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-
Friday, August 24, 2007
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-
Friday, June 8, 2007
Common courtesy not so common anymore
I’m cranky. Aaarrgghhh! You know how one thing sets you off, and then something else happens and then something else and pretty soon the mood you were in, good, bad, other, takes the Autobahn Express to cranky.
It started this morning, when my husband and I were out running errands. All seemed fine until we hit downtown Naperville, also known as the Land Where People Do Not Know How to Drive. Basic four-way stop sign situation. If the Driver’s Ed rules I learned more than 20 years ago still are the rules, the person on your right goes first, then the person on that person’s right and so on until all the cars have moved through the intersection. Should not have been a problem.
But throw in several pedestrians, every other person on the cell phone and suddenly what should have been basic common sense becomes the spatial relations section on the ACT or the SAT, whichever test is harder. It’s not rocket science, people. So the guy on our right (we’re headed north), takes a left (without using a turn signal) and nearly nails the pedestrians. He was on his cell phone. Then the person on Cell Phone guy’s right goes without incident and the next person makes a left, apparently not seeing the five or six pedestrians in the crosswalk and has to stop. Then we start to go and the new person on our right starts to go at the same time and honks at us. Hey! It was our turn, buddy! What the...? Of all the...! I gave the driver that “What kind of idiot are you?” look, but I don’t think he saw me. He was on the cell phone.
Cell phones are wonderful. I don’t know how we as a society got along without them. Especially in the car. Now, I use mine in the car, but I try to dial when the light is red or I’m stuck in heavy traffic and the prospect of moving even three feet is nil. Most of the time I don’t even answer it because by the time I’ve figured out what that ringing is, the call’s gone into voice mail.
Being in the car makes me cranky. Even if I’m not driving. I used to enjoy driving. Now, not so much. People are rude. They cut you off and then honk at you as if it were your fault they had to zoom through the yellow light to turn into the very same lane you’re occupying. People whiz back and forth from the left lane to the right lane to the left lane to the right lane to the left and, look at that, stuck at the same stop light as me. This is what driving was like today for my husband and me. Thank God he was driving; I probably wouldn’t have been as patient or polite as he. Let's just say that it's a good thing for much of the motoring public that I'm not a traffic cop.
You know what also made me cranky today? I was going for a walk, which I thought would calm me down. I’d just enjoy the scenery at a nearby forest preserve, listen to the birds and let the peacefulness drown out the chatter in my cranky head. But on my way there, walking through my little neighborhood, three people had parked their cars square on the sidewalk. I hate that. It’s called a sidewalk for a reason: it’s for people to walk on. It’s not called a carwalk. So, what’s a polite person to do? Walk around the front of the car, through the yard? Or walk behind the car into the street? Since I was cranky, I walked around front of the cars through the yards. It made me feel better, for about two seconds. What is the deal with that? Couldn’t that person have parked on the driveway apron or in the street (where permissible)? Common courtesy. It’s just common courtesy when parking in your driveway to think that it’s possible that someone might be walking along on the sidewalk and...car parked on sidewalk...can’t walk through car...can’t walk over the car. Sometimes cranky gets the best of me and I wonder how hard would I have to throw myself against this offending vehicle to make the car alarm sound? Pretty hard, considering I’m kind of small.
And here's another thing....Being a small person, wouldn’t you think that if I were to be carrying a tray full of Starbucks, my purse and another bag, someone would open the door for me as I left Starbucks? Maybe hold it open for me? Guess not. I remember when people used to open doors for each other. I hold the door open for people, especially moms with strollers. Don’t know why that stopped. It’s not difficult; just push or pull open the door and let the bogged down person through. It’s a little thing, but in a way a big thing, too.
Not helping someone with the door, honking at other drivers because you’re in a hurry to get to the same red light as everyone else, parking on the sidewalk. Doesn’t it say in the Bible something to the effect of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you?” Isn’t that just another way, a nice way, of saying, “Hey, you! Use your head, will ya?” Common courtesy. Just think how much nicer everyone’s day could be if we all did something common, something courteous for someone else.
-30-
It started this morning, when my husband and I were out running errands. All seemed fine until we hit downtown Naperville, also known as the Land Where People Do Not Know How to Drive. Basic four-way stop sign situation. If the Driver’s Ed rules I learned more than 20 years ago still are the rules, the person on your right goes first, then the person on that person’s right and so on until all the cars have moved through the intersection. Should not have been a problem.
