedly untrue. The fact of the matter is in 2006, Palin ran for governor on a "Build-the-Bridge" platform, attacking “spinmeisters” for insulting local residents by calling them "nowhere” and urging speed "while our congressional delegation is in a strong position to assist,” according to Sullivan and, of all sources, Wikipedia. About two years after the introduction of the bridge proposals—a month after the bridge received sharp criticism from, of all people, McCain—and nine months into Palin's term as governor, Palin canceled the Gravina Bridge, blaming Congress for not providing enough funding. Alaska will not return any of the $442 million to the federal government. Instead, Palin is spending a portion of the funding—some $25 million—on a Gravina Island road to the place where the Bridge to Nowhere would have gone, expressly so that none of the money will have to be returned, according to Wikipedia. Is that what Palin means by “reform?”
Palin also is supporting a $600 million bridge and highway project to link Anchorage to Wasilla, according to The Associated Press. The project is moving “full speed ahead,” reports The AP, despite concerns that the bridge could actually worsen traffic. There is some concern that the Anchorage to Wasilla bridge may threaten a population of beluga whales.
The AP also reported that McCain has derided both the “Bridge to Nowhere” and Palin’s new bridge project as “wasteful.” Read any newspaper, magazine or online news account, and you’ll come to the conclusion that Palin's record on the “Bridge to Nowhere” has emerged as a central point of controversy in the campaign over her recent public claims that she had originally opposed it, when indeed quite the opposite was true. Some people could consider this a lie, a misunderstanding or even a half truth. Some people believe that Palin made the statement simply in an attempt to align herself with McCain's anti-earmarks philosophy.
Getting back to the beluga whale issue, the National Marine Fisheries Service is evaluating whether the isolated beluga whales that breed and feed in the Wasilla bridge waterway's strong tides should be listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. Palin has publicly urged the government not to list Cook Inlet beluga whales as endangered. (Palin also believes that polar bears should not be placed on the endangered species list.)
Palin got herself into another sticky situation by declaring during her acceptance speech at the RNC that she sold the previous governor's state airplane because it was too costly to keep. She said, "I sold on e-bay." But that also was not true. Palin did put the plane up for sale on e-bay, but it didn't sell there; it was sold to a private entity. Was she lying? Stretching the truth? Making a good sound bite? That's up to voters to decide, but it's statements such as that that make some people wonder exactly how truthful Palin has been so far in this campaign, and if elected, how truthful will she be as vice-president.
As a “reformer,” Palin has forced Alaska’s schools to teach “abstinence only,” with no other option for sex education, including information about condoms, the Pill or other forms of birth control. This coming from a woman who was pregnant when she married and now has an unwed, pregnant teenage daughter. Apparently, Palin is not terribly concerned about practicing what she preaches. Palin has openly and vehemently stated she is absolutely against all forms of abortion, unless the procedure is needed to save a woman’s life. She has stated time and again that she will work to overturn the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision granting women the right to terminate an unintended, unwanted or medically dangerous pregnancy. That would be a reform, certainly, but would it be for the betterment of America? Would that be better for women? Do Palin and McCain (who also wants to overturn Roe) really think that doing so will end abortion altogether? If so…well, perhaps they ought to rethink that idea.
As Palin and McCain continue campaigning during the next 40-some-odd days leading to Election Day, voters will need to listen carefully to all the candidates, including Obama and Biden, and vet out the truth however we can. Meanwhile, Palin and McCain likely will continue to mock and dismiss the political records of Obama and Biden, but a quick peek at Obama’s resume on his Web site may convince some voters that perhaps Palin is all bark and no bite when it comes to determining who has more legitimate experience.
Look for yourselves and you will learn that as a member of the Illinois State Senate, Obama worked with both Democrats and Republicans to help working families get ahead by creating programs like the state Earned Income Tax Credit, which in three years provided more than $100 million in tax cuts to families across the state, according to his Web site. He also pushed through an expansion of early childhood education, and after a number of inmates on death row were found innocent, Obama worked with law enforcement officials to require the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases.
In the U.S. Senate, Obama, with the help of Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK), passed a measure to rebuild trust in government by allowing every American to go online and see how and where every dime of their tax dollars is spent. Obama also has been championing ethics reform that would root out Jack Abramoff-style corruption in Congress. Abramoff, you might remember, was the powerhouse Washington lobbyist who admitted to running a wide-ranging corruption scheme that ensnared lawmakers, Capitol Hill aides and government officials. He currently is in prison.
Obama’s online resume states that, as a member of the Veterans' Affairs Committee, he fought to help Illinois veterans get the disability pay they were promised, while working to prepare the VA for the return of the thousands of veterans who will need care after Iraq and Afghanistan. Recognizing the terrorist threat posed by weapons of mass destruction, he traveled to Russia with U.S. Sen. Dick Lugar (R-IN) to begin a new generation of non-proliferation efforts designed to find and secure deadly weapons around the world.
