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

Last Tuesday the State Journal-Register published a good Op-Ed by Bob Wesley about the work of the ACLU. It doesn't surprise me that they made room for a response by Eugene Weitzel in today's paper, but it does surprise me that the response they printed offers such a weak argument.

I found myself thinking that surely they could have found someone to give a more serious, credible counter-point to Wesley's column. Then I saw how many people in the comments section agreed with Weitzel and I remembered how pervasive the relentless ACLU bashing is on talk radio and other conservative propaganda outlets. I feel like Weitzel's Op-Ed is full of straw-man arguments that are too weak to bother responding to but I'm going to write a response anyway because there are so many people who agree with his viewpoint.

Adopting the theme of Ann Coulter's book "Godless," Weitzel's principle assertion is that "it is the intent of the ACLU to completely secularize and humanize our country; eliminate God altogether."

Thanks to the wonders of the internet, it only takes a few minutes to discover that the ACLU frequently partners with some of the most conservative religious organizations in the country (including Jerry Falwell) to defend a persons right to exercise their religious freedom, even in public places. The ACLU website has a page about their cases in defense of religious freedom.

On that page you'll find examples of the ACLU defending the right of Christians to preach on public sidewalks, perform baptisms in a public park, have access to religious texts in prison, and wear a cross at work.

This one in particular stuck out:

The ACLU of New Jersey (2005) filed a a motion to submit a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of Olivia Turton, a second-grade student who was forbidden from singing "Awesome God" in a voluntary, after-school talent show. The only restriction on the student's selection for the talent show was that it be "G-rated."

After his shocking claim that there's never a medical reason to have an abortion, Weitzel's Op-Ed goes on to argue that the government should be allowed to force a particular religion down the throats of impressionable young children with mandatory prayer in public schools.

Ironically, one of the important cases the ACLU argued before the Supreme Court on that topic was for a student who shares Weitzel's Catholic faith. The Supreme Court agreed that the school system could not force Catholic and other non-protestant students to participate in protestant prayers to the exclusion of all other religions.

What the Christian Coalition crowd argues is that they should be allowed to push one particular religion onto children through force of the government in our school system. If that's what they really believe then I'm sure they will have no problem if a school district chooses to have mandatory prayers to Allah and daily readings from the Koran.

I'm guessing they wouldn't like that so much. If they don't want a religion they disagree with forced onto their children then they shouldn't try to force their religion onto the children of non-Christians. It goes back to the most basic Christian principle: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Its amazing how quickly that principle is forgotten when some leaders try to exploit religion for their own political advantage.

As if Weitzel's guest editorial wasn't outrageous enough, he then calls for the ACLU to be categorized as a terrorist organization and harassed by the government. That would be laughable if it weren't such an accurate description of how leftist organizations were treated by the US government for so many years.

Starting with the Palmer Raids in 1920, all the way to COINTELPRO in the 1960's, J. Edgar Hoover and his allies used the federal government to ensure that anyone involved in organizations or expressing views deemed too liberal by the government would be subjected to arrest, deportation, covert disruption and other harassment designed to stop citizens from exercising their constitutional rights. It truly frightens me that there are people who still approve of having an American gestapo to crush dissent and that this viewpoint was advocated in the local paper.

When the SJ-R decided to keep Ann Coulter's column, one argument they used to defend their decision was citing that they allow a wide variety of views in the Opinion section. There's no doubt that they've been printing some very controversial guest editorials lately.

I think that's a good thing since one of my regular complaints about the corporate media is that they limit the range of debate by censoring some viewpoints. Since the SJ-R is willing to publish the most extremist ultra-conservative views I would expect them to publish a guest editorial from a socialist or anarchist any day now.

I admit that the ACLU sometimes argues for causes and ideas that I dislike, but that's the point. Popular ideas and commonly held values don't need special Constitutional protection. Its precisely for those freedoms that most people find objectionable that we need the Bill of Rights to ensure that all of our freedoms are protected. That's why I appreciate the work of the ACLU even when I disagree with them.

Posted by Will at 12:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I try to keep my blogroll from getting out of control by only linking to ones I actually read. I recently added three national blogs I've been checking on a regular basis. TreeHugger, AFL-CIO Blog, and Feministing.

TreeHugger has become my favorite source for environmental news you don't find elsewhere. The AFL-CIO Blog is important because there's no topic where the bias of corporate-owned news outlets becomes more obvious than the lack of coverage about unions and workers rights. Feministing I read just because those chicks are hot. Or umm...because women are under-represented in the blogosphere and I oddly enjoy intellectual debates about feminism and women's issues...or something like that.

The AFL-CIO Blog today mentions the US Social Forum in Atlanta. Social Forums provide a chance for progressive movement building with workshops, making connections and forming plans. Local areas have social forums as well which reminded me that I often think Springfield could use one.

