Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog

Friday, March 31, 2006

One-Line Stonewall: Responsible spending on a war of choice?

Posted as a comment on the Wednesday post:

Yesterday, as a part of Voices for Illinois Children, I took part in a conference call with Sue Sweet of Mark's office. The group met with her to voice our concerns regarding the upcoming budget battle and the horrible budget cuts proposed. We heard that Mark was a pre-school teacher before he became a congressman. HOWEVER, throughout the entire conversation, when pressed for a position on the budget cuts, the answer we got was "he doesn't abdicate his responsibility to careful spending". She wouldn't tell us whether he supports the President's budget plan, or give us an idea of his spending priorities. When asked for a list of his priorities in writing, she hemmed and hawed and finally backed away from commiting to make that list when asked for a "date that the list would be available to us". We were told that he will be in the district April 7th through the 25th. Adrienne

What Adrienne is describing is the one-line stonewall that appears to be the speciality of Mark Kirk's office. It's what we experienced in DC on September 26, 2005 when an aid kept saying "stay the course" when we asked about a solution to the quagmire in Iraq. Kirk never delivers the one-line stonewall himself. He hightails it out of town and lets a aid deliver it. Don't believe me? Go watch a few archive files over at atcenternetwork.com.

As for the contents of the one-liner du jour: "he doesn't abdicate his responsibility to careful spending"? Sorry, Mark, or Mark's aid or whomever, I would call taking money away from families and children to give it to warmongering corporations dropping bombs on Iraqi children for Bush's elective war (even Pat Buchanan is calling the Iraq war, a war of choice; he said so on Hardball this week) an abdication of responsibility to careful spending.

Thursday, March 30, 2006

REAL SECURITY

THE DEMOCRATS REAL SECURITY PLAN (what we should have done in the first place and what the grassroots activists have been saying for years):

1. Rebuild the military with proper equipment, adequate manpower, training, acurate intelligence, promised benefits

2. Finish the real war on terror by targeting Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan; improve intelligence, Special Forces and nuclear security, and combat terrorism by eliminating its economic, political and social roots.

3. At home, implement the recommendations of the 9/11 commission; secure shipping, food supplies and energy plants; fund first responders and improve the health infrastructure.

4. Transition to Iraq sovereignty and insist Iraqi leaders form their unity government.

5. Achieve energy independence by eliminating reliance on oil with increased use of alternate fuels.

MARK KIRK'S REAL SECURITY PLAN:

1. Fearmonger in the Jewish community to get them to vote against their real and historic interest in peace and justice; participate in the farce that helped Bush go to War in Iraq, seeming to be tough on defense.

2. Surround self only with supporters; talk only to the foreign press forcing local press to print press releases verbatim or get nothing at all.

3. Follow the money: don't take any stands against the current RNC moneybrokers even if it means surrendering the values of the district; be wishy washy on ethics so you can say you support reforms, but reform so minor, it's insignificant and won't upset your friends.

4. Set schedule only after constituent appointment requests so if they are in district, be in DC and if they are in DC, be in district.

5. Keep that corporate support rolling in by supporting bills written by industry and asking no questions of China...what they do to their own citizens is not really our business as long as they are willing to do business with our corporations... maybe we can learn something from them in labor relations.

In other words, business as usual for republican Mark Kirk, real security for self, real security for career.

Looks like the Democrats have finally caught up with Americans and are unified and ready for the fight. And the republicans? They are falling on hard times, or should we say, hard time.

Wednesday, March 29, 2006

What Mark Leaves Out of His Blog

From Mark Kirk's blog:
MARK KIRK’S BLOG
March 28, 2006

10th District Spring Break

Today, I was pleased to welcome over one-hundred constituents from the 10th district who are spending their spring break in Washington. I always appreciate the opportunity to meet with constituents when they travel to Washington. This morning, I heard from these families on their key concerns and assisted in setting up Capitol tours and other activities around the city. I encourage you to come out and visit. Consider our office your home away from home.

What Mark fails to say is that there are many many constituents who have asked to meet with him on important issues from the budget to the war and he is never available. He doesn't want to talk about his constituents' concerns, the war he helped start that is now a miserable failure, the corporationist bills he has voted for including the other miserable failure, Medicare D, the immigration bill he voted for that has brought millions out onto the streets in protest, and his recent questionable environmental votes. Mark doesn't want to discuss the real issues we sent him to Congress to handle. He wants to hand out maps of DC to pre-selected supporters.

Question, Mark: Last fall, I came out to DC with a group to talk to you about the war, we were put off by an aid who first gave us the runaround in making an appointment and then just stonewalled us when we got there. If we come out again to talk to you, will you meet with us or will you make sure to be elsewhere if we try to make an appointment?

American susceptibility

We Americans are so easily influenced it is absolutely scary. The attack dog right-wing extremists know that and take advantage of it. They successfully removed an inarguably great man with a stellar military service record, Max Cleland, from office by running a commercial that merged his face with Osama bin Landen's. It was easier to perpetrate a lie about Cleland with a scare tactic television commerical than educate the constituency with the truth of his life and voting record. Americans love smear, scandal and gossip, true or not. The Bush administration saw the success of this technique and used it to smear anyone and everyone who disagreed with their policies from the heroic former ambassador Joe Wilson, the only American to really stand up to Saddam Hussein, to the UN Weapons Inspector, Scott Ritter, who knew there were no WMD in Iraq and had the courage to say so.

Why bring this old news up now? These same folks are using the same attack dog techniques to get state legislatures to pass all sorts of wacky, unconsitutional laws prohibiting abortion (even in cases of rape or incest) and unconstitutional laws establishing religion. They make sure that state legislators know that, even if they know better, they'd better vote right-wing extremist or their pictures with be on television screens across the state next to fake pictures of aborted fetuses or they'll be pegged as a godless athiests.

Americans have to wake up and stop being so susceptible to televised smear designed to get them to reject the truth and go for something that if brought up truthfully and directly would be immediately rejected. We have to educate ourselves to the truth. We have to wonder why after 217 years of a very successful secular government, we are so easily buying into lies that the country was really intended as a Christian country and this particular group of right-wing extremists get to tell us what that Christianity is all about. Instead of simply following and our leaders caving into these threats to save their political careers, we have to ask ourselves who is benefitting from the changes, what that benefit is and how will it affect us in the long run. So far, none of this so-called Christianity has helped the poor. brought peace on earth or righted wrongs. Somehow the benefits have been only monetary and have gone only to the already wealthy and powerful. Why is that?

We have to reject the smear tactic and take our country back before it becomes a completely unrecognizable cesspool of corporationism, racism, fear and superstition. Yes, superstition, because the right-wing extremists are not talking about religion that uplifts humanity, but superstition designed to make us fearful enough to be susceptible to their twisted message.

