Where there's a Will, there's a way

I voted early today at the County Clerk's office. I saw a story about it on TV 20 News last week but I don't think early voting will catch on in Sangamon County until there are additional voting locations besides the County Courthouse and there's a bigger effort to promote it. I imagine that would take a little more money and a commitment on the county board's part.

I've been keeping up on the election but I was still surprised at how many different offices there are to vote for this year besides Alderman and Mayor, including the Park Board, LLCC Board, SMEAA Board, and School Board. I also voted on the resolutions about city council term limits and instant run-off voting for military ballots. So, remember to know who's running for the boards that get less attention before you go to vote.

Posted by Will at 2:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've been watching my site traffic at statcounter but yesterday I decided to check the more sophisticated trackers provided by my web server company. It turns out that for a variety of reasons, mostly related to the blog being a subdomain, statcounter wasn't counting many of my visitors. My site traffic is about five times what I thought it was and its growing rapidly. I had over twice as many visitors in March than February.

I can't imagine who all these people are that read my blog. The only way I can react to this is to take myself less seriously, so I'm going to write a less than serious post about a very serious issue.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more public outcry in opposition to a bill legalizing same-sex civil unions in Illinois. The bill passed in committee and is earning positive editorials from around the state.

I don't understand the argument that it somehow threatens "traditional" marriage. I've heard of people getting divorced for a lot of reasons but "a gay couple moved in next door" isn't one of them. If the conservative evangelical political movement is concerned about protecting marriage then they need to start calling out conservative leaders with multiple marriages like Newt Gingrich and Rudy Giulliani.

Anyway, I would like to make a helpful suggestion to groups lobbying for the civil unions bill in Illinois. They need take advantage of the news that rocker Joan Jett and Carmen Electra are now dating.

(The Happy Couple)

Carmen Electra also appeared in an awesome Joan Jett music video, which you can see at Youtube.

All I'm saying is that if someone brought Carmen Electra and Joan Jett to lobby the Illinois General Assembly in favor of the civil unions bill that even the most homophobic conservatives would completely forget why they ever had any objections. It would pass in no time! Am I right?

Posted by Will at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It looks like Springfield is going to get more attention for the agreement between CWLP and the Sierra Club. A similar agreement just happened between the Sierra Club and Kansas City Power & Light Co. A Washington Post article about that agreement also mentions a Texas company, TXU, that agreed to not build all but three of their eleven planned coal-fire power plants and take other steps to reduce their emissions.

The article quotes the same lawyer involved in the CWLP negotiations.

"In a perfect world we wouldn't be building any coal plants," said Bruce Nilles, a Madison, Wis., lawyer who has led the Sierra Club's battle against Midwest coal plants. "But recognizing that it was going to be very difficult to stop this plant from moving forward, we've put together a landmark agreement. It raises the bar for anyone adding new coal generation and says that you can't simply ignore the CO2emissions."

These stories are bringing renewed interest to the Springfield agreement, which is looking more like the start of a trend. I've spoken to two reporters during the past week about my involvement in the process, so I'll post about the coverage when it comes out.

The coverage I've seen of the Kansas City agreement presents it as a win-win situation, which is how I think everyone involved viewed the Springfield agreement before the negative press coverage started.

The Sierra Club was following the process set up by law for public interest groups to have a voice in the EPA permitting process for new coal power plants. The fact that the Sierra Club was willing to negotiate to allow CWLP to build the power plant on schedule was an conciliatory act of compromise. I think its completely unfair that a reasonable act of accommodation, where both sides benefited, was spun as "extortion" by people with a political axe to grind. Would the people who complain about the Sierra Club's "tactics" been happier if the organization refused to negotiate while the EPA took its time making rulings for the next year or more?

Its ironic that Springfield is getting very positive coverage from outside the area for something that some people still view in a negative way. I agree that the city council should have been better informed sooner than they were. Yet, I can't help but notice that the vote was along partisan party lines and I wonder if that would have been the case regardless of how or when the agreement was presented to the council.

If you haven't already, be sure to read Greg's response to Bob Podlasek's letter to the editor in the SJ-R. Podlasek was the most outspoken expert critic of the agreement who claimed, among other things, that there wasn't enough wind power available in the area to meet the requirements of the agreement, that we would pay high prices for wind similar to Naperville, that global warming is not caused by humans, and other assertions that have since been thoroughly debunked.

Posted by Will at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I think last night's Sierra Club meeting was one of the most exciting we've had. Sierra Club State Director Jack Darin spent the first half hour talking about issues in the Illinois General Assembly. Some items are stalled but it sounds like this is a very good year for progress on environmental issues at the state level.

The remainder of the meeting was devoted to giving candidates for city council time to speak and answer questions. The SJ-R has a good story on the meeting but you'll have to be a subscriber to read it online. WICS and WCFN TV news stations were there along with two radio stations, so the meeting got excellent news coverage.

