This is a yard ornament in Rossville, Illinois, which is a small town in Northwest Illinois, about an hour and a half south of Chicago. Of course, I'm a Cards fan, but I do have a soft place in my heart for the Cubs! It is a cute Holiday greeting! We hope that everyone is having a great Christmas and a Happy New Year!
I saw three Sunday news talking heads shows this morning - Chris Matthews, Meet the Press, and ABC Sunday Morning. Once again, on KFVS, the CBS affiliate out of the Cape Girardeau, MO, both CBS Sunday Morning and Face the Nation were not shown - instead, they were replaced by African-American based news talk shows. These were interesting shows, and I applaud KFVS for airing them. I’m not sure they should be pre-empting Sunday Morning and Face the Nation for them - instead, let’s pre-empt other shows like stupid game shows and show more intelligent issues discussion shows more often.
I am becoming more and more convinced that Chris Matthews is trying to take over for the up and coming retirement of McLaughlin, leader of the long time “McLaughlin Group” PBS news talking head show. (featuring Pat Buchanan, Eleanor Clift, Clarence Page, and others) Matthews show is pretty much the same as McLaughlin’s, only not quite as good, even though that doesn’t mean it isn’t good. It just isn't quite an authentic as the original.
McLaughlin had his annual show where he asks his participants about what was some high water mark event in a certain issue venue that occurred during the past year. For example, he might ask the panel for their opinion on what was the biggest political blunder of the year. All of the panelist would give their opinion, and then McLaughlin would give the “final answer.”
Matthew’s show was about identical. However, it was weakened because he gave a “multiple choice” examination instead of just asking for opinions. These pre-determined answers, which most of the contestants, uh, I mean, participants, stuck to, gave the impression to me of trying to lead political thinking. That weakened the presentation. Give it up Mr. Matthews. Your opinion isn’t any better than anyone else’s. Let the talking heads talk on their own!
For example, how could two of the panelists say that Hillary’s very minor mis-speaking about Spitzer’s proposal to give undocumented workers driver’s licenses was the biggest political turning point of the year? Give me a break. I’m not for Hillary, but I’m not against her that much either. I just think that it’s time for a change, and I don’t see Hillary as a significant change. I fit right into the mainstream media’s characterization of the race, I think, but it’s true. But if anyone thinks that Hillary's answer about that question in that one debate was THE defining political moment of the year, that stretches the imagination compared with statements made by others, like former attorney general Gonzales, Larry Craig, and even Bush himself. What about Bush's statement referring to WWIII in relation to Iran? Is Chris Matthews that fixated on Hillary? Based on his facination and continuing coverage of Hillary throughout the year, I would say that Mr. Matthews has more than just a passing interest in Ms. Hillary.
Meet the Press had a long interview with Ron Paul by Tim Russert. Kristi and I both thought that Russert was mean and kind of dirty. He didn’t ask one question about the environment or public lands. He didn't give Paul one softball. Nevertheless, Paul handled himself well, and will likely get a lot more votes than predicted. There’s a lot of people out there that think that we are wasting our money protecting and arming other governments that don’t really like us. Paul makes some very bold statements about our foreign policy that I give him credit for having the nerve to say. His push for smaller government has an appeal, and his call to do away with the “income” tax is applauded by many who hate April 15. But government is never that simple, especially for a complex nation like ours. But we probably could (and are doing) do worse for a president.
Stephanopolous had Guiliani. I declared Guiliani toast several weeks ago when the news came out that he had spent city money on security for his weekend trysts to his mistress’ place. Even though he gave a decent interview, I don’t change that view.
Their roundtable was interesting. The Republicans on the panel - Will and Roberts, are now supporting McCain. McCain may be the most formidable opponent against the Democrats, and I’m sure the Dems don’t want to face him. But I think the Republicans are only doing what the Dems did 4 years ago when they picked Kerry. But it is interesting that McCain’s stock now is rising. Both Will and Roberts said that this could be a brokered convention for the Republicans - their first in decades.
Also, everyone is saying that Edwards is making some kind of surge in Iowa. Obama is starting to mention him in his stump speech. I still think Obama is going to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and S. Carolina, on the way to the nomination. But, Edwards is certainly fighting and making it interesting. And of course, the Democratic machine of the Clinton’s grinds forward, and no one knows for sure how much it will bulldoze into it’s pile when the time comes. Oh, isn’t it grand? Jan. 5, 2008 is going to be a great day for the pundits.
On Nov. 13, I posted an entry entitled "Another Sleazy IDNR FOIA Adventure." In that post I included an email exchange that I had with the IDNR trying to get some records about an IDNR committee which local IDNR officials had told us existed, and had been in charge of the exhibits in the IDNR's Cache River Wetlands Visitors Center, near Karnak, Illinois.
In that exchange, at least 3 IDNR personnel had responded to my emails in which my original email was included - meaning that they had absolutely received it. That original email contained my FOIA request for members of this so-called committee, dates when they met, minutes, etc. Even after three officials had received my request, their "official" response to my request was that they didn't receive any such request. Geez, how disgusting can a government agency be?
Well, I appealed that to the IDNR Director. Instead of a ruling on appeal, I got a response a few days ago from the IDNR FOIA officer, one of the three officials that had previously received my request, but who would not acknowledge it. Her response is a form that has a box checked which says, "No such record or report exists in this agency."