But throw in several pedestrians, every other person on the cell phone and suddenly what should have been basic common sense becomes the spatial relations section on the ACT or the SAT, whichever test is harder. It’s not rocket science, people. So the guy on our right (we’re headed north), takes a left (without using a turn signal) and nearly nails the pedestrians. He was on his cell phone. Then the person on Cell Phone guy’s right goes without incident and the next person makes a left, apparently not seeing the five or six pedestrians in the crosswalk and has to stop. Then we start to go and the new person on our right starts to go at the same time and honks at us. Hey! It was our turn, buddy! What the...? Of all the...! I gave the driver that “What kind of idiot are you?” look, but I don’t think he saw me. He was on the cell phone.
Cell phones are wonderful. I don’t know how we as a society got along without them. Especially in the car. Now, I use mine in the car, but I try to dial when the light is red or I’m stuck in heavy traffic and the prospect of moving even three feet is nil. Most of the time I don’t even answer it because by the time I’ve figured out what that ringing is, the call’s gone into voice mail.
Being in the car makes me cranky. Even if I’m not driving. I used to enjoy driving. Now, not so much. People are rude. They cut you off and then honk at you as if it were your fault they had to zoom through the yellow light to turn into the very same lane you’re occupying. People whiz back and forth from the left lane to the right lane to the left lane to the right lane to the left and, look at that, stuck at the same stop light as me. This is what driving was like today for my husband and me. Thank God he was driving; I probably wouldn’t have been as patient or polite as he. Let's just say that it's a good thing for much of the motoring public that I'm not a traffic cop.
You know what also made me cranky today? I was going for a walk, which I thought would calm me down. I’d just enjoy the scenery at a nearby forest preserve, listen to the birds and let the peacefulness drown out the chatter in my cranky head. But on my way there, walking through my little neighborhood, three people had parked their cars square on the sidewalk. I hate that. It’s called a sidewalk for a reason: it’s for people to walk on. It’s not called a carwalk. So, what’s a polite person to do? Walk around the front of the car, through the yard? Or walk behind the car into the street? Since I was cranky, I walked around front of the cars through the yards. It made me feel better, for about two seconds. What is the deal with that? Couldn’t that person have parked on the driveway apron or in the street (where permissible)? Common courtesy. It’s just common courtesy when parking in your driveway to think that it’s possible that someone might be walking along on the sidewalk and...car parked on sidewalk...can’t walk through car...can’t walk over the car. Sometimes cranky gets the best of me and I wonder how hard would I have to throw myself against this offending vehicle to make the car alarm sound? Pretty hard, considering I’m kind of small.
And here's another thing....Being a small person, wouldn’t you think that if I were to be carrying a tray full of Starbucks, my purse and another bag, someone would open the door for me as I left Starbucks? Maybe hold it open for me? Guess not. I remember when people used to open doors for each other. I hold the door open for people, especially moms with strollers. Don’t know why that stopped. It’s not difficult; just push or pull open the door and let the bogged down person through. It’s a little thing, but in a way a big thing, too.
Not helping someone with the door, honking at other drivers because you’re in a hurry to get to the same red light as everyone else, parking on the sidewalk. Doesn’t it say in the Bible something to the effect of “Do unto others as you would have done unto you?” Isn’t that just another way, a nice way, of saying, “Hey, you! Use your head, will ya?” Common courtesy. Just think how much nicer everyone’s day could be if we all did something common, something courteous for someone else.
-30-
Update: Secret senator revealed
This just in, straight from the Society of Professional Journalists: Now that we’ve unmasked Senator Secrecy, also known as Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), let’s help ensure the OPEN Government Act of 2007 (S.B. 849) has a fighting chance for Senate approval.
The OPEN Government Act has bipartisan support. The bill won unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill was passed by a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill’s supporters include more than 100 civic organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR SECRECY EXPOSED -- NATIONWIDE. In light of last week’s news concerning Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) admitting that he placed the secret hold on the OPEN Government Act (S 849), Charles Davis, an SPJ member and executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism wrote an op-ed about it. Visit SPJ.org for the link to Davis' column. You also can visit www.spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/
The OPEN Government Act has bipartisan support. The bill won unanimous approval from the Senate Judiciary Committee. A similar bill was passed by a strong majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. The bill’s supporters include more than 100 civic organizations, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
SENATOR SECRECY EXPOSED -- NATIONWIDE. In light of last week’s news concerning Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) admitting that he placed the secret hold on the OPEN Government Act (S 849), Charles Davis, an SPJ member and executive director of the National Freedom of Information Coalition at the University of Missouri School of Journalism wrote an op-ed about it. Visit SPJ.org for the link to Davis' column. You also can visit www.spj.org/blog/blogs/foifyi/
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Mystery senator blocks effort to expand public’s right to know
On April 12, the Senate Judiciary Community unanimously (unanimously!) passed the Open Government Act. The Act was sponsored by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-VT) and Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX). The bill would strengthen the federal Freedom of Information Act, according to the Society of Professional Journalists. The U.S. House of Representatives overwhelmingly approved a similar measure in March — but that bill was blocked from reaching the Senate, according to the SPJ. If approved, the Open Government Act would reduce delays in releasing government records and hold public officials accountable when they break the law.