Five candidates spoke at the meeting: Debbie Cimarossa, Gail Simpson, Tina Jannazzo, Barry McAnarney, and Sam Cahnman. Addtionally, five candidates who couldn't make the meeting filled out the questionnaire: Tim Davlin, Bob Bartnick, Mark Mahoney, Joe Rock and George Petrilli who returned it yesterday after I posted the other responses. I can honestly say I was very impressed by what all of the candidates who attended had to say.

Part of the reason for doing this was to ensure environmental concerns are taken more seriously in city politics and I think that's happening. Even two candidates who didn't return the survey had stories in the paper during the past week about environmental issues, plus Barry McAnarney had a press conference with Dick Durbin about bike trails.

The public response and hearing what candidates have to say confirms my impression that the public is ready to do far more than we currently are about smart growth, innovative ways of meeting energy needs, alternative modes of transportation and other environmental quality of life issues. I'll encourage people one more time to look at what candidates have to say in their responses to the questionnaire because there are some exciting ideas.

Posted by Will at 1:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The results are in! The following links in this post will take you to the responses Springfield candidates gave to the Sierra Club candidate questionnaire.

The candidates have also been invited to make a statement about their views on environmental issues during the Sierra Club's next monthly meeting this Tuesday, March 27 in the Lincoln Library Carnegie Room. The regular meeting starts at 7pm and the candidate portion starts at 7:30pm.

Bob Bartnick page 1

Bob Bartnick page 2

Sam Cahnman

Debbie Cimarossa

Tim Davlin

Tina Jannazzo

Mark Mahoney

Barry McAnarney

George Petrilli

Joe Rock

Gail Simpson

Kris Theilen

I don't want anything I write to be interpreted as an unofficial Sierra Club endorsement so I'll let people evaluate the responses for themselves. Some are longer than others. Overall, I'm thrilled at the responses and I'm excited to see some new ideas candidates wrote about. I'll post any additional responses if they come in late.

Posted by Will at 9:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

In case you missed it, be sure to read today's guest editorial in the SJ-R by Greg Claxton about what the future might hold for energy production and conservation in Springfield. One advantage of having a publicly owned utility is that citizens can have a larger role in determining how the utility serves its customers, and the clean energy plan negotiated with the Sierra Club calls for more direct public participation in guiding CWLP's future.

In addition to the editorial, Greg posts interesting ideas on a daily basis over at CESBlog. Buying wind power is a big step forward for Springfield, but I think the Sierra Club agreement opens up the opportunity for CWLP to be an innovator and leader in even more ways.

Posted by Will at 1:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Both guys at the Just Two Guys blog posted about their dream of minor league baseball returning to Springfield and the need for a new stadium, which was followed by supportive posts from Dave and the 26th Man. This is something I think about every time I drive by Lanphier and I love the idea of a new stadium downtown. It would be nice to see some movement for this in the business community.

But guess what Martin Luther King, I have a dream too! A dream for a smaller but even more exciting sports team in Springfield. One that will certainly cause people to roll their eyes, scratch their heads and potentially erode whatever credibility this blog has gained recently. But I don't care because it needs to happen. I'm talking about Springfield's own women's roller derby league!

Yes, that's right. Springfield needs rollergirls. I was introduced to the world of modern roller derby by my brother who is a ref for the Nacogdoches Rollergirls. He got recruited after they saw him roller skating all the time with his daughters. You can read about their first bout here, complete with pictures.

At first I was skeptical, as you may be. But after going to a practice, seeing a game, and watching the first season of the Rollergirls reality TV show, I'm convinced.

It should be of no surprise to anyone that the rebirth of roller derby began in Austin Texas. Chicago and St. Louis have had leagues for a while. Teams are popping up in Rockford, Mattoon and Moline. Springfield is clearly missing the boat. I hope some women in Springfield will take the initiative soon because I'm ready to help.

I've gotten interesting reactions when I tell people I've become a fan of the fastest growing women's sport in America. People say things like, "I'm starting to think you're serious!" My mother wonders where she went wrong. But an ex-girlfriend who called me last week proved she knows me as well as anyone when she simply said, "yeah, it figures you would be into that."

Depending on the reaction I get, I might start blogging on this weekly. Roller derby will be the next big thing to hit Springfield. You heard it here first!

Posted by Will at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

The novel 1984 describes Newspeak as "the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year."

"The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought—that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc—should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words."

From a recent news article:

McDonald's Corp. is reviving its campaign to ditch the dictionary definition of "McJob," this time setting its sites on the vocabulary of Britons. The world's largest fast food company said Tuesday it plans to launch a campaign in the U.K. this spring to get the country's dictionary houses to change current references to the word "McJob."