Oh really? Then why were local agency officials telling The Citizen's Committee to Save the Cache that there was such a committee that made these decisions? Why did John and Martha Schwegmann identify themselves as part of such a committee in their email? What about this committee, IDNR? Is this an example of "secret government," or were you just lying all along? How was this committee chosen? What authority did they operate under? Or, as I said in my original post Nov. 13, was this just a bunch of the "good ol' boys" club getting together and making up history to make themselves look good and leave out anyone who questioned their decisions? I think the latter is exactly what happened.
We need an investigation by the Illinois Attorney General into this. There is currently a lack of confidence in the local IDNR leadership for the Cache. They are either being secretive or lying. Neither is good. A recent story in the Vienna Times newpaper lays out many of the mistakes and problems with the exhibition at the Cache River Wetlands Center. It is time that the IDNR address this honestly, and if it means some people getting axed, then so be it. This is not the caliber of state government we expect in a state dominated by Democrats, and one where one of our U.S. Senators is a top contending candidate for President, campaigning on changing the way that government operates.
I was listening on the radio to Bush's press conference this morning. Fortunately, my listening got interrupted by a phone call. But before that blessed phone call came and saved me from the ignoramus, I heard him respond to a question about global warming. The questioner asked why his EPA chief had ruled that California and other states could not adopt more stringent standards than the federal government for controlling greenhouse gasses.
Bush, who as a Republican, should be for "state's rights" (he is when it is politically convenient, like overturning Roe v. Wade, a typically republican trait), gave a rather unusual answer - he said that addressing global warming required a "national strategy." We can't a bunch of these renegade states running around and doing more than the federal government. That just wouldn't work! What a bunch of BS. Why can't he just say that he wants to protect all his big industry buddies from having to make meaningful changes in how they operate? We all know that is what he is really saying and doing.
But nooooo, he said he had a NATIONAL strategy for addressing global warming. He even said that he had told Al Gore in their recent meeting about their strategy. (Can you believe he actually had the nerve to say Gore's name?) Then he laid out the strategy. It had three basic parts.
Part one, Bush said, is the energy bill that Congress just passed and he signed. He said that the bill required cars to get "35 miles per hour." Um, I guess he meant miles per gallon. What he didn't say is that the requirement doesn't kick in for another 12 years. Sure, we got time to wait, right? And is a standard that goes from 25 miles per gallon to 35 any kind of real change? Hah! If we as a nation couldn't do at least 35 in a year or two, and 100 or 200 miles per gallon by 2020, then what kind of technological giant are we? Not much of one, I guess.
Part two, Bush said, is that we need to start building more nuke plants. Nuke energy is clean, he said - good for global warming. Shows he has no concept of how many greenhouse gasses are emitted during the mining, processing, and disposal of nuclear materials. He must not know how many billions of dollars U.S. taxpayers are paying for "cleaning up" (and pretty ineffectively for the most part) all of the contamination and illness caused by nuclear processing and energy. Of, if he does know, which he should as president, he is just lying, at which he seems to be pretty good. Nuclear energy is not an answer to global warming.
Part three, he said, was "clean" coal. What is that? The concept of clean coal is a oxymoron. It just isn't possible to have clean coal, especially when you are referring to CO2 releases. Coal is one of the most concentrated forms of stored carbon in the ground, and it it virtually impossible to dig it up, haul it and burn it without some if not a lot of that carbon ending up in the air.
What this comes down to is that Bush is telling the American people that we don't have to worry about changing the way we live at all, but that we will be fighting global warming. He doesn't want to tell people that they have to really make serious changes in lifestyle because that will hurt the big corporations that are getting rich off the consumerism that drives the global warming economy. But the fact is that we have big changes ahead as a society if we are going to sustain our nation and other nations. If we don't, then it isn't going to be pretty.
If the American people believe Bush after all of his mistakes then I guess overall, as a nation, we get what we have coming. But he is, once again, lying to the American people. He has NO strategy to combat global warming. He is a shrill for the status quo, and for big business, that doesn't want changes. But, if the people allow this kind of deception and out and out lying by our number one executive to go on repeatedly without any accountability, then we are fools. What is it that Bush said? " Fool me once????........."
A spokesperson for California was quoted on NPR this morning as saying that the state will sue and sue and sue the federal government until they get the right to set their own standards. With former presidential candidate Jerry Brown in the California Attorney General's office, I can believe that. Go Jerry go! Hopefully the judicial branch is independent enough to understand the importance of these issues. I still have some respect for the judicial branch, but the laws for suing the government are horrible and unfair. It just shows how bad the government is when they lose lawsuits.
I can't wait to hear what all the other big shot republicans have to say about state's rights after this one? Of course, the republicans have become the biggest hypocrites on the political mainstage. They preach "family values" and "morality," but they sleep around, funnel money to their cronies, lie, make war, and all kinds of "immoral" acts (according to their own definitions.) They decry "illegal" immigration, but they use "illegal" immigrants to do jobs they don't want to do. I just hope that the people can see through all of this and get rid of these kind of characters from our government. They are dragging our nation toward disaster on a number of fronts.
Oh why oh why was the first thing Pelosi did as speaker of the house to take impeachment of the president and vice president off the table? What was she thinking?
It's so hard to know where to begin.
David Cox, the editorial writer for the ultra-conservative Paducah Sun, has done it again. Upon the heels of the hate spewing, fact challenged editorial on Al Gore that Mark Donham so eloquently debunked, we now have the revisionist history of religion in America in his recent editorial entitled "Faith".