Obviously, one must take any political candidate’s online resume with a grain of salt and do his or her own homework on the candidate. After all, every candidate lists only the best of his or her political achievements. Once duly informed with the facts, one can cast an educated vote for the people she or he believes to be the better choice for all of the United States.
Palin may indeed be a “maverick” and a “reformer,” but voters must consider her record under such labels. Do Americans really need a vice-president who already is under investigation for allegedly firing a former state trooper/brother-in-law to help out her sister? Do Americans really need a vice-president who has no foreign policy experience? Do Americans really need a vice-president whose domestic policy has affected fewer than 700,000 people?
The United States does need reform, does need change. But she does not need a self-confessed “reformer” who lies, does little more than belittle her opponents in her campaign speeches and changes her story to fit her campaign needs and those of John McCain. The United States does not need another ethically challenged leader who needs to carry around colored note cards with her when she is being interviewed about national and international issues. Sarah Palin has barely enough practice as governor for the residents of her own state to judge her performance. The United States does not need a “maverick” who is ready to turn our Constitution upside down. The United States does not need a vice-president whose experience is little at best and questionable at worst.
-30-
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Mental Illnesses: Should insurance companies treat them the same as other diseases?
For years, our representatives and senators in the United States Congress have been talking, back talking, talking in circles about mental health insurance parity. The idea is simple: insurance companies would have to grant the same measure of treatment to someone suffering with chronic major depression as someone with diabetes, someone with schizophrenia as someone with sickle-cell anemia, someone with panic disorder as someone with pancreatic cancer.
But many people, including President Bush and certain lobbyists, are hesitant to make insurance companies do so, in part because of the costs associated with mental illness treatment. Others just believe mental illnesses are not “real” medical illnesses, despite years of scientific research, study and reports after reports after reports clearly indicating mental illnesses are just as real as other medical illnesses. I should note that I have suffered from mental illness, specifically major depression, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and anorexia for more than 20 years. Last year, I was diagnosed with conversion disorder. I should also note that many of my friends, former colleagues and family members suffer daily with some form of mental illness.
It is absurd that in this day and age, that mental illness (also called brain disorders) would be considered anything less harmful than cancer, diabetes or high blood pressure. According to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, some 19 million to 20 million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness every day, that’s about one in four or five people. One likely never would consider limiting treatment to cancer patients, so why is it even conceivable that those who suffer severe mental illness should be restricted to, customarily, 28 days of treatment? I ask our legislators: If a cancer patient were to be denied chemotherapy after 28 days, would that sit well with you? If someone with diabetes were given only 28 days of insulin treatments, would that sit well with you?
Mental illness can be just as deadly as cancer or other life-threatening illnesses, particularly when one suffering with mental illness feels no hope for the future, believes there is no point in even trying to receive extra treatment because of insurance limitations, and starts considering suicide a real option.
Recently, the Senate passed legislation (S 558) -HR 1424) calling for equal treatment for the mentally ill. This important legislation, known as mental illness insurance parity, has been pending before Congress for years. It is critical, if not crucial, that Congress to come to a quick agreement on this legislation, that it be approved by President Bush and that it be signed into law in 2008. Many of us who live with mental illness have for so long resisted in-paitient and/or out-patient treatment, even psychiatric and psychological visits because of out-of-pocket cost issues, because insurance companies, legislators and the general public do not seem to take our illnesses seriously enough to consider them worthy of full and fair treatment and insurance coverage. That kind of thinking must stop.
Congress again has a chance to prove that people like me will not be left hanging, that we will not be considered lesser people than those suffering with other life-threatening illnesses, that we will not be denied the same level of medical treatment than others with severe illness. Congress absolutely must seize this historic opportunity to end insurance discrimination faced by people living with serious mental illness.
If treating fairly those who suffer with mental illness is not reason enough to pass this legislation, consider these facts offered by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill:
• Untreated mental illness costs American businesses, government and families more than $80 billion annually in lost productivity and unemployment, broken lives and broken families, 30,000 suicides annually, emergency room visits and homelessness.
• Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and severe anxiety disorders are real medical illnesses that require intensive medical treatment. These are not illnesses people can just "snap out" of.
• Treatment for mental illness works for most people. If accessible, treatment success rates for most severe mental illnesses exceed those for heart disease and diabetes.
• There simply is no scientific or medical justification for insurance coverage of mental illness treatment to be on different terms and conditions than other diseases.
• Discriminatory insurance coverage of mental illness bankrupts families and places a tremendous burden on taxpayers through higher expenditures for public disability and health benefits, chronic homelessness and inappropriate and unnecessary “criminalization” of mental illness.