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Poverty 3--It can happen to you and me

The people of the Illinois Tenth are generally very lucky. Most folks living here are doing pretty well. They have lovely families, homes, cars, good schools for their children, well-paid white collar jobs with benefits and some security. It is easy for these folks to focus on their lives, careers and families and not care about the poor, not see the homeless, not want affordable housing built on the lot next door, and not concentrate on the Bush administration policies like the so-called Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005 that prevents bankrupts from getting a clean slate. However, you do not have to be a resident of Baghdad with bombs falling on your head and no utilities or a slave child laborer in China tied to a loom or even the greeter at a big box store with low wages and no benefits to feel the pain inflicted by the inhumane concentration of wealth perpetrated by the Bush administration and its followers like Mark Kirk. All that needs to happen is for you to get laid off.

Barbara Ehrenreich is an author, freelance writer and guest lecturer who has lived the American anti-dream, on purpose. First, she explored the world of low wage retail workers and house cleaners while researching her book, Nickled and Dimed: On (Not) Getting By in America. Then, she posed as an out of work PR manager trying to get another job in Bait and Switch: The (Futile) Pursuit of the American Dream. The latter was the far scarier book for me as it focuses on the people who, by general American standards, did everything right. They went to school, studied hard and got good grades and college degrees. They went to work in corporate America, worked hard, got promotions and raises, and ultimately were let go because of their high salaries and experience.

Ehrenreich joined these downtrodden former white collar workers in their daily struggle to find out what is wrong with them and fix it so they will fit in well enough to eventually rejoin the walking working. Yes, you read correctly. These folks are told by their career coaches and outplacement services that they did something wrong to get laid off and would have to work hard and change to fit into the mold better. Layoffs have nothing to do with tax incentives and executive stock option plans that reward company layoffs and outsourcing to Asian countries. It's all the worker's fault if he gets laid off.

Ehrenreich went to career coaches, personality coaches, image remakers, networking meetings, and career fairs in her attempt to get a job in PR. The career coaches were mostly out of work former corporate managers who picked over her resume for endless weeks extending their billable time more than making actual improvements. The image remakers told her how to dress, act and feel. Anger is out of the question. If you are angry at a former employer, prospective employers will notice and you'll never get hired, she is told.

One of the more interesting part of the book is her description of faith-based career networking meetings. She is lead to one by a career coach who tells her about it as if he's giving her a great job tip. It turns out to involve far more proselytizing than career advice and networking. It could also be pretty hard on a unemployed person's self image. If you cannot get hired with Jesus on your side, you must be pretty bad.

Another interesting section has to do with an industry of sales jobs that applicants purchase; you buy your job. Companies in this industry provide unpaid training and some order forms and manuals, no base salary and no benefits, and tell their fully commissioned employees with no offices, computers or other equipment, that they have to buy the company's products in order to sell them. Strangely, the main products of these companies are not the products themselves, but a sort of pyramid scheme of employment that employees are supposed to sell to other unemployed people that they then hire and manage. An employee buys his job, then buys his promotion to management.

I highly recommend the book to anyone working in corporate America or encouraging their children to prepare for such a career. It shows the corporate culture of devaluing and dehumanizing workers that we have created. Near the end of the book, Ehrenreich discusses a new corporate demand for the passion of their workers, the ones they regard as mere necessary evil, temporary, variable costs on a monthly report. She ponders how a person can turn passion on and off to please the workplace.

Few of the people Ehrenreich encountered during her research actually found replacement jobs. The few lucky ones ended up as salespeople at big box retailers or laborers. You'll have to read the book to see what offers the educated, poised and successful Ehrenreich got for herself.

You might be wondering how all this affects the folks of the Illinois Tenth, the ones with good jobs, salaries and maybe even some savings. I think this new corporate environment of temporary work and layoffs affects all of us because it has created a very insecure and sort of mean culture that we are left to live in and pass on to our children. All it takes is one bad day, one medical crisis to put a person on the trash heap of the corporate world. Then, we are destined to leave this life to our children who won't have the benefit of the old corporate ways that helped us start our careers and gave us something on which to fall back in a crisis.

The new corporate culture has transformed workers from partners in success to enemies of the bottom line and executives incentives, and corporations and corporate executives still control campaign finance, so there is no incentive for either industry or government to make corrections. The desperate world of the unemployed leaves its inhabitants ill-equipped to fight the system and, in their search for new employment, they are encouraged to ban all thought of changing the system. This leaves the rest of us, the voters, to insist on change in corporate law and tax law that rewards layoffs and no benefit temporary work.

Bring this subject up at a cocktail party in most homes in the Tenth and you'll likely be told that this new system is necessary because American corporations have to be able to compete with slave holding Asian companies. Mark Kirk will tell you that we have to deal with China and not discuss it's human rights violations. He recently told the People's Daily Online China: "It is very important to work with China, not about human rights, not about Taiwan, but about avian flu."

I guess it all depends on the world you want to live in. Kirk has no problem with slave labor in China and he employs the Bush administration scare tactics by invoking Avian flu to sell the Bush message. He doesn't care about Chinese kids working in sweat shops. Don't be so sure he cares about your kids either.

Monday, March 27, 2006

Poverty Part 2--Homeless can get their mail sometimes and that is about it

On Saturday, CBS News did a piece that was picked up by the local stations about how homeless people can get their mail. It's called general delivery and consists of an address where the homeless can pick up their mail. The 2 newscasters on our local CBS station Saturday morning found the story hilarious because the homeless could receive junk mail and even credit card applications. The homeless guy interviewed for the story was grateful to have a place where people could communicate with him.

Mail delivery can be crucial for the homeless as it can be their only means of communication with relatives, potential employers, or social service agencies. However, general delivery is not available everywhere and is not guaranteed. In Seattle, three homeless people sued the Postal Service for failing to provide general delivery mail service and free postal boxes available to some classes of people. The homeless lost their case in circuit court, on appeal and the Supreme Court denied cert. They claimed a first amendment right, but the court decided that it did not come into play when the post office is not actually censoring the mail; the regulations were content-neutral. Their equal protection argument was rejected by the court which claimed that the restrictions that governed the provision of no-fee boxes were reasonable. No fee boxes were available only to residents who have a physical residence or a business location at a fixed delivery point although one would wonder why they are needed more in those cases than for the homeless with no alternative place for delivery.

The current mood of the country is worse than hostile to the homeless as fake religious republicans forget the guidance of the Sermon on the Mount and preach that success and failure are solely within the control of the individual, and that the rewards and punishments simply follow individual's actions. In addition to the normal injury of being homeless, foodless, bathroomless, Bush republicans add the insult of arrest, warrantless search and forcible removal into shelters.

Programs that help the homeless like the Section 8 voucher program, block grants that promote job creation and affordable housing, including funding PADS that Mark Kirk pretends to support, and Americorp that sends young adults to tutoring and other programs that help the homeless are on the Bush/Kirk budgetary chopping block.

As I walk from the train to my office every morning, I see that the streets of Chicago are again filled with homeless just like they were under Reagan and Bush the first. Vets without benefits trickle home from Iraq and Afghanisatan and many are or will be homeless soon. Then, we must remember that there are 10th District folks who are either currently homeless (there is a homeless guy who walks back and forth on Waukegan Road in Deerfield) and many more that still have their homes, but are holding on by a string with mortgages they cannot afford and jobs that threaten to end by the hour.