Cox goes through the usual pablum of talking points handed down from the Pat Robertson school of thought in an effort to prove that our Constitution is wrong in prohibiting a religious test of any candidate for office.
Without inflicting his editorial on the readers here I'll hold my nose and offer some short quotes that address and summarize the central points from his misbegotten piece of trash.
"Does a president’s religion matter? It matters immensely." Does this mean that an athiest or agnostic is not capable of holding American values dear or that they could not adequately serve as POTUS?
"Debate moderators are asking the candidates, the Republicans anyway, religious questions — if they believe the Bible is true and whether they accept the theory of evolution." It's worth noting that the questions are less about religion but more about the candidates ability to separate science from superstition. And since Republicans seem to have a particular problem with this distinction, they should be asked the question. The American electorate has a right to know if a candidate doesn't believe in gravity or any other proven scientific theory including evolution.
"...Americans are a religious people. Religion — particularly Christianity, with its many sects and denominations — was central to the founding of this country." This is a myth that fundamentalist sects have been trying to sell even before Republicans became joined at the hip with religious fanatics. The law of our land says otherwise. First off, our Constitution, which Cox never brings up anywhere in his editorial, is a secular document. God is never mentioned in it.
Secondly, Art. 11 of The Treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion...". For those, like Cox, who are ignorant of the law, treaties ratified by Congress are law as defined by the Constitution. The Treaty of Tripoli was negotiated during George Washington's tenure and signed into law by then President John Adams. It was unanimously ratified by a Senate made up of many of the Founders of our nation (imagine obstructionist Mitch McConnell endorsing such a treaty).
Moreover, the public of the day was well aware of the negotiations through the periodicals of the time and there was no public outcry. All of the signers were returned to public office.
As the writer, Ed Buckner, Ph.D., so eloquently stated, "From our perspective these men may be heroes, but in truth the vote they cast was ordinary, routine, normal. It was, in other words, quite well accepted, only a few years after first the Constitution and then the First Amendment were ratified, that "the Government of the United States of America was not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."
Another statement by Cox, "The combination of religious devotion and religious tolerance is uniquely American, and that gives the question of our leaders’ religion unique relevance in America." is little more than a demonstration of ignorance of American history. (Where do the Paxtons' find these people?)
True, during the 1500's and 1600's many theists came to America to escape religious persecution but by the time our nation was founded in the late 1700's and early 1800's this had changed and the nation was rift with religious intolerance. Many states, like Virginia and elsewhere, required every citizen to pay taxes to support a particular religion. Fundamentalists burned "witches" at the stake. Politicians had to run on a religious platform, not unlike what Cox now advocates. Article VI (...no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.) was specifically written to address these abuses and Cox conspicuously avoids any mention of this in his editorial. Instead he cherry picks quotes from various writers in an attempt to prove a fundamentalist perspective that has no foundation in the Constitution.
David Cox and his handlers in the Paxton Media Group come from a long line of conservatives who use religion as a political weapon. But as our Founders wisely knew, when politics and religion are mixed, both are corrupted which is why they drafted a religiously neutral Constitution and nation.
To give the man credit, he did get one point right, "While the strength and character of some American leaders reflected their religious convictions, others by their actions betrayed their religion. A president’s religion has not always been a reliable predictor of his competence." George W. Bush is a case in point.
The opinions of writers are not the same as the law of the land and thankfully so. Otherwise, David Cox would be a dangerous man instead of just another historically challenged, ultra conservative on the Paxton payroll.
Beautiful fall sunset over Bear Lake in the Boundary Waters or northern Minnesota. We took this photo fall of 2006. Isn't it beautiful?
Of course, Paxton media group, which owns the Paducah Sun (actually the "parent" publication of the corporation), is one of the most kneejerk, radical, anti-environmental publications in the country. But one would think that after they have been wrong repeatedly in major environmental issues in their own community, that they would be a little cautious about mindlessly attacking the number one environmental advocate in the world at the current time - Al Gore.
The Paducah Sun was way wrong on the LWD issue. LWD stands for (or stood for) Liquid Waste Disposal. LWD operated a hazardous waste incinerator in Calvert City, Kentucky, not too far from here. Environmental interests, including myself, kept telling the Sun and the region that this was a disaster in the making, and that it should be closed down immediately. The Sun lead the attack on us, telling the area that we were "extremist" environmentalists, and that having a hazardous waste incinerator in our neighborhood was just fine, even if they were bringing in toxic waste from across the country to burn. And, how dare anyone suggest that the facility wasn't being run to the letter of the law!
But environmentalists wouldn't let up. This is going to end up costing the taxpayers of the state millions in cleanup, we kept saying. But the Sun wouldn't listen. They kept hammering us. But wasn't it interesting when the state, faced with a company declaring bankruptcy, while the industries that were supplying it were suing to keep it from filing bankruptcy, moved to close the facility. Even so, the Sun refused to protect the taxpayers. Instead, until the bitter end, advocated for the industry. Now the facility is closed and the taxpayers of Kentucky and the U.S. are facing a many millions of dollar cleanup to try and stem the toxic chemicals which were released by the facility from going into the Tennessee River and the associated aquifer.