It is of paramount importance that Congress reach an agreement on mental illness parity legislation this year. This means an agreement that can get through the Senate and is acceptable to the President so that it can be signed into law and not pushed off to next year, or the year after or the year after. Mental illness insurance parity is long overdue. Congress must act in 2008. For some people, the wait is killing us.
But in a statement issued by the Bush Administration, “Despite the consensus on the need for parity, the path toward final agreement between the House and Senate will not be easy. There is likely to be stiff resistance in the Senate to any effort to require health plans to cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose mental illness) in order to maintain coverage for mental illness.”
The statement goes on to list multiple reasons why it likely it will be difficult to pass a mental health insurance parity bill this year. “Among the differences that the House and Senate will have to resolve to get a bill that can be enacted this year are:
“• DSM Mandate – The requirement in the House bill dictating that if a group health plan offers coverage for any mental health or substance abuse disorder, then the plan must cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM. The Senate contains no such mandate;
“• Preemption of State Mandates – The House bill contains a provision that would supersede state laws that require coverage of mental illness defined as less than the entire DSM;
“• Out of Network Coverage – Both bills require equity in treatment limits and financial limitations for out of network coverage. However, the House bill goes further in requiring out of network coverage for mental health and substance abuse if it exists on the medical-surgical side; and
“• Management of Benefits – The Senate bill contains language allowing group health plans to manage benefits through utilization review and medical necessity. While the House bill allows such benefit management, it goes further by requiring disclosure of plan information regarding medical necessity determinations.”
The Bush Administration goes on, saying, “It is important to note that both bills exempt from parity [those] employers and group health plan sponsors with 50 or fewer workers, and that both plans authorize a cost increase exemption that would allow plans whose premiums rise more than 2 percent as a result of compliance to waive the parity requirement for one year (after which time the plan must come back into compliance).”
In English, that means “blah blah blah.” What our legislators, and no doubt Big Pharma, are concerned about is money. “Under recently revived budget rules Congress must ‘pay for’ any change in federal law that results in higher entitlement spending or lost revenue with an ‘offsetting’ cut in another program,” the Bush administration’s statement reads. “In the case of [mental health insurance] parity, tax revenue will be lost to the government as health spending that is now made by families with after-tax dollars shifts to before-tax dollars. For example, spending now excluded from health plan coverage (e.g. because of arbitrary limits on inpatient psychiatric care that would not be allowed under parity) would be covered by health plans with pre-tax dollars.”
Other issues include Medicaid rebates for mental health treatment, including those for prescribed medications. And to make it even more difficult for the mentally ill to be treated fairly by insurance companies, the House added a separate and completely unrelated piece of legislation to the parity bill, called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA, HR 493), according to NAMI. This bill is designed to address the misuse of personal genetic information and has been floating around Congress for years. Without this addition, it is possibly mental health parity could become reality sooner. But, as many of us know, legislative add-ons often pop up after a bill has been passed and such add-ons can delay passage of the primary legislation for months, even years.
So, at what point will mental health parity become reality? Right now, no one knows. But with suicide rates climbing each year, one would hope that Congress takes action sooner rather than later to pass fair and meaningful legislation. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2005 (the most recent data available), there were 32,637 reported suicide deaths in the United States. “Based on the 2005 data, suicide remains the 11th leading cause of death in the United States,” according to the AFSP/CDC report. “It remains the third leading cause among our nation's youth, the fourth leading cause of death among adults 18 to 65. Individuals aged 65 and older account for 16 percent of all suicides.”
The AFSP reports that every 16 minutes someone dies by suicide. Though suicide attempts are not reported, it is estimated that close to one million people make a suicide attempt each year. Research has shown that 90 percent of people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death, most often unrecognized or untreated depression.
If that’s not a case for mental health parity insurance legislation that would help those who need any level of psychiatric or psychological care, I can’t imagine what is.
-30-
But many people, including President Bush and certain lobbyists, are hesitant to make insurance companies do so, in part because of the costs associated with mental illness treatment. Others just believe mental illnesses are not “real” medical illnesses, despite years of scientific research, study and reports after reports after reports clearly indicating mental illnesses are just as real as other medical illnesses. I should note that I have suffered from mental illness, specifically major depression, panic disorder, social anxiety disorder and anorexia for more than 20 years. Last year, I was diagnosed with conversion disorder. I should also note that many of my friends, former colleagues and family members suffer daily with some form of mental illness.