Imagine...a public official being held accountable by law for breaking the law. Considering the roadblocks the current Administration has erected to prevent the public, journalists, even CIA agents, from learning the truth about everything from what led to the attack on Iraq to what happened in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office, the OGA would be a godsend.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows journalists, everyday citizens, students...everyone, access to public records such as police reports, public officials’ voting records, financial records of public bodies, financial contributions to candidates for public office. The FOIA also allows any citizen access to information regarding campaign contributions. Essentially, the FOIA allows you to know what your government--be it local, state, federal, even your local library board--is doing. Everyday citizens have the right to know how public officials are spending taxpayer dollars and how those decisions will affect you, the guy down the street in the green truck and your dry cleaner, down the line.
“It refers to your right to examine records and documents and to your right to observe – and participate in – your government’s decision-making processes,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists. “Government processes, activities and decisions may affect you directly or indirectly. They determine the amount of taxes you pay and the kinds of government services you receive. Governments and their agencies regulate many activities in your home and business life. Your ability to participate in, monitor and, perhaps, protest government decisions relates directly to your ability to know what your government is doing,” SPJ says.
Unfortunately some governmental bodies make it as difficult as possible for you and for journalists to access the information you need. By putting a hold on the Open Government Act, the mystery senator not only is blocking access to determine who put the brakes on the act, but is making a mockery of the FOIA. The FOIA is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed; it offers everyone the chance to make sure their government is playing by the rules, it gives us all the chance to make sure “checks and balances” are being used properly. FOIA gives us all the chance to be government watchdogs.
You might remember a document called “The Bill of Rights.” The very first amendment to the bill reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
By putting a secret hold on the Open Government Act, is this “secret” senator not, in effect abridging the rights of the freedom of the press? If journalists are not allowed to know who put the hold on the OGA, does that not abridge their rights to inform the public of what our government is doing? Obviously, I am biased toward journalists, being one myself. But I also am an American and it just strikes me as unconscionable that a person elected by the public to hold public office would behave in such a way as to make himself or herself look, for lack of a better word, chicken. An as un upstanding (I’m giving this person the benefit of the doubt, here) member of our federal government, why would one choose to so flagrantly mock the Bill of Rights and FOIA?
The simple answer is FOIA does not cover Congress, the federal judiciary or the President. It does, however, cover the Executive Office of the President, according to the SPJ.
SPJ officials say that this is not the first time a secret hold has been used to prevent open government legislation from reaching the floor. In August 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put a hold on a bill to create a searchable public database of all federal grants and contracts. Stevens' role was revealed only after online public advocates and journalists forced senators to go on the record about whether they placed the hold, according to the SPJ.
Thankfully, another federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), mandates that meetings of special federal task forces be open to the public. But that has not stopped some such task forces from violating FACA. According to an SPJ report, in July 2001 Congress’ General Accounting Office sued Vice-President Dick Cheney, alleging that Cheney’s energy task force met in secret in violation of the FACA.
Also in 2001, according to SPJ, provisions of the Presidential Records Act were changed by an Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush. That order requires the National Archives to inform a former president (or his/her estate) that records are eligible for release. It also gives the sitting president and the former president the power to block release of records covered by the Presidential Records Act.
Too many, and too often, public bodies and public officials are either ignoring the public’s right to know or doing the best they can to make it nearly impossible to obtain information that is by law available to the public. This has been going on in this country since its conception and continues to this day. Has the public, have we just come to accept that this is the way things are? Has the Patriot Act made us so wary that we’ve become too afraid to actually question the government? If so, what a sad state affairs we have entered. We have a right to know what our government is doing; we have to take back that right.
-30-
Imagine...a public official being held accountable by law for breaking the law. Considering the roadblocks the current Administration has erected to prevent the public, journalists, even CIA agents, from learning the truth about everything from what led to the attack on Iraq to what happened in U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales’ office, the OGA would be a godsend.
Currently, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) allows journalists, everyday citizens, students...everyone, access to public records such as police reports, public officials’ voting records, financial records of public bodies, financial contributions to candidates for public office. The FOIA also allows any citizen access to information regarding campaign contributions. Essentially, the FOIA allows you to know what your government--be it local, state, federal, even your local library board--is doing. Everyday citizens have the right to know how public officials are spending taxpayer dollars and how those decisions will affect you, the guy down the street in the green truck and your dry cleaner, down the line.