Kirk plans to defend his seat by adopting a suburban campaign focused on electronic medical records (that seem to be insecure with data) and 401-K kids accounts, but by failing to address the problems that the Bush budget creates for the homeless, Kirk proves that he has no idea what is happening in the district or in the country.

Saturday, March 25, 2006

Poverty Part 1--Dumping Seniors on Skid Row

George Bush and Mark Kirk have left our seniors out in the cold. Rather than take care of the generation that took care of us, Bush and Kirk undermined support for them. I think it is time that we develop policies that actually work for seniors—they deserve nothing less.~~Dan Seals, Democratic Candidate for Congress, Illinois Tenth District, Lakeland Journals, March 24, 2006

The Seal's quote was timely for me as my mom and I were just talking about the elderly California woman who was dumped by a hospital into a skid row neighborhood of Los Angeles wearing not much more than a hospital gown and hospital footies. Apparently, it is now the custom of hospitals to put indigent seniors, no matter how ill or disoriented, into taxicabs pointed in the direction of skid row. The justification for this procedure is that, on skid row, a disoriented senior might stumble onto some social services organization, maybe even some place giving away second hand clothing as the hospitals don't bother to dress these seniors before dumping them.

The story was such an embarrassment for California hospitals that one hospital association now seeks the stunning reform of obtaining the seniors' written consent before dumping them. No point in getting sued when you are trashing humanity.

While Bush and Kirk love to tout their fake concern for seniors, here are some facts of their reign:


The cuts to Medicare and Medicaid so desired by the Bush administration and house republicans will detrimentally affect seniors' access to health care and nursing homes. republicans sell these cuts by claiming that people well able to take care of themselves are playing the system to make money at the taxpayers' expense, but the reality is that very average senior citizens need these programs for basic health care and needed nursing home care.

In the mid 1990s I had occasion to investigate the cost of nursing home care and found that a reputable, but not fancy, nursing home in our area costs over $5000 each month. It's probably a lot more now. That kind of bill each month would break most families much less seniors on a fixed income. Without Medicaid, many seniors needing nursing home care will be left alone with no care at all or left with family members unable to provide the needed care or completely burdened by it.

Yes Dan, Bush and Kirk have no problem leaving our seniors out in the cold, literally. Their general economic plan for the entire country is to move folks in need off government sponsored programs and into the streets. Money is to be funnelled upward to a very small aristocracy. The rest of us are on our own and should consider ourselves lucky if someone pays the cabfare for our ride to skid row.

Friday, March 24, 2006

Singing off key is not a federal offense

Classifying information is one of the best ways a government can protect itself from scrutiny and accountability. They can hide their mistakes and misdeeds and repeat them, no questions asked. The strange case of the FBI spying on John Lennon and subsequent cover up is an interesting illustration of how a government works to protect itself rather than the governed.

The FBI spied on John Lennon in the early 1970s with an apparent goal of stopping Lennon from going on a national anti-Nixon, anti-war tour just before the 1972 re-election campaign. Several documents collected about Lennon were about his appearance at the "John Sinclair Freedom Rally" in Ann Arbor, Michigan in December 1971. That appearance was supposed to be a trial run for the mixture of music and politics with speakers between performances.

One document talks about a song written by Lennon for the event titled John Sinclair, about the activist John Sinclair himself who was imprisoned for marijuana possession. One of the strongest arguments of the ACLU in fighting for declassification of the Lennon file was that even the song lyrics of John Sinclair had been classified. Press coverage of the event was also collected, including an article commenting that John Sinclair was not a very good song, not up to "Lennon's usual standards", and that "Yoko can't even remain on key." Weiner reminds us of the famous ACLU argument that singing off key is not a federal offense.

More to the point for the FBI were the speeches at the event. Jerry Rubin called for a million people to rally at the Republican national convention to "humiliate and defeat Richard Nixon". Asking Americans to participate in the political process may be against republican protocol, then and now, but is certainly a Constitutionally protected activity. Weiner points out that these FBI documents are the only preserved history of these speeches.

Several documents on Lennon contained coded information. The government's arguments to protect them included protection of the code and of foreign governments that do not acknowledge surveillance activity at all.

Another group of FBI documents chronicled Lennon's plans for a peace conference and some pretty mundane meetings with yippies Jerry Rubin and Stewart Albert. This information was withheld from the response to Weiners FOIA request, but none of the activity described was illegal or affected national security. Other documents included associations with various left leaning people, concert schedulings, cancellations, some plans to form a left oriented entertainment group with Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis, and one strange comment that someone named Alex was growing a full beard. Your circa 1972 tax dollars at work.

If Bush's unchecked classification of documents is allowed and if NSA spying on Americans is made legal by our chickenhearted congress, we can expect this type of information to be collected on all of us and its collection will be hidden until the information can be used against us. Our associations, organizing plans and simple personal information will be collected and databased (something not available in 1972) and sit around until deemed useful. Some say that if you are not guilty of something, you have nothing to worry about. They are wrong. The waste of government resources is worry enough and the potential for abuse is huge. Living one's life and even questioning government's actions and use of our tax dollars is not illegal and should not be collected, databased and ready and waiting for use by the politically motivated.

Singing off key is not a federal offense, growing a beard is not a federal offense, associating with left leaning activists is not a federal offense, organizing a concert is not a federal offense...yet.

Thursday, March 23, 2006

The Rock and Roll Watergate

AOL has been running a poll on how history will remember Bush. Funny, that assumes that there will be history. It is very possible that there will be little available history on Bush from which to judge him. Bush likes to classify documents and has also re-classified previously declassified documents. There will be none of that talk about his daddy and Iran/Contra if he can help it.

This push to classify and reclassify government records reminded me of the bizarre case of John Lennon, the FBI and author, Jon Weiner. In the early 1970s, Nixon and J. Edgar Hoover decided that John Lennon was an enemy of the state, mostly because he wrote a song called Give Peace a Chance and specifically for organizing a national concert for peace that would coincide with Nixon's 1972 reelection campaign in which that song would be sung over and over along with lots of other peace songs. On February 4, 1972 Strom Thurmond wrote a letter to presidential assistant, Bill Timmons, warning Timmons about Lennon's concert plans and suggesting Lennon's deporation.

In 1981, shortly after Lennon's murder, Jon Wiener requested a copy of that letter and other FBI documents on Lennon through a Freedom of Information Act request. The request was partially fulfilled, but several documents, including the Thurmond letter were mostly blacked out, and 69 pages out of the 281 requested pages were withheld. The reason given was national security. Weiner wondered in his 1999 book Gimme Some Truth, how the 12 year old records of a dead rock star possible endanger national security?"

The rest of Weiner's book chronicles his 1983 lawsuit challenging the national security based denial of his FOIA request. It was the Reagan era and the government was again closing after a brief period of openness and honesty under Carter. Reagan had issued an executive order that took away an public interest balancing act that was created under Carter to allow release of documents when the public interest in the documents outweighed the need for security. Weiner argued that there was no national security benefit in keeping Lennon's FBI file under wraps.

Strangely, Weiner had an uphill battle to fight. They really did not want to release the Lennon files. What could be in there?