It would give a chance for the various groups and activists in the area to get together in a way that rarely happens. I think there are more activists and progressive organizations in central Illinois then people realize, so a forum could lead to big things by facilitating better communication and cooperation. Its no small task though. I wish I had a staff for all the ideas I have.

Posted by Will at 7:20 PM | Permalink

I can't believe a TV station actually aired the anti-Walmart ad I saw this week. It tied the fact that Walmart imports most of its products from China to the fact that China supplies weapons to those fighting US troops in Afghanistan. It reminded me of the anti-drug commercials that made the same connection to profits from street drugs funding terrorists.

Here's the ad on YouTube:

There's more about the ad at the Wake-up Walmart blog. Its seems like every few months I find out about a new reason to not shop at Walmart.

Posted by Will at 1:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I wanted to point this out because its one of those issues that rarely gets coverage in the corporate media. An amendment to cut off funding to the School of the Americas failed by 6 votes in the US House.

Accorind to SOA Watch:

"SOA graduates are responsible for some of the worst human rights abuses in Latin America. In 1996 the Pentagon was forced to release training manuals used at the school that advocated torture, extortion and execution. Among the SOA's nearly 60,000 graduates are notorious dictators Manuel Noriega and Omar Torrijos of Panama, Leopoldo Galtieri and Roberto Viola of Argentina, Juan Velasco Alvarado of Peru, Guillermo Rodriguez of Ecuador, and Hugo Banzer Suarez of Bolivia. Lower-level SOA graduates have participated in human rights abuses that include the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero and the El Mozote Massacre of 900 civilians.

Congressman John Shimkus showed his support for the activities of the SOA by voting against the amendment to cut off funding. Phil Hare and Ray LaHood took the opposite position, voting in favor of the amendement.

Posted by Will at 12:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

Last night I saw a TV20 news report about the Chamber of Commerce setting up electric co-op programs to shield business owners from the outrageous Ameren rate hikes. The Springfield Area Chamber is copying a program already adopted in Decatur. The fact that they feel this program is necessary is evidence that they believe the rate hikes are burdensome to Ameren customers.

I find that ironic because the Illinois Chamber of Commerce is one of the principle groups backing CORE, the phony "consumer" front group started by Ameren and ComEd.

In other words, the Chamber has no problem with helping Ameren drown residential customers in rate hikes just as long as Chamber businesses have their own life raft. Nice. Real nice.

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

I guess the fact that Ann Coulter used the favorite taunt of 5th graders everywhere when she called John Edwards gay doesn't seem so bad compared to her latest call for assassination.

"If I'm going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I'll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot." - Ann Coulter, June 25, 2007

It looks like Edwards is using this as a fundraising tool and I hope it works. My guess is that Coulter is still bruised that Edwards refused her sexual advances. Just a hunch. I'm sorely tempted to link a horribly obscene blog about Ann Coulter back from 2005 but I don't think I should link to anything that filthy no matter how funny it is.

Coulter was on TV promoting her new book, in which she makes the usual claims about liberals hating God. In case anyone missed it, that was the topic of Obama's speech at a church convention Saturday.

"Somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together and faith started being used to drive us apart," the Democratic presidential candidate said in a 30-minute speech before the national meeting of the United Church of Christ.

"Faith got hijacked, partly because of the so-called leaders of the Christian Right, all too eager to exploit what divides us," the Illinois senator said.

"At every opportunity, they've told evangelical Christians that Democrats disrespect their values and dislike their church, while suggesting to the rest of the country that religious Americans care only about issues like abortion and gay marriage, school prayer and intelligent design,"

Posted by Will at 10:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (9) | TrackBacks (0)

Elections in Illinois could get a little more interesting next year now that the Green Party has a guaranteed line on the general election ballot. I'm one of those odd people who daydreams about political strategies so I asked myself what I would advise the Illinois Green Party to do in the upcoming election.

First let me be clear that I'm a Democrat and no one in the Green Party has asked my opinion. I decided the Green Party was a disorganized waste of time when I watched a portion of their 2002 National Congress held in Carbondale Illinois. They were supposed to have a panel discussion on the Greens' role in the 2004 Presidential election that I thought might be interesting. The panel discussion never happened because their two-day long session of bickering about combining the two national Green Parties ran overtime. That's correct. There are two Green Parties, and in the tradition of the various American socialist and communist parties of the last century, they can't put their differences aside to make a united front.

Consequently, I'm not convinced that the Greens will become organized enough to win any elections even if they do take my advice. But for the sake of argument, I'll post what I would suggest they do if they want to accomplish more than spinning wheels and arguing amongst themselves.

Setting aside the 2000 election and the arguments over whether Nader threw the election to Bush, there are two scenarios that most alienate the Green Party from the progressive voting block it seeks to attract. The first is the Pennsylvania example where Green Party candidates take support from Republicans in close races. People aren't going to take the Green Party seriously if progressives see them as tools of Republicans looking to use them as spoilers.