“It refers to your right to examine records and documents and to your right to observe – and participate in – your government’s decision-making processes,” according to the Society of Professional Journalists. “Government processes, activities and decisions may affect you directly or indirectly. They determine the amount of taxes you pay and the kinds of government services you receive. Governments and their agencies regulate many activities in your home and business life. Your ability to participate in, monitor and, perhaps, protest government decisions relates directly to your ability to know what your government is doing,” SPJ says.
Unfortunately some governmental bodies make it as difficult as possible for you and for journalists to access the information you need. By putting a hold on the Open Government Act, the mystery senator not only is blocking access to determine who put the brakes on the act, but is making a mockery of the FOIA. The FOIA is one of the most important pieces of legislation ever passed; it offers everyone the chance to make sure their government is playing by the rules, it gives us all the chance to make sure “checks and balances” are being used properly. FOIA gives us all the chance to be government watchdogs.
You might remember a document called “The Bill of Rights.” The very first amendment to the bill reads, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.”
By putting a secret hold on the Open Government Act, is this “secret” senator not, in effect abridging the rights of the freedom of the press? If journalists are not allowed to know who put the hold on the OGA, does that not abridge their rights to inform the public of what our government is doing? Obviously, I am biased toward journalists, being one myself. But I also am an American and it just strikes me as unconscionable that a person elected by the public to hold public office would behave in such a way as to make himself or herself look, for lack of a better word, chicken. An as un upstanding (I’m giving this person the benefit of the doubt, here) member of our federal government, why would one choose to so flagrantly mock the Bill of Rights and FOIA?
The simple answer is FOIA does not cover Congress, the federal judiciary or the President. It does, however, cover the Executive Office of the President, according to the SPJ.
SPJ officials say that this is not the first time a secret hold has been used to prevent open government legislation from reaching the floor. In August 2006, Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) put a hold on a bill to create a searchable public database of all federal grants and contracts. Stevens' role was revealed only after online public advocates and journalists forced senators to go on the record about whether they placed the hold, according to the SPJ.
Thankfully, another federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), mandates that meetings of special federal task forces be open to the public. But that has not stopped some such task forces from violating FACA. According to an SPJ report, in July 2001 Congress’ General Accounting Office sued Vice-President Dick Cheney, alleging that Cheney’s energy task force met in secret in violation of the FACA.
Also in 2001, according to SPJ, provisions of the Presidential Records Act were changed by an Executive Order signed by President George W. Bush. That order requires the National Archives to inform a former president (or his/her estate) that records are eligible for release. It also gives the sitting president and the former president the power to block release of records covered by the Presidential Records Act.
Too many, and too often, public bodies and public officials are either ignoring the public’s right to know or doing the best they can to make it nearly impossible to obtain information that is by law available to the public. This has been going on in this country since its conception and continues to this day. Has the public, have we just come to accept that this is the way things are? Has the Patriot Act made us so wary that we’ve become too afraid to actually question the government? If so, what a sad state affairs we have entered. We have a right to know what our government is doing; we have to take back that right.
-30-
Friday, May 25, 2007
Bush passes on step to help curb global warming
President Bush again has rejected a plan that would help curb global warming.
According to a May 25 Reuters News Service report, Bush has rejected a suggestion by German government officials to cut global climate warming carbon emissions. Bush’s rejection of Germany’s bid to get the Group of Eight to cut emissions comes less than one month before the G-8 summit is to be held in Germany. Reuters said, “G8 president Germany wants the meeting [of members] to agree [to] targets and timetables for steep cuts in emissions and increases in energy efficiency in transport and power generation.”
For years, Bush has said he does not believe in global warming, despite scientific research that shows temperatures across the globe are rising, contributing to or causing everything from droughts to the quickening of iceberg melting. In 2001, Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, calling the pact “economic suicide because it was not binding on boom economies China and India,” according to the Reuters report. Bush also is adamantly against any binding targets or timetables, the report said.
Reuters further reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bush ally outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, want G-8 members to agree to curb the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees Celsius, to cut global emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and to raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
When is the Bush Administration going to realize, recognize and respond to the fact that the United States must take more responsibility in the effort to slow global warming? When will Bush acknowledge that climate changes will only worsen incoming years, affecting not just this country but countries everywhere? When is the Bush Administration going to prove to the rest of the world that the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - is ready to add global warming to the list of wars, the list of evils we must fight?
Global warming is real; the science cannot be denied. Study after study shows that if governments worldwide do not do something now to reduce the effects of global warming, water levels will continue to rise, rainforests will continue to die out, some island countries will completely disappear, people with health conditions such as asthma will become sicker.
During the last century, the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world, according to a National Geographic fact sheet. NG also reports that the spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
Since scientists started keeping records of temperatures, the 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s. The hottest years recorded: 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997, according to NG reports.