Posted by Will at 10:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The State Journal Register published today a letter to the editor I wrote. In most major cities it would be considered a non-controversial, conventional sentiment. In Springfield, with our Libertarian attitudes about development, its enough to get me labeled a radical. Here's what I wrote:

I was disappointed to read in The State Journal-Register that The Warehouse complex is closing its doors.

Springfield needs more entertainment venues that appeal to young audiences. I was very interested to read the online comments to the story at www.sj-r.com because the comments became a conversation about the chasm between the types of development Springfield residents are asking for and the development we’re getting.

I frequently hear people say they want a grocery store in their own neighborhood, but instead, we’re getting another Super Wal-Mart on the outskirts of town. People often ask for more development downtown, but we’re getting another mall on the southern edge of the city. People ask for commercial development closer to the city center on the east side or along MacArthur Boulevard, but they’re getting another strip mall on the sprawling southwest end.

If the city can change the tax code and spend millions of dollars on road improvements to facilitate sprawl, then we should also be able invest more public funds to enhance the city center. Springfield will never reach its full potential until business and city leaders embrace the idea that all residents should have an opportunity to play a role in how the city grows, even if someone doesn’t have millions to invest.

The city belongs to everyone who lives here so everyone should have a voice.

Will Reynolds, Springfield

Posted by Will at 10:49 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One project I'm helping with is the local Sierra Club's candidate questionnaire and forum for Springfield Alderman and Mayor candidates. The Sierra Club isn't endorsing candidates in the city elections so no one should interpret what I write as an official or unofficial endorsement.

The survey responses will be released to the public and press sometime in the next week. I've seen some of the responses already and I have to say that I'm seriously impressed. I've come to expect caution and timidity from Springfield candidates, but several surveys that I've seen so far offer exciting new ideas. Greg at CESblog has a post about one of the questions.

I'm sure some candidates won't return the questionnaire. I can understand why someone who doesn't agree with the Sierra Club's agenda to protect the environment would not want to answer the questions. They're letting us know where they stand by not responding.

What I don't understand is the attitude a few candidates have that they won't respond to surveys from any group at all. I'm not picking on Frank Kunz because I know he's not the only one, but he was quoted in the SJ-R as saying that he doesn't fill out any such surveys because the groups who send them out usually want something.

Yes, of course they want something. The Sierra Club wants to improve the environmental quality of life for all residents. The NAACP wants civil rights and equal opportunity for all people regardless of race. Unions want good jobs, safe working conditions and a better standard of living for their members. Is there anything wrong with that?

At least these groups work in the public interest and are open about what they want. Can the same be said of everyone who shows up at political fundraisers? Shouldn't we be more worried about contributors who want something at taxpayer expense rather than citizen groups who are only seeking to impact the public debate?

I only received two candidate questionnaires when I ran for county board and I filled them both out. I think its one of the basic jobs of a candidate to let people know where you stand on the issues. If someone can't do that then they should reconsider running for office.

All Springfield candidates for Alderman and Mayor have been invited to speak briefly at the Sierra Club's next meeting, Tuesday, March 27, 7:00pm in Carnegie Room of the Lincoln Library.

Posted by Will at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I've given so much grief to the SJ-R over their opinion page I thought I should point out that it was finally looking more balanced last Friday.

They kept Ted Rall, who wrote a column supporting wounded troops, and Ann Coulter, who was looking for anyone to blame for the mess at Walter Reed besides the Republicans who ignored the problem during their last six years in power. Personally, I'm pretty disgusted by any politician who claims to "support the troops" by lying to them about why they're going into battle and then forgetting them when they get home. George Bush deserves to be impeached if for no other reason than they way he has treated our soldiers.

Anyway, Michelle Maulkin must be taking the week off because Bob Herbert and Nicholas Kristof are on the opinion page this week instead. I haven't heard of them before but their columns were pretty good and after a quick google search it looks like they're more liberal than conservative.

So, the usual 2 to 1 conservative bias was reversed Friday. I think the Ann Coulter debate will end up being worthwhile if it results in other positive changes to balance their selection of columnists. I have to admit that I'm paying more attention to all of their columns than I ever have in the past.

Will this be a long term change? It's hard to tell. The Sunday page again included conservatives Novak, Will, and a corporate appeal from the CEO of Ameren. Garrison Keillor must have taken the week off so there were no moderate or liberal columns Sunday.

Posted by Will at 7:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I didn't expect the Ann Coulter thing to become a big debate and I admit I got a little tired of it a few days ago. But, sometimes I just can't step away from a good argument. Blevins Blog writes a good post about the issue and gives a greatest hits of offensive comments from Coulter.

Since the editors of the State Journal-Register are committed to presenting a balanced presentation of all viewpoints, then there's nothing wrong with evaluating the job they're doing.