The Sun was just as wrong about the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion plant. For decades, and still today to a large extent, if anyone dare criticize the Gaseous Diffusion plant and suggest that there might be an environmental problem, the Paducah Sun is there to attack. Not only that, but they are the "go to" guys for the Department of Energy. If DOE suspects that a story that is going to criticize them is going to come out in some larger media outlet, mysteriously, an article appears either just before, at the same time, or just after the story runs, in the Sun, which supports the DOE and attempts to do "damage control" from the other story. This kind of thing happens repeatedly. Of course the revolving door between the Sun and the Public Relations office for DOE and its contractors probably has something to do with it.
But, when the Washington Post broke the story about the plutonium contamination at the facility, when locally, the DOE, it's contractors, and even local politicians, told the public repeatedly that there was no problem, and lambasted anyone who dared to suggest that there might be an environmental problem there, the Sun stuck up for DOE and the contamination. But, they ended up with egg on their face when the U.S. Sec. of Energy came to Paducah and apologized on behalf of the U.S. government for lying to the workers about what they were handling. Once again, the taxpayers are paying - billions for a failed cleanup and millions for compensation for former workers and their families.
These are just two examples of how the Sun addresses legitimate environmental issues. So the fact that it decided to dedicate a very long, and decidely aggressively negative editorial blasting Al Gore for his work on global warming isn't really surprising to me. It's just one more example where they are totally wrong. But what is more interesting to me is that while the Sun, which is the parent organization of the Paxton media newspaper chain, doesn't answer to anyone, the Paxton media group TV station, "NewsChannel 6", the NBC affiliate station from Paducah, touted environmentalism and doing everything possible to fight global warming when NBC had it's "Green week" several weeks ago.
That proved to me that Paxton media is nothing but a money whore. If you think Mitt Romney is bad at being wishy washy to meet his immediate needs, look no further than Paxton media group, which will do whatever it has to to make money. Environmental when it meets their needs (like a large network such as NBC telling them they have to be), but absurdly anti-environmental when they think no one is looking.
But finally, does anyone at the Paducah Sun think they are anywhere near the caliber of Al Gore? I can assure you that there is no one on the Sun staff that is anywhere near as influential as Mr. Gore. So go ahead, continue to make fools out of yourself, Paducah Sun. You have the money to build new buildings, and try to tear good people down, but you will fail eventually upon the weight of your dishonesty and self-interest.
It was an interesting day for the Sunday news shows today. First, amazingly enough, as we get into the last few weeks before the Iowa caucuses and the New Hamphsire primary, CBS, well, at least KFVS, channel 12 in Cape Girardeau, MO, did not carry "Face the Nation."
There was a couple interesting tidbits on the Chris Matthews show. The first one that I found interesting was Dan Rather's prediction, in the "Tell Me Something I Don't Know" segment, that John Edwards would win Iowa. He was the only one of the panel to think that, but it did surprise me and make me wonder why he would say such a thing. Then, when you read between the lines on some of the statements of the panelists on the Stephanopolous show about not counting Edwards out, one has to wonder if something is happening in Iowa that the mainstream media isn't fully reporting.
You can't really discount Edwards, because he has somehow positioned himself as the person who will go to the mat for the middle class. That message will resonate with a lot of people. He has been outside the "fray" of the frontrunners, although he is always mentioned as one of the three in that category. If Obama and Clinton get sucked too far into attacking each other, Edwards could slide in. As the roundtable on the Stephanopous noted, Edwards has more support in the rural areas of Iowa, and he is everyone's "second" choice, regardless of choice one, and according to the rules of Iowa's caucuses, that will be important.
But I still feel that Obama will emerge from Iowa with a bigger margin of victory than anyone is expecting. I believe that because I still feel there are strong parallels between his Senate campaign in Illinois and what is going on nationally, and that is what happened in Illinois against strong candidates. Obama is going to end up being the candidate of change, as the pundits call it, and that is what most people are looking for.
The Des Moines Register has endorsed Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination. Normally, I think that would be a plus. But under the circumstances, I'm not so sure that Clinton will get a huge bounce from it. The reason I think that is that Clinton is now trying desperately to escape out from under the cloud of being the "establishment" candidate. That is difficult, because Bill Clinton, as a president, was very much pro-corporation, and did not make the systematic changes that many on the left are calling for to equalize the growing disparity between the have and have nots in our society. It seems self evident that Hillary is also not going to make any fundamental changes in the system to help reverse the trend of, as so well protrayed in the play "Marat-Sade" "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And there are a LOT more poor in this country than rich. So, an endorsement from a corporate newspaper, especially one owned by the New York Times, which could be seen as protecting a "favorite daughter," a Senator from New York, may only entrench the view that she is the establishment candidate. If I were Obama, I wouldn't be afraid to suggest that.
While Edwards is stumping for the poor perhaps harder than Obama, I believe that most people just think that we need someone fundamentally different that is going to wipe the slate clean and start over with a fresh, new approach. When people look at the three main candidates, I think Obama stands out as the fresh, new face.
And one of the obstacles he was facing was the lack of belief in his own African American community that he could actually deliver. And, although I could never totally understand it, many in the African American community think that Bill Clinton, as president, was very much for them. That attitude is so prevalent that it has often been written and spoken in the press that Bill Clinton is often referred to as the "first black president," although he is as white as I am. So, instead of an African American candidate running the table on the black vote, Obama was only splitting it. But I will tell you one thing - this beating up on Obama over his drug use during his teens is probably the one thing that will drive the African American community to Obama.