Turns out, it was more national embarrassment than national security that provoked the FBI to deny Weiner's FOIA request. Weiner states in his book:
The Lennon FBI files include some comic and hilarious moments. The FBI at points looks more like the Keystone Cops than the Gestapo. But the campaign to "neutralize" Lennon wasn't a joke, it was a crime.

The back of Weiner's book contains the contents of what was finally released from the Lennon FBI files. Weiner calls it the "rock and roll Watergate". The FBI justified their investigation of Lennon because they supposedly had information that Lennon was planning violent and disruptive demonstrations. However, the actual documents showed that Lennon was very concerned about violence and agreed to attend the demonstrations at the Republican National Convention in Miami only "if they are peaceful". There are also documents showing what the FBI did to determine whether or not Lennon actually attended the RNC. There were 1200 arrests and photos were taken and examined to find Lennon. There was never any evidence that he had attended much less been arrested. One would think Lennon being arrested would have been noticed by the crowd at the time.

I also remember as a child a media push to make sure Lennon was seen as anti-religious and a drug addict. Maybe that was the first government led media smear campaign and we just didn't really notice because Lennon likely experimented with drugs and did not seem all that religious. In hindsight, however, Lennon was so much more than what the media was focused on at the time while we accepted their view of him. It was subtle smear, but was probably the precursor to what we see today against anyone who disagrees with the Bush adminisatration. Like I have said before, they are not at all incompetent, they are simply Watergate felons with practice.

If Weiner had to struggle to get copies of documents on the ridiculous and sometimes hilarious stalking of Lennon, can you imagine what lengths Bush and those who will follow him will go to in order to protect their crimes.

Wonder what they are collecting on the Democat? She licked. She ate. She napped in a sunbeam.

Tuesday, March 21, 2006

Seals seals the nomination in the 10th, Kirk beats a Mouse, and Rahm's takeover in the 6th is complete

Ok, sorry about the title I could not resist the easy play on words at this late hour, but it is going to be Dan Seals for the Democrats in the Illinois 10th.

Off the Lake County Clerk's site with all 221 precincts reporting:

Daniel J. Seals . . . 9,116 69.37 Zane Smith . . . 3,998 30.42

Off the Cook County site :

Daniel J. Seals ........5815 70.75% Zane Smith... 2404 29.25%

Congratulations to Dan and thank you Zane for a terrific primary campaign. In his speech (admittedly given before Smith's call, but after the Tribune called the race as folks have to make it to work tomorrow morning), Seals was quite humble, thanked Zane and talked about needed change; change in Iraq policy and change in health care. Seals will be traveling to Israel soon to see it first hand and talk to leaders about their real issues.

Kirk beat his last minute write-in opponent, but rumor has it that some republican ballots went in with a write in of "Mickey Mouse". My advise to political junkies would be to watch the 10th district republican undervote as well. I just peaked at a few precincts, but it looks like there may be some sort of interesting undervote going on.

In other races, Carol Spielman soundly beat her opponent and Mark Curran defeated Larry Oliver. Giannoulias and Blagojevich also took their party's nominations. The party was unable to push Mangieri through, which some think is a mistake because all the statewide Democratic contenders are from Chicago now, but I was glad to see Giannoulias win for his more progressive attitude.

Sadly, to me, it looks like Rahm got his way in the 6th. Does that mean that all one has to do is pour money into a campaign with a complete stranger as the candidate and that works? What does that say about our political process? Will congress ever agree that campaigns have to be publicly funded? Will people ever demand that from their congress?

Quick message

UPDATE: Funny things said to me this morning:

Have you ever heard of Mark Kirk?
The republicans did not want us to vote early.
I don't vote.

Two state policemen were hanging around me for quite a while. I decided to take their interest and constant inquiry as to whether or not I was cold as friendly concern for my health and not harrassment.

*******************

I'm off to go leafletting. Please remember to vote and please vote for Carol Spielman for Lake County Board. Carol devotes her life to helping folks in Lake County and is one of the few truly active Lake County Board members. She deserves to be sent back and we need her!

Bill Crowley for 10th District Committeeman. Alan is a great organizer, but nothing can beat the enormous growth of New Trier and the great fundraising Bill is responsible for. Go Bill!

As for Larry Oliver, he might be a nice guy for a republican, but he does believe that the anti-war protesters should be restricted in where they protest. "Yup, behind a wall" said one of my friends. Vote for Mark Curran to ensure we still have a voice in Lake County.

Alexi Giannoulias is my pic for State Treasurer because he is pro-choice. Paul Mangieri is anti-choice and I just don't want someone on that mission controlling Illinois money. Giannoulias is an experienced banker and from a good family. We can trust him with Illinois money.

Rod Blagojevich is the only pic for governor that makes sense. He is committed to women's rights, education, health care and prescription drug coverage for seniors, not that stupid and expensive Mark Kirk Medicare D. Don't let them turn Illinois red.

Monday, March 20, 2006

Vote for Science

Someone told me today that the schools are eliminating Science. I thought that sounded a bit extreme. Did the religious right have that much power? Were they going to replace science with intelligent design or a prayer hour?

I found out what my friend was talking about. See this January post on Think Progress. It details cuts in Science and other education programs under the Bush regime and links this article on the decline of Science Education in the US due to general cuts in education and No Child Left Behind which tests in math and reading causing schools to concentrate teaching there to safe their lives.

There is also an article here in the June 5, 2005 National Science Teachers Association Newsletter detailing cuts in the National Science Foundation (NSF) which was a major provider of K-12 science programs. NASA is also cutting it science education program.

They are even cutting business and science education for pregnant teens. Where are all those anti-choicers when you need them?

Many are concerned that Americans are falling behind in science and technology. We are losing our ability to innovate and compete around the world.

Today, Bush made a speech in Cleveland and they kept asking him questions. He became exaspirated with the lengthty questioning and asked “Anybody work here in this town?”

Wrong question.

- 5.8 percent: Cleveland unemployment rate, Jan. 2006
- 4.5 percent: Cleveland unemployment rate, Jan. 2001
- 5.3 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2006
- 4.0 percent: Ohio unemployment rate, Jan. 2001
- 31.3 percent: Cleveland poverty rate, 2003
- 24.3 percent: Cleveland poverty rate, 2001

Between oursourcing and lack of credentials, Americans are losing their power to compete in the job market as the nation as a whole is losing its ability to retain jobs, innovate and compete internationally.

Bush and Kirk talk a good game about the need for education and innovation, but when it comes time to act, they pour our resources into fiasco and eliminate needed programs in science education. The administration's priorities are with large corporations seeking huge war profits and cheap service labor. They need us for low wage workers and soldiers, so why educate us?

If there is no other reason for you to go out and vote tomorrow, this should be enough. Even if you are now comfortably within the middle class, you still need to think about your future and your children's future. Go out and vote for the best candidates in to fight the Bush/Kirk regime in November and stop their elimination of science education.

Saturday, March 18, 2006

Democracy best taught by example, not war

When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace.~~Jimi Hendrix


The above quote was drawn on a poster carried by a young anti-war protester at tonight's End the War and Occupation--Troops Home Now march down Michigan Avenue in Chicago. The other side of his sign read: "I voted for Kerry and all I got was this Orwellian Nightmare." Peaceful protest, reflection, chanting, signing, signs, banners and even anti-war puppets marked the third anniversary of the Iraq War, or the Long War as the Administration now likes to call it. I imagine Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Kirk will be happy if we end up calling it the Thousand Year War.