The other point I hear liberals make against the Green Party most often is that they ran a candidate against Paul Wellstone. Wellstone was probably the most liberal member of the US Senate and beloved by progressives across the nation. The fact that Greens ran someone against him is still an embarrassing indictment against the Green Party's supposed dedication to the progressive cause. Are they really about electing progressives when the Democratic Party moves too far to the right, or are they just as bitterly partisan as the conservative Democrats who tell liberals they must vote for any conservative Democrat on the ballot?

The Green Party would be making the same mistake in Illinois if they ran someone against Dick Durbin, who was the only Senate Democrat other than Wellstone to vote against the war in Iraq while he was up for re-election. Running a candidate against Durbin would ruin any chance they might have of convincing liberal Democrats to vote for a Green in any office.

How then, can the Illinois Greens compete while avoiding these strategically disastrous pitfalls? There are two scenarios I can see that would allow them to win new supporters and have a chance at winning an election or two.

First, identify State House and Senate districts where Democrats have given up. Every year there are Republicans who run unopposed. Those are uphill battles but it provides an opportunity for the Greens to get votes from Democrats who won't support them in a three-way race.

That's how Rich Whitney earned his highest totals running for State Representative against Mike Bost. Even when they lose, it becomes a party building activity that doesn't leave liberal Democrats angry about a close election being thrown to a Republican. This should be their primary strategy in downstate.

Second, look for heavily Democratic districts in the Chicagoland area represented by moderate or conservative Democrats. There are districts that won't vote more than 33% Republican even in a three-way race. That's an opportunity for the Greens to win with someone who more accurately reflects the views of a liberal district.

At the state level, we could end up with more legislators who aren't dependent on party leaders. As long as Green candidates pledge to vote for a Democratic Speaker or Senate President then there's no danger of throwing control of the General Assembly to the Republicans.

The same strategy can be used in Congressional races. There are two incumbents that quickly come to mind.

One is Dan Lipinski in the 3rd Congressional District. I don't particularly have anything against Lipinski (in fact I briefly met him once while I lived in Knoxville and he was teaching at UT) but I know there are many people who feel his views are too conservative for the heavily Democratic district he represents. He had a strong primary challenge last time and already has a Democratic Primary challenger this year.

A progressive candidate might have better luck in the general election during a Presidential race than in the primary when fewer people vote. A Republican won't get more than 25% in a three way race in that district, so a Green could easily win with 40% of the vote.

Alternately, if there's no Republican candidate, a Green could win with support of liberal Democrats, anti-machine independents, and partisan Republicans who want to vote for anyone that doesn't have a "D" next to their name. The 3rd district looks like the most realistic chance for the Greens to win a Congressional seat in Illinois and they'll be able to compete without completely alienating all of the liberal Democrats in the district.

The other possibility is Rahm Emanuel. Rahm isn't as conservative as Lipinski but he has become the leading Congressional poster child for "Third Way" moderate Democrats. He lives in a heavily Democratic district that would vote for Eugene Debs if he ran as a Democrat. Its fine for conservative Democrats to argue that we must elect moderates in more moderate to conservative areas, but Rahm is a moderate in a very liberal district.

A Green Party challenge against the House's leading DLC Democrat could become a national race in the same vein as the Lieberman/Lamont primary. The Greens could raise money nationally by making it a referendum on vacillating Democratic leaders whose play-it-safe strategy on Iraq and other issues is angering liberal voters. Emanuel already butted heads with Cindy Sheehan and pushed Congressional approval ratings below 25% by not taking the kind of strong stand war opponents expect from Democratic leaders.

An exciting Green candidate with some money of his own would attract volunteers and donations from people across the country who want to make a statement about the compromising, ineffective, "third way" approach of Democratic Party leaders. The district is liberal enough that it might actually work.

That's my advice for the Greens if they want to at least be relevant, gain support, and build their party structure during the next election. These are ways the Illinois Greens can build support rather than further alienating their likely progressive voters as they have in other states.

Again, being a Democrat, I'm not saying I necessarily want all of these things to happen, but its makes for an interesting hypothetical question. I'll be interested to see what the Greens decide to do. I'd love to hear what other people think.

Posted by Will at 2:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

In the last two weeks two new downtown bars, Celtic Mist and Salute, had grand opening parties with large crowds. Can we blame the smoking ban for that too?

Posted by Will at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The State Journal Register has a good article today on the PURPA standards I wrote about before and that Greg blogged about extensively at CES Blog. I have to admit this is a complicated story that can get pretty boring so the SJ-R deserves credit for covering it in a long front page article.

The review of these standards is a good opportunity for the public to talk about what direction we want CWLP to take with clean energy and let Alderman know that it should be a priority. My impression is that CWLP leaders are open to public suggestions and we have a group of new Alderman who are probably willing to look at new ways of doing things.