There is great sensitivity about the "cocaine" issue in the African American community, because so many black males are in jail for long sentences because they possessed "crack" cocaine, when white collar whites that are caught with powder cocaine get slapped on the wrist. There is also a lot of consternation about the number of black males in prison compared with whites, and the impact that has had on poor black families. To try and hang Obama on that, when probably Hilllary tried some drugs too at that age, is low down and dirty, and will only bring the black community to his defense. That is why the dude that perpetrated that story is gone, at least officially.
It's going to be great fun the next couple weeks. Hold onto your hats - there are going to be some very interesting political winds blowing.
Oh yeah, Mitt Romney was on Meet the Press. (Yawn). I tried to listen, but the guy is just totally boring. I can't see him becoming president.
Isn't it juicy that Hillary's main man in New Hampshire, the husband of the former Democratic Governor, had to resign because he decided to be the hatchet man for the Clinton campaign and try to smear Barak Obama on drug charges. I guess Hillary is trying to keep up with hubby Bill's record of putting more people, mostly African-American, on jail for drug charges, than any other president. Where's the mainstream media on that little contradiction - "America's first black president" who happen to incarcerate more blacks than any other president for what?
I think this is going to be a bad choice of attack by Hillary. First off, I have a pretty good idea of when Hillary grew up, went to high school, went to college, etc. I also know where she went to high school, and know some people that went to that same high school at the same time. Is Hillary willing to say that she never ever had a lil toke? Maybe she even dropped a lil acid? Would that be so surprising? It would be more surprising if she didn't.
A heck of a lot of people that age did "illegal" drugs. A lot probably aren't now. And, they have kids that they are raising that they don't want to get hooked on addictive drugs, which is a good thing. But, if the penalty for using at that age is disqualification from pursuing your career, regardless of the education you obtained and/or your level of skill in life and profession, then a lot of my generation wouldn't be where they are. And they know it, and don't want that past dredged up and held against them.
Hillary needs to come clean about her drug use, if any. Maybe she didn't use any, but I would be willing to bet that she smoked pot and maybe did some MDA or acid, coke or speed. It was everywhere, and I can't imagine that she wouldn't have tried it. For her campaign to try to smear Obama, after he admitted to it himself months ago, for his drug use during adolescence, is just downright unseemly.
I'm still not endorsing Mr. Obama, but I still think he's on his way to the presidency. And I still think he will be a much better president than present company.
The Federal Reserve, whomever they are, lowered it's interest rate again today. They got all kinds of high falutin' reasons why they are doing it, but the fact is, that they are baling out their big time buddies at the big time banks. But thank goodness we don't have a socialist system where the government gets involved in private business.
What about savers? Aren't we supposed to be saving some money? Oh yeah, the federal reservists are trying to force all the money into the stock market, where they can control it. But in reality, this policy of lowering interest rates when our economy is tanking, inflation is bad, debt is high and out of control, is nothing more than an admission that our economy is in deep do do. All they are doing is continuing to devalue our money. That doesn't benefit anyone in America except for industrialists who are selling their goods and services cheap to foreign countries who have much stronger economies and currencies.
It's pretty disheartening when the people that control our money don't value it very highly. But then again, it's all part of making the U.S. akin to a third world country where our natural resources and labor are sold off cheap while most of the people live a less than affluent life.
This is a photo of Cynthia McKinney speaking to citizens at the Southern Illinois University student center, December 8, 2007.
Kristi and I went to see Cynthia McKinney today in Carbondale, Illinois. She was there raising money and campaigning for a run for president on the Green Party ticket. She hasn't officially announced her candidacy, so it hasn't gotten any buzz yet, but people, on her behalf, are circulating nominating petitions to get her on ballots in a number of states. In Illinois and California she is has filed her petitions and is likely to be on the ballot.
She was answering questions from the press when we walked into the theatre at the SIU student center. Then it became a discussion with the audience. She is always a dignified gentlewoman, with deep knowledge of events and issues across a broad spectrum. We both thought she handled herself very well. The press was meager, but there was some. The crowd was respectable.
I got to speak to her afterward, although a lot of people were wanting to speak to her. It was a very warm reunion. I have the utmost of respect for her. I think she's a courageous woman - one of the most politically knowledgable and strong advocates I have ever met. What really gets me is how the "mainstream corporate media" for lack of a better term, mindlessly printed all this questionable if not totally false information about her repeatedly. For example, the media firestorm over her supposedly "assaulting" a U.S. Capitol policeman was all smoke and no fire. Here's why I say that.
She was the Bush administration's enemy number 1 in congress. She was (and eventually did) trying to get impeachment proceedings filed against Bush. She was asking Bush's people very difficult questions in hearings about 911, about where funds in Iraq ended up, about defense spending, etc. etc. These were questions that these white men in suits didn't want to answer, particularly from an "uppity" black woman. You think if they thought they could get an indictment on her they wouldn't do it? Of course they would, as many times as they could. But they didn't. And why must that be? It must be because there was nothing there to prosecute. But, it was everyone on the news for many days and it ultimately did add to the climate which culminated in her losing her seat in Congress - again. We, as a nation, are worse off for it, too. But, then again, under Bush, we are a lot worse off in a lot of ways.
Yes, Oprah and Obama are running the table on publicity right now. I have already predicted that Obama was going to get the nomination for the Democrats, and I think that I am right about that. Anyone who thinks Oprah isn't going to have a huge positive effect for Obama, who has an uncanny natural rhythm in knowing how to peak a campaign at the right time anyway, is delirious. Of course she is going to help him - alot. I'm beginning to think he is heading for the presidency. And, I have the audacity to hope that he will be a good president.