When I first walked into the staging area at Ogden School, I saw a pro-war protester who had nothing of his own at stake in the war screaming at Juan Torres, who lost his son in Iraq. However, from that inauspicious beginning, things were looking up as thousands (maybe as much as 10,000) peacefully marched and chanted east on Oak and then south down Michigan to Wacker to Clark, ending at the Daley Center Plaza. I saw only one other pro-war protester the rest of the night. Dozens of passers by smiled, waived, gave us the peace sign, honked their car horns for peace and generally greeted the protesters warmly. A Feingold for President contingency at the sidelines arouse loud cheers from all over. Even the police seemed relatively at ease, which could be because they were once again in overkill numbers with some in riot gear.

Among the thousands marching down Bowl Mich were dozens of North Suburbanites from NSPI, Northbrook Peace Committee, and North Shore Women for Peace. Behind the anti-war puppets pictured above were Nancy and Lee Goodman of the Northbrook Peace Committee. The puppets were home made. Vickie Bailyn of North Shore Women for Peace and Kerry Hall of NSPI articulated the frustration of the American people as no milestone set by the administration has brought positive results in Iraq. Hall was particularly concerned as each year we are told it will take more time and further milestones, only to be told the same thing the next year. "It will never work," Hall said. Bailyn, whose group concentrates on the cost of war, talked about how a fraction of the cost of the war could help eradicate Malaria that kills thousands of children in Africa each year. "I want my money back," she told fellow protesters.

March organizer, John Beacham, told me that people came out into the cold from all over northern Illinois tonight because the war has gone on too long. He was pleased with the march, the numbers, and the wide area from which protesters came to be on Michigan Avenue. He said that most people are against the war now and that the protesters' "spirits are high."

All in all, it was democracy by example; people expressing their disagreement with the Bush/Kirk war in Iraq, in public, not behind a free speech barrier, freezing their patooties off, using all their creativity, spirit and love to end a bad policy with no end in sight.

It is incredible that organizers had to fight for the permits in a country that is supposed to value free speech and democracy. Thanks go to Andy Thayer for taking up the fight.

More images from tonight are posted below.

Friday, March 17, 2006

No funding for permanent bases in Iraq

Most experts agree that the US assuring the world that it will leave no permanent bases in Iraq would go a long way toward diffusing tensions. Barbara Lee offered this amendment on Thursday:

4:39 P.M.

Amendment offered by Ms. Lee. H.AMDT.750 (A050)

An amendment to prohibit the use of funds from being available to enter into a basing rights agreement between the United States and Iraq.

Watch Reps Lee, Allen, Schakowsky, Conyers, Kucinich, Harman, Jackson-Lee, Price, Waters, Woolsey, Hinchey, and Moran make their case here. In support of her amendment, Ms. Lee said,

This amendment is not about the war, although I offered an alternative to keep us out of Iraq when this war began. This amendment is not about bringing our troops home, although I believe we should do that and do itright away. This amendment is not about holding the President accountable for misleading us into an unjust and unnecessary war, although he should.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment I am offering is very simple. It would provide that no funds would be used under this bill to enter into military base agreements between the United States and Iraq. Stating this will clearly indicate that the United States has no intention of making military bases permanent.

Mr. Chairman, can’t we all agree on that right here and now, that we should not be in Iraq permanently? Unfortunately, this administration’s position is unclear. The President shares our views and said as much, I thought. On April 13, 2004, President Bush said, ‘‘As a proudand independent people, Iraqis do not support an indefinite occupation, and neither does America.’’

But just yesterday, General Abizaid, the general in charge of U.S. troops in Iraq, told a Defense Appropriations Committee that the U.S. could end up having bases in Iraq. So I think we need to be clear. The aim of my amendment is to simply codify the sentiment that the President and many of our constituents and many of us strongly believe here.

As we stand here today, the United States has renewed a bombing campaign against the insurgents, the largest assault since the invasion; and this is taking us in exactly the wrong direction. Destroying villages in the hopes of routing out insurgents only creates more insurgents.

In adopting this amendment, we can take the target off our troops’ backs by sending a strong and immediate signal to the Iraqi people, the insurgents, and the international community that the United States has no designs on Iraq.


Dennis Kuchinch held up a report showing that over $300 Million has already been spent for the building of permanent bases and pointed out that such had not been approved by Congress and was part of the administration lies about its Iraq Policy.

Moran pointed out that with this bill, more will be spent on Iraq than in the entire Vietnam war. He asked, "Does anybody think that that $400 billion was well spent in retrospect?"

The amendment was adopted by voice vote, but how does the congress make sure that funds are used for bases when it simply refuses to hold the administration accountable for any of its actions? Kuchinch showed that base construction is already under way. This appropriation could just free up other money not so restricted and it's base building business as usual for Bush and Halliburton. This is why congress has to being holding the administration accountable for the war, the lies and the attempted distruction of our Constitution.

Meantime, Bush reaffirmed his preemptive war doctrine, and of course, he blew the place to bits again today.

Thursday, March 16, 2006

Senate digs hole deeper

Just a few minutes ago, the Senate voted to increase the debt cap to $9 trillion, about $30,000 for every man, woman and child in the United States. The vote was 52-48 vote, so the Democrats did not go for it.

A good deal of the money will be spent on the Bush emergency spending increase mostly for Iraq with some for Katrina victims, a bill designed to force Congress to keep voting new money for Iraq or risk voting down needed domestic funding. See, they learned from the days of Vietnam when a president laden with scandal could not prevent Congress from finally refusing to fund the war. Now, they just make sure each war appropriation bill is glued to a needed domestic appropriation bill. It's being debated in the House now (H.R. 4939). Many are concerned that Bush is overusing his ability to request emergency spending for routine spending. I know what they mean. I have found in my career that when someone asks me for something on an emergency basis, they are usually up to no good and are banking that I will miss something in the details. That is why I like to slow things way down whenever someone is rushing me.

A lot of our debt is owned by foreign countries like China. Don't be surprised if one day your child is cleaning toilets in some restaurant in Hong Kong to pay it back.

President Bush Censured

The Democat and I voted. It was unanimous:

Resolved, That Ellen's Illinois Tenth Congressional District Blog does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

Take your own stand.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Stick it!

A long time ago, my mom told me that David E. Kelley was speaking truth on Boston Legal, the spin off show of the Practice. I kept forgetting to watch it because it wasn't on Sunday night. However, last night, I was so disgusted with the Senate for failing to support Russ Feingold, that I plopped down in front of the TV and watched David E. Kelley, through actor James Spader, tell the government to "Stick It".

In case you have never watched it, Boston Legal is about a law firm in Boston owned by Murphy Brown, Star Trek's Captain Kirk, Spader and the former shape shifter, Odo of Deep Space Nine. They have a bunch of associates with careers and clothes that are quite a bit more interesting than mine was when I worked at a law firm. In last nights episode, a secretary was on trial for tax evasion because she filed her latest tax return including a Post-it note on which she wrote the words "Stick It" instead of a check for the $400 she owed, leaving us to wonder what bad tax planning she had to owe $400 on a secretary's salary.