One thing I like about the article (other than being surprised at seeing my name mentioned) is its acknowledgement that the clean energy agreement reached with the Sierra Club already put CWLP on the right path with several of these issues such as fuel diversification and conservation measures. I was glad to see a line about how the agreement called for conservation and a resulting reduction of emissions in the existing Dallman power plant units. That point was missed in some of the debate over the agreement, in which a few opponents falsely claimed that it did nothing to reduce pollution in Springfield.

The standards came up at CWLP's energy meeting last Thursday. It had the best attendance yet of any of the meetings and new Alderman Steve Dove was there. Its nice to see an Alderman taking active interest in learning more about the issues he'll be voting on.

While you're reading the SJ-R be sure to check out the article about Dick Durbin's comments on the Senate Energy Bill that I wrote about yesterday.

This morning I was watching "This Week" on ABC and I wondered why the Immigration Bill gets so much more coverage than the Energy Bill since the Energy Bill has at least as much, if not greater impact on our lives. Just then, the commercial break started with "This Week is brought to you by BP." That pretty well answered my question.

Of course, I can't expect NBC and the many other new outlets owned by General Electric to give the issue fair coverage either. So, we're left with the talk radio crowd setting the national agenda. That's the "liberal media" for you! If we're supposed to believe that campaign contributions affect how politicians vote, then why shouldn't I believe that the ownership and advertising revenue sources of the major media outlets affects how they cover the news?

Posted by Will at 5:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There are a few news items about fuel economy that I've been meaning to write about. The Star Tribune has a good editorial about legislation that passed the Senate to improve fuel efficiency. Also, if you missed coverage of the Senate energy bill, check out this New York Times article. The Senate's support for better fuel standards is encouraging but pro-pollution Republicans managed to block legislation that would have encouraged a responsible course on clean energy generation.

The above Star Tribune editorial mentions this interview with Dick Durbin and Missouri Senator Kit Bond about fuel standards. Kit Bond, who receives hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from the oil and auto industries, chooses to ignore the interests of the people he represents by repeating the bogus scare tactics of the auto industry. Durbin had a great line about the auto manufacturers and their doomsday predictions:

I think America can meet this challenge. I'm optimistic. And I think, if some of the Detroit manufacturers spend a little more time with their engineering department rather than their legal department, that they could meet this challenge.

Barack Obama is talking a lot about this issue. His statement about the Senate bill calls it a "modest first step" and mentions his Low Carbon Fuel Initiative. He also introduced a bill with Republican Orrin Hatch and Maria Cantwell to promote plug-in hybrids, which I think is the most promising technology for the near future.

Clean Cars is an issue I've been focusing on lately and all of this news reminds me of why I think Illinois has the best representation in the US Senate of any state in the nation.

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

Once in a while when I'm talking with people about the latest poll numbers or news about the Presidential primary I'll find myself saying, "that's exactly what I said was going to happen several months ago, remember?" So today, for the admittedly petty reason to have evidence that I was correct down the road, I'm going to make my predictions about the primary election.

After watching the weekly Sunday morning political shows I feel validated in my opinions because most of the national television political pundits are obviously morons. They don't know how to look at anything other than the latest poll numbers and fundraising totals. At least Obama's excellent fundraising totals in the last quarter forced the national media to temper its cult-like obession with Hillary by introducing a little more talk about Barack. But I still saw every pundit on Meet the Press declare that they believe Clinton will win the nomination. Fools!

I never thought Hillary Clinton had a chance because people are desperate for a leader who shows conviction, not someone who always takes the "popular" strategic stance based on what swing voters supposedly want. Democratic Primary voters are burned out on Clinton-esque straddling. That's why the approval ratings for Congress have dropped even lower recently. The Rahm Emanuel strategy of playing it safe and moderate on the Iraq War issue managed to alienate most of the Democratic Party base without winning over independents either.

The frustration anti-war Democrats feel that the party is spinelessly failing to fulfil the mandate of the voters will further damage Clinton's campaign because she is the least credible in her opposition to the war. What Bush/Rove showed in '04 is that people want to vote for someone who they believe will stand by their convictions, even if they disagree with the candidate's convictions or don't know what they are.

Polling data shows Hillary's lead slowing fading over time. Polls will fluctuate back and forth, but that general trend will continue. Of course, national polls are almost meaningless since we don't have a national primary, which makes the other trend I've noticed important. Hillary's early lead shrunk much faster in the first few primary states where people are paying more attention and the campaigns are spending more time.

What all of that means is that as voters learn more about the candidates (rather than basing their preference on the first like-able name they recognize) Hillary loses support. It also means Hillary has more ground to lose in February and March primary states where the campaigns haven't heated up yet.

The first four primary states this year are Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. I think Obama and Edwards have the advantage over Clinton in Iowa and South Carolina. Polls differ but most of them show Obama, Clinton and Edwards very close in both states. John Edwards will build on his 2004 good showing in Iowa and victory in South Carolina. Barack Obama will continue to win more black voters over from Hillary in South Carolina, and will benefit from Illinois volunteers helping in Iowa. Hillary will finish third in both states.