And we could use Obama as president today, compared with Bush. But, Obama needs Cynthia pushing him from the left, because he gets too carried away being in the middle, and the middle is only good if both sides are equal, and that isn't how things in the U.S. are right now. Cynthia can, if she decides to do this, after a number of runs as a Green, build a nationwide constituency that could influence the process in a very positive way. I think she sees this and is willing to go for it. As she said, her friends encourage her to run, and she can't say no. She has already spent alot of time travelling the country over the years building solid contacts across the country. Her personality and command of the issues is going to build her respect. The media can slow her down with their false assaults, but they can't stop her.
One thing that was disappointing a bit was to bring home a couple of the local Carbondale "alternative" publications, which previewed her visit, and read articles which got sucked into the mainstream BS, and missed the real issues. While I think her reception in Carbondale was very good and respectful, I think it demonstrates why her campaign for national leadership is going to have to be a long term plan. The "mainstream corporate media" can be very influential, even with people who don't think they are that vulnerable to such influence.
If the Democrats and Republicans think they "got rid" of Cynthia McKinney, think again. She is back and coming at them with another plan. I hope it leaves some of the party's long term planners with some sleepless nights, because it should. There's a lot of people in our nation that want to live in a nation which strives for equality and justice. Our system is nowhere near providing that. Someone who has true credentials that they will lead us in that direction will find a following.
I watched McLaughlin Group and Washington Week in Review this evening. I do really like the McLaughlin Group. I less like Gwen Iffel. I guess that is because I see her as someone from PBS, minority, who ought to be more "liberal" than she is. I guess I like McLaughlin because he used to be considered to be so conservative, and now he isn't always that way.
Interestingly, both shows lead off their discussions on the subject of Mitt Romney and his so-called speech on clarifying the role that Mormonism will play in his presidency, should he get that far. (he won't). But the fact that both shows lead off with that does say something. The responses from the participants ranged from stating that it was a great speech to the fact that he didn't mention Mormonism's racist history.
I don't think Romney did anything to help himself. He's toast. It isn't so much because of his religion, although I think it is now after his speech, but it's because of his starched, pressed personality. He's so contrived. He may not want to be, but he is. He may be a great guy, but he isn't presidential material, at least in my thoughts. He may not be a great guy, also.
Romney said at point in his speech that basically freedom and religion were dependent on each other. Certainly the ability to practice religious beliefs publicly is dependent on political freedoms, but I don't see how political freedoms are dependent on religion.
In another interesting point of conversation, the shows discussed whether or not Bill Clinton is helping Hillary out on the stump. They showed some clips of Bill bitching about the mainstream media. Mainstream media doesn't like someone that has been made famous by the mainstream media turning around and bitching about them. I think Bill Clinton helps and hurts Hillary, but I think that he probably hurts her more in the long run than helps.
One interesting interpretation of the Clinton's relationship came from the McLaughlin Group. One of the female participants said that Bill is out to destroy Hillary's campaign because he didn't want Hillary to become president because he wanted that distinction in their relationship. Who knows? But it is an interesting theory.
I don't know who is going to end up as the Republican candidate for president. Maybe Ron Paul? They could certainly do worse. (don't take that as an endorsement, just an observation.)
This is an interesting view of the Ohio River from the infamous Cave in Rock Cave in Cave in Rock State Park in Cave in Rock, Illinois, just upriver about an hour from here. Early in the region's history, from this cave, river pirates would ambush passing boats, robbing and assaulting the passengers and crews. Now, although it has been pretty much overrun by humans, it is still an interesting place to visit.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments about whether or not long term detainees at Guantanamo Bay prison in Cuba had a right under the U.S. constitution to a hearing under accepted rules of evidence over whether the government had a right to continue to detain them indefinitely without having to ever present in any court verifiable evidence that the person had committeed some kind of misdeed. Let's hope that they don't rule that the government can detain people indefinitely with no evidence. That's just what they are doing in Pakistan, and we certainly don't want to follow their model of government do we? Just the fact that we have coddled a military dictator for so long and allowed him to to abuse the human rights of the citizens of Pakistan that disagree with him is horrible. How can we, as a nation, with a straight face, stand up to the world and talk about supporting democracy on the one hand when we are supporting a military dictator, and then invade another country because they had a military dictator on the other is beyond me. It's downright embarassing.
_____________________________________________________________________
There is a somewhat local connection to the Guantanamo challenges that probably most people don't realize. I am not sure whether this is still happening, but at one time, Steven Truitt, the grandson of the "Veep" (and apparent coiner of the phrase), Alben Barkley, U.S. Vice President under President Truman, was representing some Guantanamo prisoners in their attempts to get justice through the U.S. judicial system. At least at one time a couple years ago, Mr. Truitt, now a Washington D.C. attorney, was representing Guantanamo prisoners in their court challenges.
Speaking of which' I can't let the recent proposal floated by the Paducah Sun for the city to move the Barkley Museum from the run down house in Lowertown, where it is like never open, to a wing of the McCracken Co. library, which would probably require the construction of an addition, go without commenting. Back a couple years ago, I, along with other concerned citizens, started inquiring into why the Barkley Museum was becoming so run down, why a Vice Presidential museum wasn't being properly managed and promoted, and whether or not Vice Presidential documents have been properly inventoried, preserved, and filed, and presented to the public.