Furthermore, if world governments do not work harder together, people across the globe are more likely to be subjected to frequent extreme weather conditions. Intense hurricanes and storm surges could threaten coastal communities, while heat waves, fires and drought also could become more common.
Yet Bush continues to argue that global warming is not the horror the majority of the world believes it to be. So what are we to do? People everywhere must take steps to reduce pollutants of all kinds, by carpooling or by using public transportation to get to work. If possible, those who are able could ride a bike or walk to work.
We must make sure we are recycling everything we possibly can as permitted by our cities, towns and villages. We must start using earth-friendly products to clean our homes, do our dishes, wash our clothes. We must examine the products we use to take care of our lawns and our gardens. Do they contain harmful pollutants, pesticides?
More and more designers and retailers are offering organically made and earth-friendly clothing that is actually biodegradable. We need to read clothing labels to see what materials are used to make them. And we need to recycle our clothes, shoes and accessories, by donating them to the Salvation Army, Goodwill, women’s shelters - anywhere that will take them.
Switching from plastic bags to paper bags at grocery and other stores also will help.
We must do whatever we can, whatever we can think of to help the environment, and we must do it now. If we wait for our government to take the steps necessary to curb emissions, to reduce pollution, to reduce greenhouse gasses, it will be too late.
-30-
According to a May 25 Reuters News Service report, Bush has rejected a suggestion by German government officials to cut global climate warming carbon emissions. Bush’s rejection of Germany’s bid to get the Group of Eight to cut emissions comes less than one month before the G-8 summit is to be held in Germany. Reuters said, “G8 president Germany wants the meeting [of members] to agree [to] targets and timetables for steep cuts in emissions and increases in energy efficiency in transport and power generation.”
For years, Bush has said he does not believe in global warming, despite scientific research that shows temperatures across the globe are rising, contributing to or causing everything from droughts to the quickening of iceberg melting. In 2001, Bush rejected the Kyoto Protocol on cutting carbon emissions, calling the pact “economic suicide because it was not binding on boom economies China and India,” according to the Reuters report. Bush also is adamantly against any binding targets or timetables, the report said.
Reuters further reported that German Chancellor Angela Merkel and Bush ally outgoing British Prime Minister Tony Blair, want G-8 members to agree to curb the rise in average temperatures this century by 2 degrees Celsius, to cut global emissions by 50 percent below 1990 levels by 2050 and to raise energy efficiency in power and transport by 20 percent by 2020.
When is the Bush Administration going to realize, recognize and respond to the fact that the United States must take more responsibility in the effort to slow global warming? When will Bush acknowledge that climate changes will only worsen incoming years, affecting not just this country but countries everywhere? When is the Bush Administration going to prove to the rest of the world that the United States - the most powerful nation in the world - is ready to add global warming to the list of wars, the list of evils we must fight?
Global warming is real; the science cannot be denied. Study after study shows that if governments worldwide do not do something now to reduce the effects of global warming, water levels will continue to rise, rainforests will continue to die out, some island countries will completely disappear, people with health conditions such as asthma will become sicker.
During the last century, the average temperature has climbed about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 of a degree Celsius) around the world, according to a National Geographic fact sheet. NG also reports that the spring ice thaw in the Northern Hemisphere occurs nine days earlier than it did 150 years ago, and the fall freeze now typically starts 10 days later.
Since scientists started keeping records of temperatures, the 1990s was the warmest decade since the mid-1800s. The hottest years recorded: 2003, 2002, 2001, 1998 and 1997, according to NG reports.
Furthermore, if world governments do not work harder together, people across the globe are more likely to be subjected to frequent extreme weather conditions. Intense hurricanes and storm surges could threaten coastal communities, while heat waves, fires and drought also could become more common.
Yet Bush continues to argue that global warming is not the horror the majority of the world believes it to be. So what are we to do? People everywhere must take steps to reduce pollutants of all kinds, by carpooling or by using public transportation to get to work. If possible, those who are able could ride a bike or walk to work.
We must make sure we are recycling everything we possibly can as permitted by our cities, towns and villages. We must start using earth-friendly products to clean our homes, do our dishes, wash our clothes. We must examine the products we use to take care of our lawns and our gardens. Do they contain harmful pollutants, pesticides?
More and more designers and retailers are offering organically made and earth-friendly clothing that is actually biodegradable. We need to read clothing labels to see what materials are used to make them. And we need to recycle our clothes, shoes and accessories, by donating them to the Salvation Army, Goodwill, women’s shelters - anywhere that will take them.
Switching from plastic bags to paper bags at grocery and other stores also will help.