As an Obama supporter, I hope Hillary is still running first in the national polls right up until the Iowa Caucus. A third place finish in Iowa will be absolutely devastating to a "frontrunner" campaign, as it was for Dean in '04, and the media pundits will have to once again admit that they are wrong to misguidedly declare anyone a frontrunner a year before a single vote is cast.

Clinton has a better shot at winning New Hampshire, but she won't be able to recover from failing to meet expectations as a front runner after third place finishes in Iowa and South Carolina. She'll have the money to stay in the race into March, dragging along, before finally admitting defeat. The final nail in the coffin could be Clinton only narrowly defeating Obama in Arkansas. In fact, Clinton will have a real fight for Arkansas if Obama gets ACORN's endorsement.

Currently, this is a two-way race between Obama and Edwards.

All of that will change in the unlikely event that Al Gore enters the race. I believe a Gore candidacy is Clinton's best chance at winning the nomination. Much of Gore's support will come from liberals who would otherwise vote for Obama or Edwards. By splitting the progressive vote three ways, Gore would allow Hillary to win with the 20-30% of Democrats who are strongly dedicated to her. Gore can't win unless Edwards, Clinton or Obama were to drop out before the Iowa Caucus and I can't imagine a scenario where that happens.

Regarding the others, Bill Richardson will continue to get more and better press coverage than the other second-tier candidates. If he ever becomes a top-tier candidate his negatives will quickly tank his campaign when faced with tougher media scrutiny. He'll have to drop out if he doesn't perform in Nevada.

Chris Dodd will drop out before Iowa. He's taken much more seriously in the Senate (as he should be) than he is on the campaign trail. It isn't fun for someone with his stature to be an also-ran.

Dennis Kucinich will continue to have a major impact on the national debate but will also continue to receive no recognition for that in the national media regardless of what happens with his poll numbers or fundraising. Kucinich supporters are right to complain that the corporate media doesn't want to seriously address many of the issues he raises, but the biggest obstacles to his success will be self-inflicted wounds, just like last time.

Joe Biden will make another idiotic, offensive comment or two and the few people taking him seriously will remember why the rest of us don't.

Those are my predictions. In the months ahead I'll either say "I knew it!" when something comes true or those of you reading can remind me how wrong I was. Sometime soon I'll write about the Republican primary.

Posted by Will at 10:50 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

I don't have much time to write today so I'm going to copy and paste this press release someone forwarded to me. I plan to be there Thursday.

CWLP SCHEDULES THIRD ENERGY MEETING

City Water, Light and Power General Manager Todd Renfrow announced today that CWLP will host the third in a series of meetings aimed at discussing its progress on environmental and energy savings programs on Thursday, June 21, in the City Council Chambers, Municipal Center West, 7th& Monroe Streets. The meeting will begin at 6 p.m.

The meetings are aimed at maximizing and enhancing energy efficiency programs, Renfrow said.. “CWLP is encouraging public participation in the sessions.”

The meeting was originally scheduled for the Springfield Housing Authority, but had to be changed because of scheduling conflicts.

CWLP has added a new page to its website www.cwlp.com, titled “Smart Energy Forum.” Activities and announcements related to CWLP’s energy efficiency programs will be discussed and ideas solicited.

The remaining schedule for CWLP’s Community Energy Forums this year is:

Thursday, August 16, 6 p.m.
Lincoln Land Community College, Trutter Center
5250 Shepherd Rd.

Thursday, October 18, 4 p.m.
University of Illinois-Springfield
PAC Conference Room G

Posted by Will at 11:05 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Via Capitol Fax, Cheap Trick is in Springfield today! FYI, they're playing a free show at the Taste of Chicago this year.

Here's my favorite Cheap Trick song that also served as my unnoficial campaign song.

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

The SJ-R surprised me the last few days with some controversial editorials by local writers. Today Timothy Parsons-Heather responds to a writer who believes all moderate Muslims should be held responsible for condemning or otherwise policing terrorist elements in their own tradition.

I guess there's nothing unique about people who think that every individual member of a minority group is responsible for representing that entire group. But that doesn't mean it makes any sense. Does every Christian in America have to personally and repeatedly condemn those who bomb abortion clinics, as though all Christians are somehow connected and responsible for that act of domestic terrorism? Of course not. Then why should every Muslim be expected to personally condemn terrorists, as though every Muslim is somehow connected to terrorism?

The topic reminded me of an episode of the TV documentary 30 Days, done by the director of Supersize Me, that tackles the same issue when a Christian from the South is asked to spend 30 days living as a Muslim in Detroit. Its pretty good and I even found it for rent at Family Video.

Today's editorial repeatedly asks where the moderates were when Americans committed genocide against Native-Americans, perpetuated slavery, and persecuted other minority groups. Of course the answer is that the moderates were doing and saying nothing until the tail end of the struggle to stop all of those injustices.