On today's page we have the conservative standbys George Will and Robert Novak. Novak at least showed why he has a little more credibility than Ann Coulter by printing a correction of a mistake he made in a previous column. Coulter would have to release a new series of books to have enough room to correct all the false assertions in her writings.

Two conservatives are balanced by Ellen Goodman who praises Hillary Clinton for becoming the establishment, centrist candidate. She writes, "Not even the most calculating strategist could have planned this. She didn't choose her status as establishment candidate anymore than she chose being attacked from the left by Hollywood mogul David Geffen."

Actually, anyone who has watched Clinton's Senate voting record shouldn't be the least bit surprised that she's running as a centrist. That's exactly the image she has craftily managed to create and it's probably what she would continue to do if she were elected President.

It's also why she will never win the Democratic nomination. People are tired of politicians who only find their conviction when 60% of the public agree with them. Right now, this is a race between Barack Obama and John Edwards.

Goodman is demonstrating what I think is the most dominant media bias in favor of the establishment, "conventional wisdom," which is one reason why both liberals and conservatives frequently complain about their ideas being excluded.

Perhaps the SJ-R feels that their cartoonist provides balance since he usually presents a liberal viewpoint. But, as far as columnists go, we have two conservatives to one center-left viewpoint today.

Elsewhere in the opinion section, I'm surprised to see myself agreeing with their editorial today because they usually voice a pretty conservative, business-establishment viewpoint. The editors argue for an increase in the state Earned Income Tax Credit.

When I heard Blagojevich give his budget address I got the impression that he was going to cut taxes somewhere to offset the increases and make the tax system more equitable. I was surprised to find that wasn't the case. An income tax cut for lower-middle class workers could help offset some of the negative effects the Gross Receipts Tax might have on the marketplace. That's something I would have proposed from the start.

Posted by Will at 4:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I attended the Springfield utilities committee meeting for the presentation of the proposed wind power contract. It's covered in the SJ-R here. Greg over at CES blog (which was featured on TV20 News last night!) was there as well and he has a lot of background in this topic. His first post is here and in another post he takes on those who have their head in the sand about the scientific consensus about global warming.

From my perspective there were two points of particularly good news about the contract. First, City Water Light & Power's cost estimates for the price of wind were a little off. It will cost less than they expected.

The main objection I heard during the long public debate over the Sierra Club clean energy agreement was the potential cost of buying wind power. One person compared it to the rates being paid by Naperville, which has a different kind of arrangement than what CWLP is doing. Thankfully, we're not only paying less than the worst predictions but also less than what CWLP originally anticipated.

The other bit of good news is that they'll begin purchasing wind power sooner than was called for in the Sierra Club agreement. Jay Bartlett explained that financially, it makes sense to make the purchase sooner rather than later, partly because the State of Illinois is interested in reducing their carbon footprint and because of rising demand in the renewable energy market. So, we get to start using clean energy now and we save money. You can't beat that!

Posted by Will at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

One group I'm involved with locally is Clean Energy Springfield (CES) and I recently set up their new blog and website. I just edited and posted something to CESblog that I previously wrote here, but in the future I'll write content about environmental issues at CES first.

Its a group blog and one of the other authors already has some excellent content posted. The main idea for the blog is to introduce ideas, news and discussion on environmental and energy issues that are currently overlooked in the Springfield area. So go check it out and links are appreciated!

Posted by Will at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The State Journal-Register announced its decision to keep Ann Coulter after printing a Ted Rall column defending Coulter's right to "free speech."

I have never questioned Ann Coulter's right to be a bigoted demagogue. She can say and write whatever she likes. But, no one has a "right" to have their opinion printed in over 100 papers every week. That's not a free speech issue.

I and others have not objected to conservative viewpoints appearing in the SJ-R. There's a big difference between people like me who simply ask for a civil debate, and conservatives who are on a mission to push out every liberal voice until all news outlets resemble Fox State Television.

What bothered me about Rall's defense of Coulter is his apparent approval of racial and homophobic slurs in public discourse when he wrote, "Once we establish one litmus test for who’s allowed access to the public square - no “F” word, no “N” word ..."

We have a basic disagreement there. I'll defend the KKK's right to stand on a street corner and spout hate speech but I don't think hate-mongers and bigots deserve weekly placement in major new outlets. There was a time when politicians in the South (and sometimes the North) regularly used the N-word and openly pandered to prejudices to win votes. Apparently Ted Rall, and the SJ-R, have no problem returning to those days.

I also find it odd that the SJ-R didn't point out that their Friday opinion page is not "balanced" by Ted Rall, whose columns are typically too boring for me to finish, and Ann Coulter. It also includes the ultra-conservative Michelle Maulkin. So, their Friday opinion page will continue to have two strong conservatives, along with Ted Rall.

Likewise, the Sunday columnists include two conservatives, George Will and Robert Novak, along with the moderate Garrison Keillor, who didn't even write anything political in his most recent column. Last Thursday I see George Will and Novak again, but with no Democrat or liberal of any kind.