It is absurd that in this day and age, that mental illness (also called brain disorders) would be considered anything less harmful than cancer, diabetes or high blood pressure. According to the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, some 19 million to 20 million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness every day, that’s about one in four or five people. One likely never would consider limiting treatment to cancer patients, so why is it even conceivable that those who suffer severe mental illness should be restricted to, customarily, 28 days of treatment? I ask our legislators: If a cancer patient were to be denied chemotherapy after 28 days, would that sit well with you? If someone with diabetes were given only 28 days of insulin treatments, would that sit well with you?
Mental illness can be just as deadly as cancer or other life-threatening illnesses, particularly when one suffering with mental illness feels no hope for the future, believes there is no point in even trying to receive extra treatment because of insurance limitations, and starts considering suicide a real option.
Recently, the Senate passed legislation (S 558) -HR 1424) calling for equal treatment for the mentally ill. This important legislation, known as mental illness insurance parity, has been pending before Congress for years. It is critical, if not crucial, that Congress to come to a quick agreement on this legislation, that it be approved by President Bush and that it be signed into law in 2008. Many of us who live with mental illness have for so long resisted in-paitient and/or out-patient treatment, even psychiatric and psychological visits because of out-of-pocket cost issues, because insurance companies, legislators and the general public do not seem to take our illnesses seriously enough to consider them worthy of full and fair treatment and insurance coverage. That kind of thinking must stop.
Congress again has a chance to prove that people like me will not be left hanging, that we will not be considered lesser people than those suffering with other life-threatening illnesses, that we will not be denied the same level of medical treatment than others with severe illness. Congress absolutely must seize this historic opportunity to end insurance discrimination faced by people living with serious mental illness.
If treating fairly those who suffer with mental illness is not reason enough to pass this legislation, consider these facts offered by the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill:
• Untreated mental illness costs American businesses, government and families more than $80 billion annually in lost productivity and unemployment, broken lives and broken families, 30,000 suicides annually, emergency room visits and homelessness.
• Mental illnesses such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and severe anxiety disorders are real medical illnesses that require intensive medical treatment. These are not illnesses people can just "snap out" of.
• Treatment for mental illness works for most people. If accessible, treatment success rates for most severe mental illnesses exceed those for heart disease and diabetes.
• There simply is no scientific or medical justification for insurance coverage of mental illness treatment to be on different terms and conditions than other diseases.
• Discriminatory insurance coverage of mental illness bankrupts families and places a tremendous burden on taxpayers through higher expenditures for public disability and health benefits, chronic homelessness and inappropriate and unnecessary “criminalization” of mental illness.
It is of paramount importance that Congress reach an agreement on mental illness parity legislation this year. This means an agreement that can get through the Senate and is acceptable to the President so that it can be signed into law and not pushed off to next year, or the year after or the year after. Mental illness insurance parity is long overdue. Congress must act in 2008. For some people, the wait is killing us.
But in a statement issued by the Bush Administration, “Despite the consensus on the need for parity, the path toward final agreement between the House and Senate will not be easy. There is likely to be stiff resistance in the Senate to any effort to require health plans to cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, which psychiatrists and psychologists use to diagnose mental illness) in order to maintain coverage for mental illness.”
The statement goes on to list multiple reasons why it likely it will be difficult to pass a mental health insurance parity bill this year. “Among the differences that the House and Senate will have to resolve to get a bill that can be enacted this year are:
“• DSM Mandate – The requirement in the House bill dictating that if a group health plan offers coverage for any mental health or substance abuse disorder, then the plan must cover every diagnosis and condition in the DSM. The Senate contains no such mandate;
“• Preemption of State Mandates – The House bill contains a provision that would supersede state laws that require coverage of mental illness defined as less than the entire DSM;
“• Out of Network Coverage – Both bills require equity in treatment limits and financial limitations for out of network coverage. However, the House bill goes further in requiring out of network coverage for mental health and substance abuse if it exists on the medical-surgical side; and
“• Management of Benefits – The Senate bill contains language allowing group health plans to manage benefits through utilization review and medical necessity. While the House bill allows such benefit management, it goes further by requiring disclosure of plan information regarding medical necessity determinations.”
The Bush Administration goes on, saying, “It is important to note that both bills exempt from parity [those] employers and group health plan sponsors with 50 or fewer workers, and that both plans authorize a cost increase exemption that would allow plans whose premiums rise more than 2 percent as a result of compliance to waive the parity requirement for one year (after which time the plan must come back into compliance).”
In English, that means “blah blah blah.” What our legislators, and no doubt Big Pharma, are concerned about is money. “Under recently revived budget rules Congress must ‘pay for’ any change in federal law that results in higher entitlement spending or lost revenue with an ‘offsetting’ cut in another program,” the Bush administration’s statement reads. “In the case of [mental health insurance] parity, tax revenue will be lost to the government as health spending that is now made by families with after-tax dollars shifts to before-tax dollars. For example, spending now excluded from health plan coverage (e.g. because of arbitrary limits on inpatient psychiatric care that would not be allowed under parity) would be covered by health plans with pre-tax dollars.”