We must do whatever we can, whatever we can think of to help the environment, and we must do it now. If we wait for our government to take the steps necessary to curb emissions, to reduce pollution, to reduce greenhouse gasses, it will be too late.
-30-
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Illinois education system in need of reform
For too many years, Illinois has shortchanged school
children with a funding system that punishes students
in poorer areas and all too often results in poor
performance in public schools. The burden our
education funding system puts on property tax payers
also is a serious problem in this state.
I have come to learn that despite all of this, some
state senators, including Randall Hultgren (R-Wheaton), Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora), Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), are proposing cuts in education spending. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and puts Illinois school children at risk of receiving a less-than-adequate education. And, by the way, our students deserve far better than an "adequate" education; our school children need a superior education to compete in today's world.
Rather than cutting education spending, it is time the
state adopt a comprehensive reform package that will
increase school funding, quality and fiscal
accountability to ensure that every Illinois child has
access to a superior education.
With the quality of education in other countries fast
eclipsing the education offered our own students, it
is of paramount importance that Illinois legislators
find some way to improve the education system here,
particularly education funding. It is becoming
increasingly important that children throughout the
state, not just those in more affluent areas, receive
nothing short of the best not just in basic education
(reading, writing, arithmetic). Our students also must
be offered the best in physical, vocational, art and
musical education, as well. Studies have shown that
students who have a well-rounded education fare better
after they graduate high school, whether they move on to college or move into the job market. Illinois school children deserve, and state legislators should demand for them, the very best education possible.
Cutting education spending will do nothing but
undermine the future of Illinois' children.
deserve, and state legislators should demand for them,
the very best education possible.
Cutting education spending will do nothing but
undermine the future of Illinois' children.
children with a funding system that punishes students
in poorer areas and all too often results in poor
performance in public schools. The burden our
education funding system puts on property tax payers
also is a serious problem in this state.
I have come to learn that despite all of this, some
state senators, including Randall Hultgren (R-Wheaton), Chris Lauzen (R-Aurora), Kirk Dillard (R-Hinsdale), are proposing cuts in education spending. This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever and puts Illinois school children at risk of receiving a less-than-adequate education. And, by the way, our students deserve far better than an "adequate" education; our school children need a superior education to compete in today's world.
Rather than cutting education spending, it is time the
state adopt a comprehensive reform package that will
increase school funding, quality and fiscal
accountability to ensure that every Illinois child has
access to a superior education.
With the quality of education in other countries fast
eclipsing the education offered our own students, it
is of paramount importance that Illinois legislators
find some way to improve the education system here,
particularly education funding. It is becoming
increasingly important that children throughout the
state, not just those in more affluent areas, receive
nothing short of the best not just in basic education
(reading, writing, arithmetic). Our students also must
be offered the best in physical, vocational, art and
musical education, as well. Studies have shown that
students who have a well-rounded education fare better
after they graduate high school, whether they move on to college or move into the job market. Illinois school children deserve, and state legislators should demand for them, the very best education possible.
Cutting education spending will do nothing but
undermine the future of Illinois' children.
deserve, and state legislators should demand for them,
the very best education possible.
Cutting education spending will do nothing but
undermine the future of Illinois' children.
Where are all the kids?
I don’t have cable. In fact, my husband and I have only one TV. Not one in every room. Not one in the bedroom. Just in the loft, or TV room or living room or whatever you want to call it.
I don’t have an iPod. I bought a little one for my husband a couple of years ago for Christmas. He uses it when he goes running, which is about every two weeks because of his work schedule. Most of the time it sits in a drawer in a table in the foyer of our modest townhouse. Yes, a townhouse. Not a McMansion that takes up the entire professionally landscaped yard. We don’t really have a yard, but if we did, we’d use it all the time. To play baseball or catch or croquet. That’s what we used to do when we were little (little being children, up to age 13 or even 14 or 15. Back then, anyway).
Kids in our neighborhood don’t play outside; in fact, I don’t even know if there are kids in our neighborhood. I thought I saw a few, but that was only once, last year, so I can’t say for sure. We used to play outside all the time, unless it was raining really hard, with lightning, or a blizzard struck, and then we’d just wait it out so we could go back outside and make igloos and have snowball fights and play until our fingers were frozen and we couldn’t feel our toes and our noses were dripping. We’d play until our mothers called us for dinner and we’d go back outside as soon as the dinner table (remember those?) was cleared, the left-overs put away, the dishes washed and dried (by hand) and put away. We’d play until dusk, when our mothers would call for us again because it was time for bed. And we’d plead to say out just a little bit longer, even though we were being attacked by mosquitoes and couldn’t see because it was getting so dark. We’d play tag or kick-the-can or ghost-in-the-graveyard or climb trees or ride bikes until our legs were wiggly with tiredness. And we didn’t ride bikes with so much gear on that we looked like the Staypuff Marshmallow Man. No helmets, no kneepads, no elbow pads.