Is that the SJ-R's idea of having a balance of opinion? Two conservatives for every one moderate or liberal? Since the SJ-R is so open to all viewpoints I eagerly await them taking the suggestion I made in a previous post that they include someone as liberal as Coulter and Maulkin are conservative, and who actually write about politics without putting people to sleep. Since not including someone in their paper is supposedly "censorship" when will they stop censoring the views of liberals like Robert Scheer, Amy Goodman, Howard Zinn, Jeff Cohen, Greg Palast, or Norman Solomon?

Last Friday the editorial page had Maulkin calling those who oppose the war in Iraq moonbats and lunatics, while Coulter made a spirited defense of every Republican who has been investigated or convicted of a crime in the last few years. How was that balanced? Ted Rall had a rambling, anecdotal column sympathetic to soldiers going to Iraq and Kathleen Parker wrote a non-political piece about girls posting sexy pictures on Myspace.

You can't balance a group of strongly conservative, partisan writers with a group of moderates who make mild defenses of liberalism at best and frequently don't write anything overtly political at all. That's what I see on the SJ-R opinion page. I welcome the balance of all viewpoints they mention in today's editorial as soon as they're ready to make that happen.

Posted by Will at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If, and this is a big if, the Illini basketball team is lucky enough to get past the first round of the NCAA Men's basketball tournament to face the outstanding SIU Salukis in round 2, my prediction is (said in my best impersonation of the Saturday Night Live Bears Superfans skit):

Salukis: 157
Mascotless Illini: 12

The Saluki basketball program is long overdue for getting the recognition it deserves. For the first time, I'll be rooting for the UIUC team, just in the first round, so I can finally see the downstate grudge-match of the century! I also think we'll get to see SIU face-off against Kansas to enter the elite 8.

Posted by Will at 4:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Herald & Review explains their reasoning in an editorial. The Herald and the State Journal-Register were both mentioned in an Editor & Publisher article about the backlash a paper in conservative East Tennessee faced after dropping her column.

It includes a line explaining why the SJ-R may not want to take up my suggestion of having more local columnists: "By the way we paid $5 a week for Ann Coulter's column..."

The same paper argues that it isn't a free speech issue. If a newspaper carried every political columnist in America except Coulter, then it would be a free speech issue. Since that is impossible, it becomes a judgement issue. Which column merits inclusion in a paper's limited space and what makes it better than other columns available? I haven't seen anyone make a good argument that Coulter produces a higher quality column than all the other columnists that aren't currently included in the SJ-R.

Today I learned of an Illinois-based site, CounterCoulter.org, which states its purpose to "set the record straight and factually refute or correct the on-going stream of hypocritical mudslinging she calls 'patriotism.'" I'm probably setting myself up for disappointment if I hope the conservatives who claim Coulter makes "factual" arguments will actually visit that site.

Posted by Will at 4:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the State Journal-Register editorial they make an argument I was expecting because its frequently repeated by news outlets. The argument goes that we've got people on both sides complaining about us, so we must be doing OK, somewhere in between.

Besides being overly simplistic, the problem with this argument is that conservatives always claim every media outlet has a liberal bias whether that claim has any basis in reality or not. The tactic started when Nixon blamed the "liberal media" for his abuse of power and has been perfected by conservatives today who use the same tactic to make excuses for abuses of power by Tom DeLay, Scooter Libby, Mark Foley, George Bush and others.

Playing the "liberal media bias" card is a tactic conservative commentators use to deny the reality of negative news stories and it rarely has any relationship to how conservative or liberal a news outlet actually is.

How then should we evaluate the balance of SJ-R's opinion page? I would suggest a categorization of the national columnists included in the paper. Rate them as being very conservative, center-right, center-left, and very liberal. Of course, this is a little difficult since ultra-conservatives are quick to call anyone to the left of Bob Dole a socialist.

But, I'm sure some kind of categorization can be made. I'm willing to bet that will show conservatives favored over liberals, as I wrote about before. I'm hoping someone else does this because, to be perfectly honest, Bernard Schoenburg is the only political columnist I read in the SJ-R on a regular basis. I admit that I could be completely wrong about their editorial balance and I'd be happy to see someone try to prove it.

That relates to a suggestion I saw someone else make on the SJ-R comment board to have more local columnists. I'd rather read someone write about local and state issues, even if I disagree with them, than one more columnist writing about a national issue hundreds of other columnists are writing about. They run editorial pieces written by locals on a pretty regular basis, which I like, but that's not the same as having regular local columnists. Maybe they could add one local conservative and one liberal to write on a weekly basis. I'd consider that a big improvement over Ann Coulter.