Other issues include Medicaid rebates for mental health treatment, including those for prescribed medications. And to make it even more difficult for the mentally ill to be treated fairly by insurance companies, the House added a separate and completely unrelated piece of legislation to the parity bill, called the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA, HR 493), according to NAMI. This bill is designed to address the misuse of personal genetic information and has been floating around Congress for years. Without this addition, it is possibly mental health parity could become reality sooner. But, as many of us know, legislative add-ons often pop up after a bill has been passed and such add-ons can delay passage of the primary legislation for months, even years.
So, at what point will mental health parity become reality? Right now, no one knows. But with suicide rates climbing each year, one would hope that Congress takes action sooner rather than later to pass fair and meaningful legislation. According to the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, in 2005 (the most recent data available), there were 32,637 reported suicide deaths in the United States. “Based on the 2005 data, suicide remains the 11th leading cause of death in the United States,” according to the AFSP/CDC report. “It remains the third leading cause among our nation's youth, the fourth leading cause of death among adults 18 to 65. Individuals aged 65 and older account for 16 percent of all suicides.”
The AFSP reports that every 16 minutes someone dies by suicide. Though suicide attempts are not reported, it is estimated that close to one million people make a suicide attempt each year. Research has shown that 90 percent of people who die by suicide have a diagnosable psychiatric disorder at the time of their death, most often unrecognized or untreated depression.
If that’s not a case for mental health parity insurance legislation that would help those who need any level of psychiatric or psychological care, I can’t imagine what is.
-30-
Friday, August 24, 2007
Gov. Blagojevich’s ego, craving for power go too far in Illinois budget process
There is a reason there are three branches of government in this state and across the country: to ensure checks and balances happen when necessary.
To say that checks and balances are necessary right now in Springfield is putting things politely. Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s enormous ego and desire for power have put Illinois and its residents in a horrific situation. Not only does the state legislature look like a three-ring circus, its members are acting like clowns.
Our elected lawmakers have been working an overtime session that has lasted more than 70 days in an effort to pass a budget. And while a budget was passed Aug. 23, additional work on the budget is expected to last past Labor Day. That is ridiculous, preposterous. It’s not as if legislators did not know the state needed a new budget. Yet still they have been playing silly games that put the state’s school districts at risk of not receiving much-needed aid. Our legislators in Springfield held hostage state employees, who until just this week were not sure if there would be a government shut-down and were not sure if they were going to get paid.
Unbelievably, though, in the budget Blagojevich simultaneously accepted and rejected on Aug. 23, he gave legislators a 3.5 percent pay raise. In addition to that, Blagojevich last week approved a 9.6 percent pay hike, increasing our legislators’ salaries 13.1 percent. For what? For not doing what they should have done more than three months ago and pass an acceptable budget?
By the way, the governor who consistently has refused to live in the governor’s mansion and reportedly spends some $6,000 a day to fly to Springfield and back to Chicago, is eligible for a pay raise that would mean he would be--depending on your definition of the word--“earning” $170,918 a year. Perhaps he could use some of that money to pay for those daily flights or to help keep the electricity running in the Springfield home he refuses to use.
Blagojevich seems to think he can do whatever he pleases, for whomever he pleases, which more often than not is his own self, his close friends and whomever will support his proposed initiatives. He took it upon himself to slash more than $430 million in “pet” or “pork” projects from the budget--something that may not even be allowed by the state Constitution--to fund his own pet projects, including several health care initiatives. Talk about nerve. While talking about how important it is for all Illinois residents to have adequate health care, Blagojevich cut spending for veterans’ care and hospital health care, including millions slated for Cook County’s Oak Forest Hospital, according to Friday’s Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune also reported that Blagojevich cut about $90 million in spending for hospitals and nursing homes, programs that provide meals to home-bound AIDS patients and programs to assist indigent mental health patients. Blagojevich also cut $16 million in cost-of-living pay raises for substance abuse workers and workers who provide care for the developmentally disabled.
Blagojevich’s health care plans call for changes that would make every uninsured woman in Illinois eligible for breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, as well as allow poor adults not eligible for Medicare a chance to see a doctor and get needed medications. His plan also would provide more of the state’s working- and middle-class families a chance to have health coverage through the Family Care program. There’s also the governor’s All Kids program, which would give kids with pre-existing medical conditions access to affordable health care.
Blagojevich is talking out of both sides of his mouth, something for which he has developed a great talent. It makes no sense to make it more difficult for AIDS patients, the mentally ill and veterans to get the health care they need and to cut hospitals’ budgets. It’s akin to robbing Pete to pay Paul. In an effort to make himself look good and to placate some of the state’s residents, he ultimately makes himself look worse to other residents. Does he see himself as some sort of Robin Hood by taking money from some health-care programs and shifting that money to his own health care initiatives? If so, he’ll be making some people’s lives worse, not better.