Martin Luther King addressed this topic well in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail.

First, I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Councilor or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to "order" than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: "I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action"; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a "more convenient season." Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.

Throughout American history a conservative or moderate can be defined as someone who accepts most of what radical leftists were advocating 30 years in the past. It always has been and always will be that way, which is why I don't mind if someone calls me a liberal.

Posted by Will at 11:55 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During the debate over the clean energy agreement with CWLP, one of the arguments advanced by the Sierra Club was that CWLP could benefit financially down the road by diversifying its sources of energy, should the price of coal go up. I didn't think the strength of that argument would be reinforced so quickly with news about rising coal prices for Springfield.

The main benefit of coal is that its a very cheap energy source (if you only consider the up-front costs, without regard to broader environmental impacts). Today's story is a reminder that this may not always be the case. Besides what would happen to the price of coal nationally if there were a disruption in rail lines leaving Wyoming, likely regulation of carbon emissions at the national level will increase the cost of coal generation as well. Those who plan on coal always being as cheap and reliable as it has been in the past may be in for a rude awakening.

That's one of the reasons why federal law requires utilities to consider their fuel diversity as part of the PURPA standards. A few months ago I would have expected someone to excuse themselves if they blurted out "PURPA!" during a conversation. But I've been learning more since I attended a hearing at the end of May where CWLP presented its proposals for adopting the PURPA standards.

Springfield is lucky to have Greg Claxton at Clean Energy Springfield who has far more academic background in these issues than I do. His posts (including an overview with more detailed posts about fuel diversity, net metering, smart metering and interconnection) are the reason I haven't felt the need to write about this before. You should also check out CWLP's page on the public hearing where you can read the transcripts and submit comments.

There are some good things about CWLP's proposal but CES hopes they'll do more to encourage net metering, smart metering and provide incentives for people to do things like install solar panels on their home. My general impression is that when CWLP felt they could make money with a policy they supported it, and when they were concerned it might cost money they opposed it or pushed the costs of implementation onto participants.

As a customer, I definitely appreciate the business minded attitude they have about keeping rates low. There's also no doubt that I would rather deal with CWLP than a private utility like Ameren any day of the week. CWLP scores higher than Ameren on any measure I can think of including environmental policies, rates, maintaining the grid, and customer service.

But as I said during the debate over the Sierra Club clean energy agreement, I think a municipal utility also has a responsibility to consider the public health and quality of life in the community it serves. I also think a little investment in up-front costs and incentives to encourage more alternative energy use in Springfield will be financially beneficial in the long run.

Besides the fact that encouraging locally generated clean energy is good for the environment, I think it will increase Springfield's desirability as a community. Suppose someone is considering moving a business or building a large new home in central Illinois and they want to use the latest practices to conserve energy, build photovoltaic solar panels on the roof, install a geothermal heating/cooling system, and is willing to reduce their energy use during peak hours. If a neighboring community (Normal, for example) provides incentives for anyone taking those steps that will save them money, while Springfield has a hesitant set of policies that make it costlier to take action, in which community do you think that new building is going to be located?

Springfield can be a town that encourages forward thinking businesses and smart energy use, or we can be a town that forces people concerned about the environment to locate elsewhere.

Springfield took a big step forward by purchasing wind power and committing to increase spending on energy conservation and efficiency. The PURPA standards that will soon go before the City Council are a chance to build on the big successes we've had in the last year and I hope the city will take this opportunity.

As important as this story is, I've only seen it covered by Abbie Alford at WCFN and R.L. Nave in the Illinois Times. There's another reminder why those are two of my favorite reporters in town. This is a complicated issue that makes for a boring story in some ways, but I'm sure you'll see other news outlets cover it soon.

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

Schoenburg's column in the SJ-R today tells about an issue raised by newly elected SMEAA member Mike Ziri.

Ziri's beef is that Stratton, whose firm Stratton and Reichert is paid $1,250 per month by the Springfield Metropolitan Exposition & Auditorium Authority for the legal work, also represented candidates for SMEAA who were seeking to stay on the April ballot. Ziri, whose objections led to removal of three candidates from the ballot in his subdistrict, thinks that's a conflict of interest.

My experience running for county board, and with this blog, is that there's a group of Republicans within local government (certainly not all) that react to any fair comment about policy with defensive, angry responses as though they are above being criticized. That doesn't apply to my county board opponent who was always civil. But there are some who have the hate-radio mentality that any discussion of policy should be responded to with personal attacks.

I expect that Mike Ziri will get the same sort of response I received and we already see that happening in Mike Coffey's speculative quote in the SJ-R claiming that Ziri would never have gotten elected without others being removed from the ballot. Besides being impossible to prove, there's no good reason to respond to a critique on policy with a personal swipe like that. You can see more of that attitude in the nasty online comments to the story.

There aren't many elected officials in either party who speak out against the corrupt buddy system of patronage and pay-to-play in Sangamon County. I hope Mike keeps it up and doesn't let people lacking in civility and maturity keep him down.