The judge was no nonsense, the DA was trying to use her as an example and Spader's character had to figure out how to keep her out of jail when she was guilty as charged. She told him she wanted to make a statement because her grandfather had fought in WWII and always told her about the America he had fought for, one that was brave and free. She was embarrassed by the government's recent behavior. He told her to forget the sappy story as the jury would not buy it, but she told him he had better get with the program and find something to fight for in her story.

Spader's character found his fight and made a closing argument including a litany of embarrassing things done by the Bush administration from selling a war on a lie to torture to illegal spying on Americans. He told the jury that the secretary was not anti-American, but simply embarrassed by what her country had done and wanted to make a statement. He asked the jury if they were not embarrassed also because surely someone had to be. He described his client as a woman protesting the wrong committed by her government and wondered why no one was rising up as wrong after wrong was committed. He ended with this:
I know we are all afraid, but the Bill of Rights--we have to live up to that. We simply must.

The jury found her guilty, but the judge gave her a suspended 30 day sentence. I think Kelley knew she had to be found guilty or he would be accused of urging folks not to pay their taxes in the real world. Spader, however, asked the main question as we watch senators scurrying away from Feingold's stand for the Constitution. Why is no one rising up as wrong after wrong is being committed by this government?

In this case, art is way ahead of real life as a pretty secretary at a law firm who flirts with her boss actually gets what is going on in the country. Few of the attorneys I work with have even heard of NSA spying, Abu Ghraib or Russ Fenigold and have no idea what is going on in Iraq and fewer care. The paralegals and secretaries that I know (with one notable exception) would rather chew on ground glass than discuss government, war or politics. We should care, but we also elect leaders who we put in a position to know the facts and trust them to lead and advise us. With only 3 exceptions, they have been failing miserably. To the senators who will not support Feingold and the congressmen who will not support Conyers and Murtha, of both parties, I say Stick It!

Watch James Spader deliver the closing argument, or read it yourself here.

Tuesday, March 14, 2006

It is really very simple

Kirk can list WMD pretending to Lincoln's greatness and ending up only the coward's version; he can hide behind his suburban strategy of avoiding national issues to clock metra trains, and he can go around to synagogues and speak at kids' Bat Mitzvahs reving up the fear in the Jewish community all he wants, but it is really very simple. Kirk doesn't get it. Russ Feingold does:
Of course, there is no doubt that if we lived in a police state, it would be easier to catch terrorists... And that would not be a country for which we could, in good conscience, ask our young people to fight and die. In short, that would not be America.~~Russ Feingold

It's time to get it, folks:

RESOLUTION
Relating to the censure of George W. Bush.

Whereas Congress passed the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.), and in so doing provided the executive branch with clear authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 has been amended multiple times since 1978, to expand the surveillance authority of the executive branch and address new technological developments;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 states that it and the criminal wiretap law are the `exclusive means by which electronic surveillance' may be conducted by the United States Government and makes it a crime to wiretap individuals without complying with this statutory authority;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 permits the Government to initiate wiretapping immediately in emergencies as long as the Government obtains approval from the court established under section 103 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (50 U.S.C. 1803) within 72 hours of initiating the wiretap;

Whereas the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 authorizes wiretaps without the court orders otherwise required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 for the first 15 days following a declaration of war by Congress;

Whereas the Authorization for Use of Military Force that became law on September 18, 2001 (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note), did not grant the President the power to authorize wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas the President's inherent constitutional authority does not give him the power to violate the explicit statutory prohibition on warrantless wiretaps in the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;

Whereas George W. Bush, President of the United States, has authorized and continues to authorize wiretaps by the National Security Agency of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978;
Whereas President George W. Bush has failed to inform the full congressional intelligence committees about this program, as required by the National Security Act of 1947 (50 U.S.C. 401 et seq.);

Whereas President George W. Bush repeatedly misled the public prior to the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program by indicating his Administration was relying on court orders to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by stating--
(1) on April 20, 2004, that `When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.';

(2) on July 14, 2004, that `the government can't move on wiretaps or roving wiretaps without getting a court order'; and

(3) on June 9, 2005, that `Law enforcement officers need a federal judge's permission to wiretap a foreign terrorist's phone, a federal judge's permission to track his calls, or a federal judge's permission to search his property. Officers must meet strict standards to use any of these tools.';

Whereas President George W. Bush has, since the public disclosure of the National Security Agency surveillance program, falsely implied that the program was necessary because the executive branch did not have authority to wiretap suspected terrorists inside the United States, by making statements about the supposed need for the program, including--
(1) on January 25, 2006, stating at the National Security Agency that `When terrorist operatives are here in America communicating with someone overseas, we must understand what's going on if we're going to do our job to protect the people. The safety and security of the American people depend on our ability to find out who the terrorists are talking to, and what they're planning. In the weeks following September the 11th, I authorized a terrorist surveillance program to detect and intercept al Qaeda communications involving someone here in the United States.'; and

(2) on January 31, 2006, asserting during the State of the Union that `The terrorist surveillance program has helped prevent terrorist attacks. It remains essential to the security of America. If there are people inside our country who are talking with al Qaeda, we want to know about it, because we will not sit back and wait to be hit again.'; and

Whereas President George W. Bush inaccurately stated in his January 31, 2006, State of the Union address that `Previous Presidents have used the same constitutional authority I have, and federal courts have approved the use of that authority.', even though the President has failed to identify a single instance since the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 became law in which another President has authorized wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, and no Federal court has evaluated whether the President has the inherent authority to authorize wiretaps inside the United States without complying with the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That the United States Senate does hereby censure George W. Bush, President of the United States, and does condemn his unlawful authorization of wiretaps of Americans within the United States without obtaining the court orders required by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, his failure to inform the full congressional intelligence committees as required by law, and his efforts to mislead the American people about the authorities relied upon by his Administration to conduct wiretaps and about the legality of the program.

and the republicans? say anything to keep their power...
Specter actually argued on the floor of the Senate that Bush's actions were ok because FISA is unconstitutional. FISA unconsitutional, but the actual spying on Americans without controls is consitututional? Frist brought up Iran...fear...fear...fear. He said he was "hoping deep inside that the leadership in Iran was not listening," as if giving up our constitution would be a good message for us to send to the world. I am hoping the leadership of every country in the world is listening to Feingold because then they would know that Americans mean business about American values and will fight for them.

What does incompetence have to do with it?

If you do a Google search on the words Bush incompetent, you get 5,900,000 results. Cafe Press is selling bumper stickers. The Economist called him incompetent in 2004 and endorsed Kerry. Richard Reeves of the International Herald Tribune called Bush incompetent for dividing the country when he promised to unite us. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called him incompetent in Iraq when he declared major combat operations over. Joe Biden called him incompetent just this past Sunday. Over 70% of Brits think he's incompetent. Don't even get the French started. They might just rename Café Américaine, Liberté Café.

I don't agree.