“A budget should reflect the priorities of the people who elected us to make their lives better,” Blagojevich said in a statement available on the state’s Web site. “That’s why I’m removing almost $500 million in special pet projects and other spending that we simply can’t afford. And at the same time, we’re preparing new rules and administrative changes that will give half-a-million Illinoisans access to healthcare.”
In other words, he cut his foes’ pet projects from the budget and inserted his own. Blagojevich’s cuts are little more than a “screw you” to those legislators who dared not support the governor's own pet projects, and that includes not just health care but his desire to bring gambling to the state to help fund transit issues. Oddly, he cut many of his fellow Democrats’ projects, reportedly because they did not support his health-care initiatives.
Illnois House Speaker Michael Madigan was one of Blagojevich’s targets. It is widely known that Blagojevich and Madigan are not friendly to each other. Blagojevich's verbal judo with Madigan will be remembered by many watching this budget process as little more than delay and power-play tactics. And Blagojevich’s contempt for Madigan could not possibly be more transparent.
Blagojevich cut Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s budget; she is Michael Madigan’s daughter. Blagojevich also cut funding for the Illinois Arts Council, which is headed by Shirley Madigan, the speaker’s wife. Those actions show just how big a megalomaniac Blagojevich is and why he just really has no business running this state. If his actions are determined by who supports him and who doesn’t, who gives in to his power-play tactics and who doesn't, he and this state are in serious trouble.
The governor’s money shifting is going to be examined to determine if he actually has the Constitutional power to move money from one category of the budget to another simply because he wants to.
Meanwhile, legislators still need to address funding for the CTA and the RTA and other mass transit issues. “I look forward to working with them on a capital bill to provide funding for mass transit, and aging infrastructure like roads and bridges,” Blagojevich said.
One must wonder how much haggling there will be on those funding issues, how much longer legislators will be working “overtime,” and how much longer they will be wasting commuters’ time playing “I’ll give you this if you give me that” and “You’re my best friend forever...wait, wait, no you’re not.”
Blagojevich has abused his power and has turned the Illinois Legislature into a power-point presentation on stupidity, arrogance and stubbornness. He is an embarrassment to the office he represents and he is an embarrassment to this state.
News stories about the way Blagojevich, Madigan, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (who has flip-flopped in his support for Blagojevich during the past few months) have handled these budget negotiations could and should be used as a tutorial on how not to behave, how not to represent your constituents and how not to keep hold of your office in the next election.
-30-
To say that checks and balances are necessary right now in Springfield is putting things politely. Gov. Rod Blagojevich’s enormous ego and desire for power have put Illinois and its residents in a horrific situation. Not only does the state legislature look like a three-ring circus, its members are acting like clowns.
Our elected lawmakers have been working an overtime session that has lasted more than 70 days in an effort to pass a budget. And while a budget was passed Aug. 23, additional work on the budget is expected to last past Labor Day. That is ridiculous, preposterous. It’s not as if legislators did not know the state needed a new budget. Yet still they have been playing silly games that put the state’s school districts at risk of not receiving much-needed aid. Our legislators in Springfield held hostage state employees, who until just this week were not sure if there would be a government shut-down and were not sure if they were going to get paid.
Unbelievably, though, in the budget Blagojevich simultaneously accepted and rejected on Aug. 23, he gave legislators a 3.5 percent pay raise. In addition to that, Blagojevich last week approved a 9.6 percent pay hike, increasing our legislators’ salaries 13.1 percent. For what? For not doing what they should have done more than three months ago and pass an acceptable budget?
By the way, the governor who consistently has refused to live in the governor’s mansion and reportedly spends some $6,000 a day to fly to Springfield and back to Chicago, is eligible for a pay raise that would mean he would be--depending on your definition of the word--“earning” $170,918 a year. Perhaps he could use some of that money to pay for those daily flights or to help keep the electricity running in the Springfield home he refuses to use.
Blagojevich seems to think he can do whatever he pleases, for whomever he pleases, which more often than not is his own self, his close friends and whomever will support his proposed initiatives. He took it upon himself to slash more than $430 million in “pet” or “pork” projects from the budget--something that may not even be allowed by the state Constitution--to fund his own pet projects, including several health care initiatives. Talk about nerve. While talking about how important it is for all Illinois residents to have adequate health care, Blagojevich cut spending for veterans’ care and hospital health care, including millions slated for Cook County’s Oak Forest Hospital, according to Friday’s Chicago Tribune.