Posted by Will at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It was nice to see this blog named in the State Journal-Register editorial today, especially after I've written two blog posts within the last week that are pretty critical of the paper. I complain about the news industry often but my most frequent criticisms are systemic problems related to the nature of the industry and the shrinking number of its owners. Being a reporter or editor isn't an easy job and my experience has been that most do their best to be fair and accurate.

Asking their readers if they should keep Coulter's column is a smart decision and I hope they seriously consider the responses. You can let them know what you think by emailing them (letters@sj-r.com) and voting today in their online poll.

There are some excellent online comments in response to their editorial. "IL Citizen" reinforced my view that she should have been dropped from most papers long ago by writing:

"We try to teach our children not to be hateful but we have Ann Coulter standing out and spewing hatred in every word. When she attacked the widows of 9/11, I stopped listening to anything the woman had to say. I don't know why the world in up in arms when she said the word "faggot," when she accused the widows of being happy about their husbands' deaths." ..."If anyone else had said and written what she has, we would have half the population asking for her remove. But.... as a Republican spokesperson, we give her a pass. Not me - and I'm a Republican."

One of my favorite one-liners: "Yes, we need the intelligent commentary Ann Coulter offers. It's good to be told on a weekly basis that I'm a godless appeasing traitor simply because I vote for Democrats more often than I vote for Republicans."

Someone wrote in response to a claim that Ann "makes you think."

"She makes you think? Yeah. She makes me think about the sorry state of what political discourse has degenerated to in America today at the hands of republicans like Lee Atwater and Karl Rove."

The online responses include some sentiments that are typical of the conservative talk-radio crowd's embrace of a victimization mentality by crying about censorship and political correctness. This isn't about censoring conservative ideas. We have to make a decision about what we want political debate to be.

Can we debate ideas and issues in a civil way without ugly personal attacks and bigoted slurs? And, if we don't confront that kind of nastiness at the national level, shouldn't we expect it to happen more often at the local level?

The answer from some conservatives like Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Karl Rove is, No. The problem with Coulter isn't that she's a conservative, but the fact that she's incapable of discussing issues like an adult. Her kind of politics increases negativity and cynicism in a way that discourages public participation in politics, and that might be part of the goal. Typically, Republicans win elections when fewer people participate.

At the local level, the result is fewer qualified people running for office because they don't want to be subjected to the nasty, small-minded attacks. I can understand that after some of the childish things people wrote anonymously as comments on this blog when I ran for county board. Coulter and those like her serve no productive purpose other than bringing us closer to a state of Idiocracy.

Posted by Will at 8:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

After her bigoted slur of John Edwards, newspapers around the nation are dropping Ann Coulter's column and advertises are removing themselves from her website. The 11th Hour beat me to writing that the Daily Chronicle in DeKalb dropped her column and wrote an editorial explaining why.

The only surprising thing is that this didn't happen long ago. This is a woman who constantly whines about liberals insulting conservatives but doesn't hesitate to call liberals names like traitors, godless, rapists, terrorists, and now faggots. I've never seen one of her columns that didn't include a childish insult, factual error and a straw-man argument.

She's an embarrassment to conservatives and any human being with at least a 6th grade education. How long is the SJ-R going to continue embarrassing itself and the city of Springfield by carrying her column?

I would like to see more balance on the SJ-R editorial page. They print a group of far-right conservatives like Coulter, Maulkin and Novak, who I guess are supposed to be balanced out by much more moderate columnists like Garrison Keillor. You can't balance a far-right conservative with a moderate.

If the SJ-R wants balance they'll have to start carrying columns by someone very liberal like Amy Goodman, Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn. Fat chance of that happening though. There are some ideas you won't find in the corporate media.

If you agree with me that the SJ-R needs to drop Ann Coulter and add a real liberal or two to their columnists, you can send an email (letters@sj-r.com) or write a letter to the editor to let them know.

Posted by Will at 3:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Illinois Times has a short article about the survey the Sierra Club recently mailed to candidates for Springfield Mayor and City Council. The local Sangamon Valley Group of the Sierra Club is working to bring environmental issues to the forefront in the city elections.

Because I'm involved in that effort I'm not going to write on this blog about who I support for Mayor and City Council. I have my favorites, but I don't want to give the impression that this blog represents the views of the local Sierra Club. It does not.

However, I will continue to write about local issues and make observations about the city elections, especially as they relate to environmental issues. Springfield took a big step forward when we adopted the clean energy agreement with the Sierra Club. In this election, I believe we have the opportunity to make this one of the greenest cities in the Midwest.

Posted by Will at 11:01 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

It's all over for Obama. Republicans have been hoping to find the hidden skeleton that will ruin Obama's chances at becoming President, and they finally have it. The Somerville News reports that during Barack Obama's days in college he committed the unforgivable sin of...get ready for this... NOT PAYING HIS PARKING TICKETS!!!! (gasp!)