And if we fell, we fell. We hit our heads and scraped our knees and we bled and we’d keep playing. That’s what we’d do, all day long, all year long if we could. While our parents talked with our neighbor friends’ parents on the back porch or front stoop. Or over the fence. I don’t even know my neighbors. I mean, I know their fist names, but I don’t know them. Not like when I was little and my parents knew my neighbors’ parents and we kids would all play together and we knew that if we locked ourselves ouf of the house we could go next door and get the extra key or stay there until Mom or Dad came home to collect us. Or, we’d just stay there for dinner and walk, alone, in the dark, home after dinner. Then try to go back outside to play some more.
Sometimes at night we would play records on the record player; that’s all, just play records and listen to the music and try to figure out what George, Paul, John and Ringo were trying to say and why Dad only tapped his foot when we were playing those records and not when we were playing “our records.” The Go-Go’s, The Police, Talking Heads, the Eurythmics. Other times, we’d listen to the radio--when we were really little it was a transistor radio, that if you were lucky, had AM, FM and shortwave. Shortwave. I didn’t know what it was when I was little and I never listened to it, but if you had it...cool. Sometimes we would all dance in the living room, practicing; just in case that boy we had a crush on would ask us to the 8th grade dance.
I wish I heard kids playing outside more often. Maybe it’s just my neighborhood, I don’t know. But that sound, the high-pitched laughing and screaming and even the crying was music, is music. Music to my ears.
When we were older, we’d watch some TV (Little House on the Prairie or the Dukes of Hazzard) or we talked on the phone for hours and hours and hours with our best friend even though we had just been at school with them an hour ago. We didn’t text them or instant message them; we called them, but not after 9 p.m., because that was rude. We’d call and ask to talk to Debbie or Kris or Catherine or Julie. And then we’d talk about everything, anything. Boys. The cute English teacher.The mean gym teacher who was always picking on us to make that jump-shot or hit that softball or catch that foul ball. We talked about everything. Isn’t so-and-so cute? He likes me? Do you think so? Really? And when we were older, maybe 14 or 15 or 16, we’d think and dream and talk about when we might have our first kiss. Oh, that first kiss. Magic. It was magic. We didn’t think at that age about...well, you know. Not until we stopped playing with Barbie or until we were too “grown up” to play tag or catch with our dads did we even think about that. I mean, maybe we’d get a kiss on the cheek from a boy on our birthday.
...Oh, our or birthdays. When we were really little, if we were lucky, we’d get to have friends over and we’d play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey or that game where you’d try to get the clothespins into the jar with the too-small mouth or concentration and then we’d open presents and after that...after that, there was cake, and ice cream, too. Whoopee! Then more games! And then Mom would come and pick us up and we’d go home, sleepy because the sugar high had worn off and we were pooped.
We didn’t play video games or watch movies or anything like that. We played, actual physical games that required energy and elicited giggles and laughter and screaming for joy. And as we got older and we looked forward to (or didn’t) our “Sweet 16,” we were honestly surprised to get a surprise party at a relative’s house with music playing from the record player or tape deck. Goofing around and talking and laughing with our friends in the back yard eating barbequed food until we couldn’t eat another bite. Until the cake and the ice cream came out. We didn’t have birthday extraganzas, where we’d dress in hundred- or thousand-dollar dresses and arrive at some sawnk location while our friends gathered around our limos in black-tie attire to lavish us with expensive gifts while we listened to hired boy-bands.
We were just regular. We were everyday people. Common, one might say. We didn’t try to out-do each other, we didn’t try to get into the society pages or make the news for some reason, be it good or bad. We didn’t drink, we didn’t do drugs. We didn’t carry $400 designer bags or drive or ask for BMWs or Jaguars for our birthdays. We were just regular. But we had really great friends, and we knew our neighbors and trusted them with our house keys. And we played. Man, oh, man, did we play.
-30-
I don’t have an iPod. I bought a little one for my husband a couple of years ago for Christmas. He uses it when he goes running, which is about every two weeks because of his work schedule. Most of the time it sits in a drawer in a table in the foyer of our modest townhouse. Yes, a townhouse. Not a McMansion that takes up the entire professionally landscaped yard. We don’t really have a yard, but if we did, we’d use it all the time. To play baseball or catch or croquet. That’s what we used to do when we were little (little being children, up to age 13 or even 14 or 15. Back then, anyway).