The Tribune also reported that Blagojevich cut about $90 million in spending for hospitals and nursing homes, programs that provide meals to home-bound AIDS patients and programs to assist indigent mental health patients. Blagojevich also cut $16 million in cost-of-living pay raises for substance abuse workers and workers who provide care for the developmentally disabled.
Blagojevich’s health care plans call for changes that would make every uninsured woman in Illinois eligible for breast cancer and cervical cancer screening, as well as allow poor adults not eligible for Medicare a chance to see a doctor and get needed medications. His plan also would provide more of the state’s working- and middle-class families a chance to have health coverage through the Family Care program. There’s also the governor’s All Kids program, which would give kids with pre-existing medical conditions access to affordable health care.
Blagojevich is talking out of both sides of his mouth, something for which he has developed a great talent. It makes no sense to make it more difficult for AIDS patients, the mentally ill and veterans to get the health care they need and to cut hospitals’ budgets. It’s akin to robbing Pete to pay Paul. In an effort to make himself look good and to placate some of the state’s residents, he ultimately makes himself look worse to other residents. Does he see himself as some sort of Robin Hood by taking money from some health-care programs and shifting that money to his own health care initiatives? If so, he’ll be making some people’s lives worse, not better.
“A budget should reflect the priorities of the people who elected us to make their lives better,” Blagojevich said in a statement available on the state’s Web site. “That’s why I’m removing almost $500 million in special pet projects and other spending that we simply can’t afford. And at the same time, we’re preparing new rules and administrative changes that will give half-a-million Illinoisans access to healthcare.”
In other words, he cut his foes’ pet projects from the budget and inserted his own. Blagojevich’s cuts are little more than a “screw you” to those legislators who dared not support the governor's own pet projects, and that includes not just health care but his desire to bring gambling to the state to help fund transit issues. Oddly, he cut many of his fellow Democrats’ projects, reportedly because they did not support his health-care initiatives.
Illnois House Speaker Michael Madigan was one of Blagojevich’s targets. It is widely known that Blagojevich and Madigan are not friendly to each other. Blagojevich's verbal judo with Madigan will be remembered by many watching this budget process as little more than delay and power-play tactics. And Blagojevich’s contempt for Madigan could not possibly be more transparent.
Blagojevich cut Attorney General Lisa Madigan’s budget; she is Michael Madigan’s daughter. Blagojevich also cut funding for the Illinois Arts Council, which is headed by Shirley Madigan, the speaker’s wife. Those actions show just how big a megalomaniac Blagojevich is and why he just really has no business running this state. If his actions are determined by who supports him and who doesn’t, who gives in to his power-play tactics and who doesn't, he and this state are in serious trouble.
The governor’s money shifting is going to be examined to determine if he actually has the Constitutional power to move money from one category of the budget to another simply because he wants to.
Meanwhile, legislators still need to address funding for the CTA and the RTA and other mass transit issues. “I look forward to working with them on a capital bill to provide funding for mass transit, and aging infrastructure like roads and bridges,” Blagojevich said.
One must wonder how much haggling there will be on those funding issues, how much longer legislators will be working “overtime,” and how much longer they will be wasting commuters’ time playing “I’ll give you this if you give me that” and “You’re my best friend forever...wait, wait, no you’re not.”
Blagojevich has abused his power and has turned the Illinois Legislature into a power-point presentation on stupidity, arrogance and stubbornness. He is an embarrassment to the office he represents and he is an embarrassment to this state.
News stories about the way Blagojevich, Madigan, Illinois Senate President Emil Jones (who has flip-flopped in his support for Blagojevich during the past few months) have handled these budget negotiations could and should be used as a tutorial on how not to behave, how not to represent your constituents and how not to keep hold of your office in the next election.
-30-
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
Commutation, possible Libby pardon raises questions about truth, justice, the American way
To whom should the laws of this country apply? Drug dealers, murderers, pedophiles, rapists, thieves, adulterers? Definitely. What about liars and people who obstruct justice? Should application of laws about lying to police, to grand juries, to juries and judges, be on a case-by-case basis? What about laws regarding obstruction of justice? Should those laws be enforced in cases involving regular folk like you and me? What about government officials?
President George W. Bush announced on July 2 that he had decided to commute the 30 month prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby, former security aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, was convicted earlier this year of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of leaking information to the press about undercover CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Libby still must pay $250,000 in fines and serve two years' probation. Plame’s career is finished.
Still, there remains a possibility that Bush may pardon all charges for which Libby was convicted.
Some people, including Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) consider Libby’s decision to “out” Plame a violation of national security. “The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division,” Barak told The Chicago Tribune. Some people think otherwise: “By acting here, he [Bush] is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, told the Tribune.