I don't think Bush is incompetent. Maybe personally he's not the sharpest steak knive in the silverware drawer, but his administration is not at all incompetent. They are very good at doing what they care about:

Wars on Terror and Iraq and everything that goes with them
They wanted a war in Iraq and they got a war in Iraq. They wanted a perpetual war on terror without actually catching any of the terrorists, most of whom came from countries Bush considers friends. They wanted to call the shots in Iraq without UN or NATO intervention and they did not want to share lucrative oil and reconstruction contracts with EU nations. They got all that. They wanted Americans to be fearful enough to agree to endless war despite early and constant military failure, and it worked. They wanted chaos so they could take the oil and steal reconstruction money, and they got it. They did not want to spend too much on the safety and comfort of our soldiers and they don't, forcing parents to foot much of the body armor bill. They even managed to snuff out most internal opposition with their rollercoaster of multicolored terror alerts and managed to get most Americans to assent to illegal NSA spying claiming the old, nonsensical adage that "you have nothing to worry about if you are not guilty of anything." Here is what Dave Swanson of After Downing Street blog and has to say about it.

An Economy for the Rich
Over the last several decades, the average American had a pretty good shot of making a good living and having a decent life. Everyone, including the very rich, had to pay their fair share of taxes to support all the programs making it possible. There was K through High School public education to give children a head start. There were college grants and scholarships. There were labor laws ending child labor, improving safety and creating a reasonable work day and fairness laws creating opportunity for women and minorities. Securities and banking laws made investing safer and relatively cheap mortgage money made home ownership a real possibility for many. Bankruptcy laws that existed for decades allowed those who got themselves in trouble a fresh start with the courts policing to prevent abuse. The average American could live in a decent home, get a relatively decent job, start a business and sometimes even invest a bit. Bush's rich friends did not like paying their fair share of taxes and the corporations didn't much like depleating CEO salaries to give the benefits and pensions that gave the average Americans a break even though all that operated to create one of the largest and most active markets for products sold by these corporations. So, the Bush administration works to dismantle the laws, allow corporations to eliminate benefits and pensions, and move taxes down to the middle class and poor. Event the disaster of Hurricane Katrina hasn't stopped Bush's ability to shower the wealthy on the backs of the poor. Now, they just have an entire city to sell out from under the former residents. As this progresses, everyone will be on their own. A few will do ok, and the rest will sink into poverty. There will be a large underclass of poor ready to take any bad job for any low salary. They won't need slave labor in China and Saipan as they will able to get cheap, downtrodden labor right here in the US. As the US is sold to the rest of the world, particularly China, there will be new markets for the products of the rich corporations. It's win win for Bush's wealthy friends.

Control
Historically, with some notable exceptions involving times we have been at war, Americans have been a little hard to control, sort of like herding cats. We like art, sports, cars, sex (although hypocritically we deny it), our own opinions, fashion, toys, movies, travel, Thanksgiving and Christmas and general fun. Bush, using terror, war and fake religion, has managed to make us afraid and strangely obedient. There is a war on Christmas; CEOs stealing is ok, but sex is bad; Hollywood is sinful; Stern has to leave broadcast radio and Janet Jackson has to stay away from the Super Bowl; travel is dangerous; fashion has to conform (ask Cindy Sheehan about her t-shirt collection); no one can afford much of anything else. Ironically, most do not even espouse the controlling religion leaving most of us wondering how they managed it. They even get to have a database of our telephone calls, activities, medical records and other information once considered private. They can use any of our actions against us at any time from who we talk to to what we buy. You don' t have to be a guilty terrorist to have done something embarrassing they can use against you to discredit you if it suits their fancy. That will be the early elimination of political opponents. The ultimate insult to injury is their newly disclosed control over history as they reclassify previously declassified documents to hide the former blunders and illegal acts of these same leaders under the Reagan and Bush I administrations (particularly the atrocities of Iran/Contra) and lay the groundwork to hide their current misdeeds.

All in all, the Bush administration is fairly competent at accomplishing what it wants to accomplish: war, fear, power, control, money. Never for a moment should we think these folks are really trying to govern the country or work to help the average American.

Never for a moment should we attribute their actions to incompetence.

Incompetence is simply their cover.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Bushism coming home to roost

All those soccer moms who thought that the Bush administration would keep them safe and all those religious folks who thought Bush was a man of God (along with the rest of us) will now get to see the Bush policies come home to roost up close and personal in a most unsafe and ungodly fashion.

One example is the revised Bankruptcy Act, written by the credit card industry and adopted by the Bush republicans, that hurts ordinary people just trying to get by in this world. Gee I don't remember Jesus saying anything like "blessed are the credit card companies", however, under the new bankruptcy law, they certainly are poised to inherit the world. Case in point:

In Re Guillermo Alfonso Sosa and Melba Nelly Sosa, Case No. 05-20097-FM, Chapter 13, ironically from the US Bankruptcy Court in the Western District of Texas. The Sosas filed for Chapter 13 after the changes went into effect. Thereafter, Mr. Sosa had some of the required credit counseling. Mrs. Sosa had none. Here is what Judge Frank Monroe had to say about the revisions themselves:

Those responsible for the passing of the Act did all in their power to avoid the proffered input from sitting United States Bankruptcy Judges, various professors of bankruptcy law at distinguished universities, and many professional associations filled with the best of the bankruptcy lawyers in the country as to the perceived flaws in the Act. This is because the parties pushing the passage of the Act had their own agenda. It was apparently an agenda to make more money off the backs of the consumers in this country. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Act has been highly criticized across this country. In this writer's opinion, to call the Act a "consumer protection" Act is the grossest of misnomer.

The Judge goes on to describe the effect of one of the provision requiring phone or internet credit counseling prior to filing:
One of the more absurd provision of the new Act makes an individual ineligible for relief under the Bankruptcy Code unless such individual, "has, during the 180-day period preceding the date of filing of the petition by such individual, received from an approved nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency described in section 111(a) an individual or group briefing (including a briefing conducted by telephone or on the Internet) that outlined the opportunities for available credit counseling and assisted such individual in performing a related budget analysis." See 11 U.S. C. section 109(h)(1). No doubt this is a truly exhaustive budget analysis.

The Sosas were in a hurry to file because their home was being foreclosed. They did not get the counseling before filing as required because they had been working with the mortgage company and thought they would agree on a payment plan, but at the last minute, the mortgage company said no deal and filed foreclosure. The Sosas were caught unprepared and scrambled to comply. However, the judge was bound by the law and had to dismiss the Sosa's Chapter 13.

Here was the Judge's decision:
One Debtor has now substantially complied with the intent of the Act by undergoing the required credit counseling. One has not but still could within the time limit if a waiver could be granted. However, because the Debtors did not request such counseling before they filed their case, Congress says they are ineligible for relief under the Act. Can any rational human being make a cogent argument that this makes any sense at all?