Posted by Will at 11:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

When I was in Chicago recently I saw an article about the Cook County Sheriff's Department arresting sex offenders for not complying with the registry laws. Its a felony for registered sex offenders to not provide accurate and current information, and the Cook County Sheriff has a unit to enforce those laws. They even post those who are non-compliant on their website which asks for tips to find the offenders.

In Springfield today the SJ-R has an article about 20 registered sex-offenders in Sangamon County who aren't in compliance with the law. It states:

"Officers, after weeding out those who are in prison, jail or living out of state, checked 207 of them Monday morning, not so much to make arrests but more to update their information..."

I hope there's a plan not mentioned in the article to start arresting them very soon. If there's a story about a dozen or more sex offenders being arrested during the next two weeks then I'm happy to give the Springfield Police and County Sheriff Departments all the praise they deserve.

Right now all I see is a public relations attempt to reassure people that something is being done when they should be doing a lot more. I'm not trying to bash the police officers because I know they have a hard job but the Chiefs need to show some leadership on this. I'm waiting for them to prove me wrong.

Posted by Will at 3:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last weekend in Chicago I walked along the lakefront to see the Cool Globes. Its a public art display of over 100 decorated globes that focus on ways to confront global warming.

I saw it several weeks ago before it was completely set up when there were no plaques explaining what each globe is about. It made much more sense this time. The person I was with last time was concerned that they focus on taking small actions and don't ask people to do enough. This time, with the descriptive plaques in place, I was impressed by how many different angles of climate change and energy solutions were tackled between them all.

Some of the sponsors were a little self serving. A globe sponsored by Toyota was about fuel efficient cars. An investment firm sponsored one about investing in "green" businesses. But I think that's harmless since the messages are good ones.

This one about rooftop gardens is one of my favorites:

There was one globe about population control that I thought was pretty boring at first. It was nothing but a bunch of little colored dots placed around the world. Then a friend pointed out that the little dots were birth control pills!

Another focused on compost worms. If you lift the boxes on the side you can see the worms working away.

I recently learned that someone I know has compost worms in her apartment. She keeps them in a big plastic tub and throws in scraps of food that the worms turn into mulch. I started to tease her for having worms but she seemed a little sensitive about it. So, I went back to making fun of her Solar Oven as "just laying food outside." Although indoor or outdoor compost worms may sound odd at first, I'm completely convinced that they're a great idea.

You can see the globes on the lakefront near the Field Museum if you're in Chicago between now and September. You can even get a guided tour if you arrange for it in advance.

Posted by Will at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

KCB Magazine has an excellent feature article on global warming that focuses on an agreement reached between the Sierra Club and Kansas City Power & Light. The clean energy agreement reached between CWLP and the Sierra Club served as a model for the Kansas City compromise.

In this new world of energy in America environmental groups and utility companies might make for strange bedfellows, but by joining together they see a way to accomplish their respective goals. Environmental groups get curbs on pollution. Power companies can find new ways of making profits. “It’s not like we’ve agreed to do anything they want,” Hope says. “We’ll work together to find common ground, and we do believe that, in the long run, the costs will be cheaper with energy efficiency and wind than with coal.”

Posted by Will at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The SJ-R's story on Hunter Lake today reports that construction of the Hunter Lake dam would result in a 72.3 rate increase, and just as importantly for us in the general public, that the public comment period is now open until June 29.

I haven't seen the Corp of Engineers documents yet but I'm disappointed to read in the article that it apparently takes a dismissive attitude about water conservation and efficiency measures. Not only has that resulted in significant reductions of use in other communities, but it would result in people spending less money on water rather than a rate increase. At the least, I hope CWLP will study how much we might save from measures that haven't been implemented or considered before. That shouldn't be equated with "doing nothing."

Proponents raise the threat of a 100 year drought as justification for the dam. I suspect it has as much to do with the several ethanol and bio-diesel plants proposed in the area, as they require large amounts of water to operate.The last update I heard is that the Waverly ethanol plant still hasn't settled on a supplier for its water. If one plant is having difficulty then how are we supposed supply water for three of four more?

If investors in new ethanol and bio-diesel refineries need a new water source for their business, then they should be the ones to pay for that water source rather than passing their costs of doing business onto residential ratepayers. It might also be interesting if the SJ-R did some research to find out who those investors are.

News of the large rate increase makes the Chamber of Commerce support for the dam project even more baffling. If the Chamber wishes to be successful in its Q5 effort to bring more businesses and residents to Springfield then it should be in favor of lower water rates that will attract new companies and help small business owners remain profitable. The fact that a few people will make a lot of money building this dam doesn't justify higher rates for every other business owner in town.

Finally, I noticed the SJ-R's report that the average depth of the lake will be 14.6 feet, which means it won't be optimal for use as a recreational lake. If we want a new recreational area then the land should be turned into a forest preserve or conservation area that will be a new tourist draw for Springfield.