Bush said Libby’s prison sentence was “harsh” for a first-time offender who devoted many years to public service. But the president’s decision easily could set a precedent for other “first-time offenders” convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. If 30 months in prison is too harsh for lying and obstructing justice in a case that put our national security on the line, what should be an appropriate punishment for lying and obstructing an investigation of a murder? A couple weeks? A few months? What is an appropriate sentence for someone caught lying on the stand in a drug-related lawsuit? A day or two? How about three?
Bush told the Tribune that “our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth.” Does he really believe that? Former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair a White House intern. If Bush applied the same “first-time offender” rule to Clinton, then shouldn’t Bush pardon Clinton? After all, lying about having sexual relations with an intern is not a breach of national security. Stupid, yes. Scandalous, absolutely. But putting national security at risk? Not even close.
So what does “justice,” what does “truth” really mean for our elected officials? If Bush’s pardoning of Libby is used as a benchmark, then perjury and obstruction of justice both are serious but not major crimes, even in cases involving national security, and should not demand prison time of anything more than 30 months, if any time at all. Perhaps justice is something we Americans no longer can expect when it comes to crimes committed by the Bush Administration, or any presidential administration for that matter. Perhaps expecting the truth from our elected officials is old-fashioned, naive.
Think about it: Everyone lies. Everyone tries to cover one’s own behind, especially when that behind is about to be spanked. But should not our elected officials be held to a higher standard? If our elected officials are allowed to lie about anything and everything from extramarital affairs to leaking confidential information to the press to fabricating reasons to go to war, should we not wonder what other lies they may be telling? What other falsehoods are being passed off as truths?
Truth is a funny thing; it can be turned and twisted to fit our opinions, our reasons for doing one thing or another or not doing something. If our elected officials, if our president and his aides continually are allowed to get away with twisting the truth or outright lying about this, that and the other thing, should we not wonder where this country is headed? Or is this kind of behavior just the new American way?
-30-
President George W. Bush announced on July 2 that he had decided to commute the 30 month prison sentence of I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby. Libby, former security aide to Vice-President Dick Cheney, was convicted earlier this year of charges of perjury and obstruction of justice in the case of leaking information to the press about undercover CIA Agent Valerie Plame. Libby still must pay $250,000 in fines and serve two years' probation. Plame’s career is finished.
Still, there remains a possibility that Bush may pardon all charges for which Libby was convicted.
Some people, including Sen. Barak Obama (D-Ill.) consider Libby’s decision to “out” Plame a violation of national security. “The decision to commute the sentence of a man who compromised our national security cements the legacy of an administration characterized by a politics of cynicism and division,” Barak told The Chicago Tribune. Some people think otherwise: “By acting here, he [Bush] is showing to conservatives the kind of leadership that made conservatives loyal to Bush once and could make them loyal once more,” William Kristol, editor of the conservative Weekly Standard, told the Tribune.
Bush said Libby’s prison sentence was “harsh” for a first-time offender who devoted many years to public service. But the president’s decision easily could set a precedent for other “first-time offenders” convicted of perjury and obstruction of justice. If 30 months in prison is too harsh for lying and obstructing justice in a case that put our national security on the line, what should be an appropriate punishment for lying and obstructing an investigation of a murder? A couple weeks? A few months? What is an appropriate sentence for someone caught lying on the stand in a drug-related lawsuit? A day or two? How about three?
Bush told the Tribune that “our entire system of justice relies on people telling the truth.” Does he really believe that? Former President Bill Clinton was impeached for lying about having an affair a White House intern. If Bush applied the same “first-time offender” rule to Clinton, then shouldn’t Bush pardon Clinton? After all, lying about having sexual relations with an intern is not a breach of national security. Stupid, yes. Scandalous, absolutely. But putting national security at risk? Not even close.
So what does “justice,” what does “truth” really mean for our elected officials? If Bush’s pardoning of Libby is used as a benchmark, then perjury and obstruction of justice both are serious but not major crimes, even in cases involving national security, and should not demand prison time of anything more than 30 months, if any time at all. Perhaps justice is something we Americans no longer can expect when it comes to crimes committed by the Bush Administration, or any presidential administration for that matter. Perhaps expecting the truth from our elected officials is old-fashioned, naive.
Think about it: Everyone lies. Everyone tries to cover one’s own behind, especially when that behind is about to be spanked. But should not our elected officials be held to a higher standard? If our elected officials are allowed to lie about anything and everything from extramarital affairs to leaking confidential information to the press to fabricating reasons to go to war, should we not wonder what other lies they may be telling? What other falsehoods are being passed off as truths?
Truth is a funny thing; it can be turned and twisted to fit our opinions, our reasons for doing one thing or another or not doing something. If our elected officials, if our president and his aides continually are allowed to get away with twisting the truth or outright lying about this, that and the other thing, should we not wonder where this country is headed? Or is this kind of behavior just the new American way?
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)