Kids in our neighborhood don’t play outside; in fact, I don’t even know if there are kids in our neighborhood. I thought I saw a few, but that was only once, last year, so I can’t say for sure. We used to play outside all the time, unless it was raining really hard, with lightning, or a blizzard struck, and then we’d just wait it out so we could go back outside and make igloos and have snowball fights and play until our fingers were frozen and we couldn’t feel our toes and our noses were dripping. We’d play until our mothers called us for dinner and we’d go back outside as soon as the dinner table (remember those?) was cleared, the left-overs put away, the dishes washed and dried (by hand) and put away. We’d play until dusk, when our mothers would call for us again because it was time for bed. And we’d plead to say out just a little bit longer, even though we were being attacked by mosquitoes and couldn’t see because it was getting so dark. We’d play tag or kick-the-can or ghost-in-the-graveyard or climb trees or ride bikes until our legs were wiggly with tiredness. And we didn’t ride bikes with so much gear on that we looked like the Staypuff Marshmallow Man. No helmets, no kneepads, no elbow pads.
And if we fell, we fell. We hit our heads and scraped our knees and we bled and we’d keep playing. That’s what we’d do, all day long, all year long if we could. While our parents talked with our neighbor friends’ parents on the back porch or front stoop. Or over the fence. I don’t even know my neighbors. I mean, I know their fist names, but I don’t know them. Not like when I was little and my parents knew my neighbors’ parents and we kids would all play together and we knew that if we locked ourselves ouf of the house we could go next door and get the extra key or stay there until Mom or Dad came home to collect us. Or, we’d just stay there for dinner and walk, alone, in the dark, home after dinner. Then try to go back outside to play some more.
Sometimes at night we would play records on the record player; that’s all, just play records and listen to the music and try to figure out what George, Paul, John and Ringo were trying to say and why Dad only tapped his foot when we were playing those records and not when we were playing “our records.” The Go-Go’s, The Police, Talking Heads, the Eurythmics. Other times, we’d listen to the radio--when we were really little it was a transistor radio, that if you were lucky, had AM, FM and shortwave. Shortwave. I didn’t know what it was when I was little and I never listened to it, but if you had it...cool. Sometimes we would all dance in the living room, practicing; just in case that boy we had a crush on would ask us to the 8th grade dance.
I wish I heard kids playing outside more often. Maybe it’s just my neighborhood, I don’t know. But that sound, the high-pitched laughing and screaming and even the crying was music, is music. Music to my ears.
When we were older, we’d watch some TV (Little House on the Prairie or the Dukes of Hazzard) or we talked on the phone for hours and hours and hours with our best friend even though we had just been at school with them an hour ago. We didn’t text them or instant message them; we called them, but not after 9 p.m., because that was rude. We’d call and ask to talk to Debbie or Kris or Catherine or Julie. And then we’d talk about everything, anything. Boys. The cute English teacher.The mean gym teacher who was always picking on us to make that jump-shot or hit that softball or catch that foul ball. We talked about everything. Isn’t so-and-so cute? He likes me? Do you think so? Really? And when we were older, maybe 14 or 15 or 16, we’d think and dream and talk about when we might have our first kiss. Oh, that first kiss. Magic. It was magic. We didn’t think at that age about...well, you know. Not until we stopped playing with Barbie or until we were too “grown up” to play tag or catch with our dads did we even think about that. I mean, maybe we’d get a kiss on the cheek from a boy on our birthday.
...Oh, our or birthdays. When we were really little, if we were lucky, we’d get to have friends over and we’d play pin-the-tail-on-the-donkey or that game where you’d try to get the clothespins into the jar with the too-small mouth or concentration and then we’d open presents and after that...after that, there was cake, and ice cream, too. Whoopee! Then more games! And then Mom would come and pick us up and we’d go home, sleepy because the sugar high had worn off and we were pooped.
We didn’t play video games or watch movies or anything like that. We played, actual physical games that required energy and elicited giggles and laughter and screaming for joy. And as we got older and we looked forward to (or didn’t) our “Sweet 16,” we were honestly surprised to get a surprise party at a relative’s house with music playing from the record player or tape deck. Goofing around and talking and laughing with our friends in the back yard eating barbequed food until we couldn’t eat another bite. Until the cake and the ice cream came out. We didn’t have birthday extraganzas, where we’d dress in hundred- or thousand-dollar dresses and arrive at some sawnk location while our friends gathered around our limos in black-tie attire to lavish us with expensive gifts while we listened to hired boy-bands.
We were just regular. We were everyday people. Common, one might say. We didn’t try to out-do each other, we didn’t try to get into the society pages or make the news for some reason, be it good or bad. We didn’t drink, we didn’t do drugs. We didn’t carry $400 designer bags or drive or ask for BMWs or Jaguars for our birthdays. We were just regular. But we had really great friends, and we knew our neighbors and trusted them with our house keys. And we played. Man, oh, man, did we play.
-30-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)