But let’s not stop there. If the Debtors’ case is dismissed and they re-file a new case within the next year, it may be that some creditor will take the position that the new case should be presumed to be filed not in good faith. See 11 U.S.C. §362(c)(3)(C). Section 362 further states that if subsection (c)(3)(C) applies, then the stay in that second case will only be good for thirty days unless the debtor (i) files a motion, (ii) obtains a hearing and ruling by the Court within such thirty-day period and (iii) proves by clear and convincing evidence that the second case was filed in good faith. It should be obvious to the reader at this point how truly concerned Congress is for the individual consumers of this country. Apparently, it is not the individual consumers of this country that make the donations to the members of Congress that allow them to be elected and re-elected and re-elected and re-elected.

The Court’s hands are tied. The statute is clear and unambiguous. The Debtors violated the provision of the statute outlined above and are ineligible to be Debtors in this case. It must, therefore, be dismissed.

Judge Monroe later said that he felt the credit counseling requirement did not come from a genuine desire within congress to help folks stay out of bankruptcy. It was nothing more than a roadblock to help creditor's attorneys avoid bankruptcies for their clients because telephone and internet counseling is meaningless, not the rigorous counseling people would really need. I would add that the requirement also fails to take into account the fact that medical emergencies are the largest cause of bankruptcy. By the time people get to the bankruptcy filing stage, they are at the "end of their rope". A little internet counseling won't matter much.

Of Judge Monroe's opinion, one Chicago bankruptcy attorney was quoted as saying:
[Monroe's unusually strong language represents] "the pot boiling over" [in frustration at the Act which took effect Oct. 17.] "It's the kind of thing people know but that you don't write down."


Why would an experienced bankruptcy Judge not be able to write this down? Why must we be knowing, but silent. Are we suppposed to be so cowed by the Bush administration and their henchmen in the republican congress that even experienced banrkuptcy judges must be silent about what goes on in their courtrooms? Does speaking out on behalf of poor bankrupt folks somehow "help the terrorists"?

Luckily, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was not feeling cowed last week when she described the attacks on the judiciary as a step toward dictatorship. She said, but was little quoted in the news:

We must be ever-vigilant against those who would strong-arm the judiciary into adopting their preferred policies. It takes a lot of degeneration before a country falls into dictatorship, but we should avoid these ends by avoiding these beginnings.

Is dictatorship the ultimate Bushism coming home to roost?

Friday, March 10, 2006

In search of...

the white furry lobster and a member of congress who stands for something.

Back next week.

Thursday, March 09, 2006

UPDATE on H.R. 4167

They voted yesterday on H.R. 4167. See my earlier post on this topic. Mark Kirk voted yes on this bill which wen it becomes law will kill all state law on food labeling and open the door for genetically engineered and irradiated food to go undisclosed in our foods.

Wonder which lobbyist wrote and got this bill passed and what they ate at the meeting.

If you haven't already, watch Store Wars and see Cuke Skywalker, Ham Solo and Chew Broccoli save Princess Lettuce from the evil Darth Tater. Yogurt is pretty cute too.

A couple of amendments also passed:

one offered by Debbie Wasserman Schultz "to prevent the National Uniformity for Food Act from affecting any State law, regulation, proposition or other action that establishes a notification requirement regarding the presence or potential effects of mercury in fish and shellfish"; and

another offered by Dennis A. Cardoza for "expedited consideration of state petitions that seek adoption of national warning requirements or exemptions from uniformity for state warning requirements in three cases: (1) where the requested warning relates to cancer-causing agents; (2) where the requested warning related to reproductive effects or birth defects; and (3) where the requested warning is intended to provide information that will allow parents or guardians to understand, monitor, or limit a child's exposure to cancer-causing agents or reproductive or developmental toxins."

Will Legislate for Food

There is a homeless guy who hangs out at the Adams Street entrace to Union Station. He sits on a ledge next to the bridge over the Chicago River with a small cardboard sign that reads Hungry Cold Homeless Please Help. Occasionally, folks drop change into his paper box. He was sort of flush a few days ago when the Quaker Oats people were handing out samples of their new breakfast bar and most folks who took the samples then gave them to the homeless guy, but how much of that granola stuff can you eat without stomach problems--sort reminded me of the part of Steinbeck's The Grapes of Wrath when the refugee dust bowl farmers had nothing to eat but the peaches they were picking as migrant workers and got sick from eating them.

Yesterday, Senators agreed not to accept meals from registered lobbyist by voting in a bill sponsored by Sens. Christopher J. Dodd (D-Conn.) and Rick Santorum (R-Pa.). The bill represents a bunch of guys who can well afford to feed themselves pledging to do just that while still getting thousands in campaign contributions from registered lobbyist, a bunch of other guys equally able to feed themselves and some major African countries. They rejected a Democratic proposal to also ban lobbyist-paid travel. Santorum still meets with his same lobbyists, same time, every week, just 3 blocks away and they are still feeding both his campaign coffers and the revolving door of former gop aids into K street lobbying firms.

Maybe if our Union Station homeless guy brings the Quaker Oats bars to the Senate he can get a Senator or two to meet with him and reconsider the cuts they made (with the help of Congressmen like Mark Kirk) to education, temporary aid for needy families, medicare, child support, foodstamps and family farm support....

Wednesday, March 08, 2006

Writing tyranny into law

The House got its turn yesterday and voted for the merely modestly reformed patriot act reauthorization. Kirk voted yes along with his Washington/Texas handlers in the 280-138 vote.

In his reaction to the passage of the reauthorization, republican senator Bill Frist made it clear that the law has little to do with catching terrorists and more to do with extra-constitutional means of conventional law enforcement:
This legislation is a win for law enforcement, the war on drugs, and for communities and families across America.

The founders of our country created the Bill of Rights to prevent the abuses they saw under the European monarchies. Crime was well handled in this country for over 200 years without this new super police. As Al Gore put it in his January 16, 2006 speech, "it is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms and now it is up to us to do the same."

The risk is that these new police powers will be turned, not against terrorists or criminals, but political opponents and ordinary folks who just happened to disagree with administration policies. The desired outcome is to reduce government accountability. Since the government is intertwined with corporate interests, corporate accountability is now also at risk. Tyranny from government and tyranny from multi-national corporate interests is what we can expect from Kirk's vote.

Tuesday, March 07, 2006

Bad things happen to good people

One of my Ohio friends sent me this note:
Why is it young, vibrant, talented, loyal, dedicated people like Dana Reeve dies, and nothing seems to happen to mean, evil, destructive people like [well you can imagine who he said]...

The thing is that Dana's cancer and Chris' horsebackriding accident were not punishment for anything. They just happened... a slip up on a horse, a cell gone awry and multiplying. Dana died of lung cancer and never even smoked.

Taking it further to wild comments coming from the far right: Aids is not a punishment for sexual behavior. Hurricane Katrina was not a punishment for voo doo in New Orleans or shaped like a fetus as punishment for abortion. It is really an insult to all of humanity to go down the route of finding this type of blame. It would mean that the innocent little baby who dies of a brain tumor did something wrong or that the daughter whose dad died of a heart attack needs to remember him as a bad person or to take the blame herself.

Bad things happen to good people and when we hear that it was somehow deserved for some transgression against fundamentalist values, remember that it is just a control mechanism the right wingers like to use to force their beliefs on other people.

As for why nothing bad seems to ever happen to bad people...well they usually have enough money to prevent anything really bad fr