Oh the humanity! What kind of person would do such a thing? I mean, besides me and a lot of people I know. I spotted this at Democratic Underground but I'm sure it will be picked up on talk radio soon and then "Meter-maid veterans for truth" will release a series of TV ads revealing the truth behind his days at Harvard that he hasn't already written about in his first book.

Well, that's it folks. I'm sure this will convince a lot of people to not support Obama if they already didn't support him to begin with. There goes that hard core 25% that listen to Rush Limbaugh every day and still think George Bush is an honest man.

This should be a lesson to all the college students who might want to run for office one day. Go out and party like a wild maniac but for goodness sakes, pay your parking tickets! :)

Posted by Will at 6:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I just listened to Rod Blagojevich give his budget address. One criticism I had during his first term is that he didn't make many significant changes considering the fact that he's the first Illinois Democratic Governor elected in my lifetime. I want to see the details of his plan but it sounds like I won't be able to make that criticism for his second term if he accomplishes what he spoke about today.

One thing I like about the speech is that it reveals the falsehood behind Republican demagoguery over taxes. The Republicans love to go on and on about cutting taxes, but the real effect of the Republican tax agenda since the Reagan administration has been to pass the tax burden onto the backs of the middle class. Republicans love to talk about Reagan's income tax cut, which disproportionally benefited the wealthy, but Regan didn't mind raising Social Security and FICA taxes on the middle class.

Republicans don't hate taxes. They just hate taxes paid by millionaires and large corporations. Its odd to see how quickly they support sales tax increases, which unfairly burden the middle class and working poor.

Why else is it that George Bush pushes to repeal the estate tax, which is paid by a small number of multi-millionaires, and eliminate the tax on dividends, which allows the super-rich who live off their investments to pay even less in taxes? Why does George Bush push so hard to eliminate taxes paid by the wealthy but retain those paid by the working poor and middle class?

When the Governor says that corporations shouldn't get a free ride at tax time, while the middle class bear the brunt of the tax burden, I think he makes a good point. During the next few weeks when Republicans oppose this plan, we'll see proof of the fact that the real Republican tax agenda is to pass the burden from those who can most afford to pay onto the backs of middle class workers. That goal has been at the heart of the conservative agenda for at least the last 20 years, if not for the last 50 or more.

We'll also hear Republicans rhetorically hide behind small business owners, who they do no more to help than Democrats. Frankly, I'm tired of hearing Republicans repeating small business-owner sob stories for proposals that are only designed to help multi-billion dollar corporations. They kept hiding behind "family farmers" during the estate tax debate but no one could find a single family farmer with assets large enough to have been put out of business by the tax. It's all a big sham.

Posted by Will at 1:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Every time there's a proposal that would help improve our environmental quality of life we see the emergence of a strange animal I like to call the Envirobutalist. These are people who say they support the environment but they always have a reason why they can't support whatever action is being proposed that day.

We saw this during the recent debate about the clean energy agreement in Springfield. I heard sentiments like, "I support wind power but not if it will cost us any money." "I support cleaning the air but not in this case because I don't like the tactics effectively used by the Sierra Club."

During election season the envirobutalists sound a lot like environmentalists. They're nice to listen to but they won't be there when you need them. The trick is to watch their record and ask for specific commitments on the issues. The devil is in the details.

Posted by Will at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

A political groupie calling herself "Citizen Kate" is making a video blog of her attempts to stalk Barack Obama. She comes off like Reese Witherspoon's ditzy character in Legally Blonde and I'm pretty sure she's acting. Besides her website she also has a myspace page.

Three of her videos are about Barack Obama's Presidential announcement in Springfield. She didn't have much to say about Springfield, except that there's not much here. She was very excited about meeting the Lt. Governor but not as much as she liked meeting Mayor Davlin in a local bar.

Mayor Davlin probably wouldn't appreciate me posting this but its too funny.

Political Lesson #1

Add to My Profile | More Videos

But don't worry. We find out in the next video that Kate went to IHOP later that night without the Mayor in tow.

The best line from Kate: "I learned what it takes to be a good politician: drinking. Just a little bit at least, and talking to people, and then they notice you." I get the strangest feeling that I've met her before.

Posted by Will at 4:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I had decided not to write an "I told you so" post in response to the SJ-R story today regarding donations from city contractors, but I can't resist. The story reports on the "computer analysis" of the easily searchable public information at the State Board of Elections website.

During my campaign for County Board I raised the same issue in relation to county contractors who have given donations to the Republican Sangamon County Board election fund and the Sangamon County Republican Party. I wrote about it at this blog, and in my campaign literature I suggested a ban on such contributions.

I would be thrilled to see contributions from government contractors banned to political parties and candidates in city, county, and state government. For reasons unknown to me, the SJ-R chose to ignore the story during the county board election, but took the initiative to do their own analysis for the city election.