We were told of a "board" of directors, but a little research into the museum found that there was no "not-for-profit" organization that was registered with the KY Sec. of State to manage the museum. Noone involved could present any evidence of how this organization, the "Young Historians" or something like that, actually ran the facility.
The "caretaker" of the museum wasn't necessarily well respected in the community, and he, and his predecessor were collectors of political memorabilia, which put them in a position to know what was valuable and what wasn't. There's concern that the collection of memorabilia has been compromised since the beginning of the museum. While I have hinted around to various people for a long time that I would like to be able to look at what the Museum has in it's archives, I haven't ever been invited to look, and I don't know what is there. But I would suspect that there are some important documents. I have been through the public displays in the museum, and there are some fine historical resources.
Now, after years of neglect, and after a number of inquiries by interested people, the city now says that it is taking the museum seriously. I'll believe it when I see it. But just about any other city in the nation would give it's "eyetooth" to have a favorite son become Vice President of the U.S. It's a very exclusive club. But Paducah just brushes it off like it is nothing at all. Stupid if you ask me.
I think the fact that Paducah is now run by Republicans accounts for a lot of the neglect of the museum. Republicans don't want to promote the accomplishments of Democrats. But apparently the Republicans have gotten what they needed to nudge funding some kind of upgrade of the museum forward, and that is an endorsement (in a TV ad apparently) of, dare I say it, Mitch McConnell, for reelection to the senate by none other than Alben Barkley the youngest. Big time OUCH for the traditional Democrats left in the Barkley family -and I know they are there. There's definitely some grave rolling over going on here, also. Whatever, the fact is that these imporant historical resources need to be identified, inventoried, preserved, and presented tastefully to the public. And I'm not saying that everything done by that administration was good, but I'm saying that it is important history, and a local community, as caretakers of a certain aspect of history, have an obligation to do their part to maintain, preserve, and present that history. I'm just don't think Paducah is doing a good job of it in regard to the Barkley Museum.
It was on the news today again that the decision on the so-called "Future Gen" coal fired power plant will be soon, and the two Illinois sites, Mattoon and Tuscola, are hopefully going to get it. Future Gen is basically a billion dollar plus coal fired power plant with scrubbers and CO2 sequestration. Sequestration means that they are going to capture the stuff coming out of the stack after it burned, and inject it deep in the ground in certain rock formations where it will remain out of the atmosphere forever. Soe they say. Blah, Blah, and a third Blah.
We have been thru Tuscola and Mattoon several times in the last months, and while there are the typical, "Welcome Future Gen" signs in both placs, almost surprisingly, there are a number of "anti" signs there also. Used to be, when we first got into the environmental movement back in the early 80s, that you would never see such public signs of going against the economic powers in a rural Illinois small town. But, things have changed.
I went with Craig Rhodes several years ago to a big time presentation on Future Gen that was held at SIU. I mean, all the big dogs were there - or at least their offices had reps there. The Dept. of Energy had a rep there that gave a fancy powerpoint presentation about why Illinois would be the best place. The reason is because there is lots of coal available and, upstate, there are these rock formations like over 10,000 feet down in the ground that they think will hold and/or convert the sequestered CO2. to some other chemical that isn't so damaging.
This is about as unstudied an undertaking as you can imagine. Besides, how exactly are "they " going to do this? According to someone I know, in order to liquify CO2, it has to be cooled a lot and put under pressure. Sure sounds like a lot of effort. Actually, very little is known about carbon capture. All of this is being pushed by the coal industry. They are fighting in every way imaginable to keep selling coal, regardless of the fact that it is destroying the environment in so many ways. The same kind of industries told us that DDT was perfectly safe.
Oh sure, the powers that be may and probably will push thru carbon sequestration. Do I think that is going to solve our climate change problems? Heck no. But some people will get really rich on the idea or trying.
This is at the junction of the Appalachian Trail and the trail out of Cosby campground to the Mt. Cammerer fire tower, early in April. This is at over 4,000 feet in elevation. The bed of trout lillies covered acres and was interspered with other wonderful wildflowers, making an incredible carpet of color.
What must the level of desperation be by the big time corporation folks to push for a continued lowering of "interest" rates by the U.S. Federal Reserve? It must be at all time highs!
What the heck is the Federal Reserve anyway? Whenever the stock market starts to crash real bad, they step and provide "liquidity" or "stability" or other "ity." This is always done by hefty donations of cash, but where do they get the cash? I never understood that? Do they get it from taxpayers' money or not?
Then they set the interest rates. "Interest?" Yes, I guess we all are interested. Interest is how much money costs. Wait a minute - how can money cost? It is what it is, isn't it? No, not really. If you borrow it or loan it, it costs. The rate that cost is calculated is "interest."
The Federal Reserve says that "inflation" is suppressed if interest is higher, at the cost of slower growth. Lower interest rates promote growth, but have the risk of inflation. Who knows. Usually the institutions get these kind of grandiose questions wrong. I have no reason to believe that they aren't wrong this time. But let's just assume they aren't wrong - that in fact they are right.
How can the Federal Reserve in any way shape or form come to the conclusion that inflation isn't that bad in the U.S. (inflation is prices going up, by the way.) They come to this conclusion by basing their conclusions on "core" inflation figures. This excludes the cost increases in energy and food. Duh! I mean, it is so totally absurd that it is laughable. The average family spends more money on energy and food than anything. To try and pretend that measuring prices going on on everything but the two things that influencing it more than anything is beyond ridiculous. We're all hurting out here.
And what about us savers? They keep saying it would be good if more people saved, but they keep cutting the benefits from saving. Maybe we should all invest in Brazil Reals. They have a great interest rate - almost 8%, in short term CDs. The way dollars are going, they aren't going to be worth much in the world - thank you W. When the rest of world dislikes what your nation is doing, but you have more nuclear bombs so they can't really say anything, what they do is kill your currency. That's what is happenin' to us.
I can't leave this statement without commenting on the US bitching about Russia's elections. Is that the pot calling the kettle black or what? We had an election where we knew that more people voted nationwide for one candidate, but he didn't get elected. Instead, thousands of votes were nullified without any attempt to determine what these individuals wanted, and the person without the most votes was forced in by 5 people. And we have the nerve to complain about someone else's elections? ha ha ha. That's a good one. Let us make sure that all of our citizens that are eligible to vote get to vote uninhibited, and that all of those votes are counted fairly. When we get to that level, then we can expect it from other nations. But for us to be slinging mud at other country's elections at this time is just a bit disingenuous, don't you think?
I'm not sticking up for Putin. I'm sure he is just one more oil industry, corporate man. But if anyone thinks our "system" is inherently better than theirs, get real.
There has been scuttlebutt within the arts community around Paducah lately that the Yeiser Arts Center, which is the city of Paducah's "official" visual arts venue for the City. It has been located in the historic "Market House" building in the heart of the historical district near the river in downtown Paducah. It started in the late 1950s by some very creative and courageous folks who bucked the tide of the "atomic city" and pushed for some visual arts awareness and investment by the city.
At the beginning, it was called the Paducah Art Guild, but in the recent past, it was changed to the Yeiser center after Mary Yeiser, one of the important artists from Paducah that lead in the formation of the center. At one time, it had a vibrant board, strong community support, a full time director, brought in important shows from around the region and nation, and acquired fine pieces of work. In fact, at one time, a piece was purchased from every show.
Now, with the city focused on the "Lowertown" arts district, the Yeiser has become the forgotten child of the Paducah art scene. While there are still some important shows going on there, there is no longer a full time director, and the center is running a deficit. Now there is talk that the board of the Yeiser is strongly considering selling off their permanent collection.
This would be a huge mistake. A city that liquidates it's permanent art collection, while at the same time advertising itself all across the Midwest as an art's center shows a certain schizophrenia. Selling your permanent art collection, regardless of the value, is like selling the family heirlooms to pay a credit card bill. It just reflects bad on the community. There are some very nice pieces in the collection, with regional importance. I, for one, vote NO on selling the Yeiser's permanent collection.
Also, even if the city does go ahead with plans to restore the Market House to a Market, a plan which can be argued as to its wisdom, the city needs to continue to have a city arts center. Perhaps it should all be done at the Carson Center performing arts center. Maybe it just needs to be moved somewhere else downtown. But, abandoning the center in the wake of selling off the collection sends the wrong message about where the so called city leader's hearts are when it comes to supporting the arts.
The main discussion today on the Sunday news shows was the early presidential primary contests. A new poll released today by the Des Moines Register indicated that Sen. Obama has pulled out to a modest lead in Iowa. That's not surprising. I still believe that Obama is going to get the nomination. I made this prediction on the "Stumps" email list several months ago, to some scorn, I might add. And, I still do not make this statement as an endorsement, just an observation. I think Sen. Obama will be a breath of fresh air compared to our current resident of the White House. But I can't agree with his statements about nuclear and coal energy. We have to get away from coal and nuclear is not a good answer.
I can't believe that the pundits are discussing whether or not Oprah is going to be a positive for Obama. That's like asking whether or not the sun helps plants grow. Of course it is going to help him. And, I believe that, for the moment, she trumps Bill Clinton in star power because she is fresher in the political arena and Bill, while a political rock star of significant magnitude, still carrys a lot of baggage around that Oprah doesn't have.
I thought it was interesting that George Stephanpolous said what I had written back several weeks - that the Iraq was becoming less and less of an issue (although still a big one) in the campaign, as news of the "success" of the "surge" keeps getting touted. Considering that our Mission in Iraq was Accomplished years ago (or so we are told) another round of back slapping at gettin' er done this time should be taken with a serious block of salt, and I think most people think that. The cost of the war when our country is facing so many domestic challenges (not to mention huge budget deficits) isn't getting past people - it's front and center. It will be important in the overall scheme of things, but moreso in how it relates to people's day to day lives.
I think Guiliani is toast. First his blunder recommending Kerick, which isn't going away, and now the questions about who and how bills for security for he and his mistress when he travelled to see her are a one two punch that is going to knock him out. He's done for. Put the fork in him! It's going to probably be Huckabee or McCain. I think Romney is too starched and, for better or worse, the Mormon religion is still considered to somewhat unorthodox, especially by conservative Christians. I just can't see Romney getting it. That doesn't leave a lot.
The pundits are talking about the questions which are arising about Huckabee and how those questions play into his primary pursuits. For example, Huckabee allowed taxes to be raised in Arkansas, and allowed children of undocumented workers to go to school. Gee, what horrible things! I just hope that the public doesn't forget where the Republicans have gotten us and get duped into staying with a Republican president, even a more moderate one on social issues.