Why is this news when it relates to Tim Davlin, but not when it relates to Andy Van Meter and the Republican dominated Sangamon County Board? Some of the contributors named in the article have donated to the Sangamon County Republican party and the County Board Member election fund, and they have county contracts.

Shouldn't the article have pointed out that two current Republican candidates for city council were elected to the county board with funds from the Republican election committee, which raised money from county contractors? What do they have to say about this issue? It would be tempting to pass it off as Republican bias, but I think it relates more to their lack of coverage about county government and politics.

We only just passed the primary and the SJ-R has already given many times more coverage to the city election than the total coverage they gave last year to the county board election. There was never the kind of candidate comparisons or surveys for the county election that is being done for the city.

Is it because the editors believe people aren't interested in county government? Is it because Republican county leaders prefer to stay out of the spotlight and avoid controversy? I can only speculate.

I don't blame individual reporters for this. I think part of the reason is the inordinate priority local media outlets give to crime stories. Dave at The 11th Hour recently wrote a post about how sad it is that someone throwing an egg at a police car makes the newspaper. This is what happens when editors choose to devote more resources to crime stories than to politics and community stories. It creates a distorted, negative image of the community.

I hope the editors of the SJ-R reconsider their priorities in the next county election and their focus on crime generally. Does anyone really believe that a story about someone throwing an egg is more important than where candidates for elected office stand on the issues?

Government works better when someone is shining a light on what our elected officials are doing. The SJ-R should start looking at county government with the same watchful eye they give to city government, even if Republican leaders don't appreciate the attention.

Posted by Will at 10:45 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I like that the Mayor Davlin and Alderman Frank McNeil are proposing a change to Springfield city elections. Their plan would eliminate the need for a second election if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote in a city primary. Its a good idea but I'd like to see them take it a step further by instituting an instant runoff voting system similar to what is proposed for overseas military ballots.

I helped to do get out the vote work in a precinct last Tuesday where the only office people could vote for was Mayor. Obviously, few people voted because there was no primary for Alderman and the outcome for the Mayoral race won't be decided until April.

If the system proposed by Davlin and McNeil were already in place, that precinct would only be voting for Alderman in April since Davlin won more than 50% in the primary. I have to imagine that turn-out would be very low again if the only office people were voting for is Alderman. Both scenarios involve costly elections that few people will show up for, just to elect one person.

So, why not do it all at once? Let people rank their candidates. If their first choice is eliminated, their vote goes to their next choice that is still in the race. Its like holding the primary and general election all at once.

That kind of instant runoff system eliminates the cost of holding two elections, and ensures the winner gets the support of a majority of voters. Voters will show up to vote in higher numbers because all city candidates will be elected at once. An instant runoff voting website does a better job of explaining the system than I do.

Posted by Will at 5:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

One area in which Springfield has a long way to go is promoting sustainable building standards. I wrote once before about the US Green Building Council's LEED program and their website has a "Green Building 101" page that provides a good introduction to standards that reduce indoor pollution, promote more efficient energy use and other sustainable building practices.

More locally, a new group called Sustainable Springfield Inc. is holding a public meeting about "Sustainability and the Green Movement." Local architect Jim Johnston is a prime instigator in getting the group started, which seeks to "bring awareness to the citizens of Springfield and the role each of us can play to help stop global warming and make our built environment more compatible with our natural environment."

Their upcoming meeting will be especially informative to city candidates and others who want to discuss what city government can do to promote more environmentally friendly building practices. Here come the details:

Sustainable Springfield Inc.
Wednesday, March 7th, 7:00 pm
Springfield Lincoln Library, Carnegie Room
7th & Capitol, Springfield.

Posted by Will at 1:13 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

This is one of the most ridiculously outrageous things I've seen in a while so I have to pass it along.

David and Eileen Wetzel don't get going in the morning quite as early as they used to.

So David Wetzel, 79, was surprised to hear a knock on the door at their eastside home while he was still getting dressed.

Two men in suits were standing on his porch.

"They showed me their badges and said they were from the Illinois Department of Revenue," Wetzel said. "I said, 'Come in.' Maybe I shouldn't have."

...The agents informed the Wetzels that they were interested in their car, a 1986 Volkswagen Golf, that David Wetzel converted to run primarily from vegetable oil but also partly on diesel.

Wetzel uses recycled vegetable oil, which he picks up weekly from an organization that uses it for frying food at its dining facility.

"They told me I am required to have a license and am obligated to pay a motor fuel tax," David Wetzel recalled. "Mr. May also told me the tax would be retroactive."

Since the initial visit by the agents on Jan. 4, the Wetzels have been involved in a struggle with the Illinois Department of Revenue. The couple, who live on a fixed budget, have been asked to post a $2,500 bond and threatened with felony charges.

Posted by Will at 12:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)