We already have a recreational lake. Unless I'm underestimating the relative size of other parks in Sangamon County, we don't have the kind of large preserved natural area that offers the kind of hiking and wilderness experience that the Hunter Lake property would provide. We have a chance to significantly improve the quality of life and attractiveness of our community.

I'll probably post about this again soon, but be sure to participate in the public comment period and let your alderman know what you think.

Posted by Will at 11:20 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

My favorite annual event in Springfield (after the State Fair) is the Carillon Festival in Washington Park. Its happening this week and finishes up Saturday. This is one of those things I try to make sure people who are new to town know about since everyone I know who is new to town complains about how boring Springfield is.

My belief is that a picnic in the park Friday night for the Carillon concert and fireworks is the best romantic cheap date in Springfield for the entire year. Hopefully my date doesn't read this blog post before Friday evening.

Posted by Will at 11:00 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

The Chicago Tribune has an article today about the Taylorville coal power plant I wrote about yesterday. It reports:

The lack of a binding commitment from the plant's developers on cutting carbon dioxide emissions concerns environmentalists because coal gasification plants are designed to be more adaptable to capturing carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas responsible for heating up the planet. But for now the developers will not be required to install the equipment.

Omitting limits on carbon dioxide emissions runs counter to Blagojevich's pledge to reduce the state's production of greenhouse gases by 25 percent by 2020 and 60 percent by 2060. Most experts think any solution will require cleaner power plants and cars.

"We're all ears if they are willing to talk about how this plant will fit into a carbon-constrained world," said Bruce Nilles, an attorney who runs the Sierra Club's Midwest Clean Air Campaign. "As it stands now, the emissions would equal the global warming pollution from 500,000 cars every year."

The Reuters wire story calls it a "clean coal" plant, which is a misnomer. IGGC plants do emit less toxins than old coal-fire plants but there's really no such thing as a "clean" coal plant. The Reuters story included numerous quotes from the company building the plant, including a statement that it has support from environmentalists, but failed to mention the critical statements released by the Sierra Club and the Environment Illinois. That must be the liberal media bias I keep hearing about.

The SJ-R had the story online as late-breaking news yesterday afternoon, but I can't find it in today's paper.

On a more positive note, last night the Springfield city council unanimously passed the second part of CWLP's wind power contract! It's great to see how much support there is for real clean power use in Springfield now that some of the political posturing has died down.

Updated added on 6/7: Thanks to my friend who pointed out that the SJ-R's story I missed on the power plant was in the Marketplace section of Wednesday's paper on page 31. Also, the article mentions a bill in the General Assembly requiring Ameren and ComEd to purchase power from the Taylorville coal plant. I think everyone would be better off with the bill requiring utilities to implement energy conservation and efficiency measure that would result in lower bills for customers and a greater benefit to the environment.

Posted by Will at 10:40 AM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

In case anyone is wondering why I seem to be obsessed with cars lately, it's because I'm chairing the Illinois Sierra Club's committee to promote clean car legislation. Several other groups are promoting the legislation so hopefully my blog isn't the only place you'll hear about it. I checked out the status of the bill on the General Assembly website today and noticed that Mike Madigan is now the chief co-sponsor. The deadline for action was extended as well.

I don't know if it will be voted on before the end of this session but it doesn't look dead yet. Still no Springfield area legislators have signed on as co-sponsors.

Posted by Will at 3:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Earlier this year I went with company officials to visit the site of a new coal gasification plant planned near Taylorville. The Illinois EPA issued a permit for the plant today and Sierra Club state director Jack Darin released a statement, which is also posted on his blog.

Part of the statement mentions Springfield:

Illinois coal can also be a part of the solution if new plants are linked to major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. Last year in Springfield, just up the road from Taylorville, City Water Light and Power (CWLP) was planning to build a 200MW power plant for their city customers. We worked with CWLP to forge an agreement to offset the plant’s carbon dioxide emissions through a creative package of programs, including purchasing 120MW of wind power, and investing $400,000 into a city wide energy efficiency program.

So far, this has not been the case with the Tenaska project. Tenaska does not have a plan to deal with the massive increases in global warming pollution that would come from their plant. Such a plan could include offsetting carbon emissions through retiring existing, dirtier plants, investing in renewables or efficiency, or potentially sequestering their carbon underground, although there are still many questions about the viability of carbon sequestration.

The resolution has 70 co-sponsors, including Springfield area Representatives Rich Brauer and Raymond Poe.

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

I just finished watching the Democratic presidential primary debate from New Hampshire on CNN. I think the fact that I rarely watch national TV news networks makes me more sensitized to just how ridiculous and inane the TV pundits are on the rare occasion when I do see them.

I'll admit that Wolf Blitzer didn't engage in the kind of right-wing hatchet job that I saw from Brian Williams in the previous debate. Wolf's problem is that he can't resist asking "gotcha" questions at every opportunity. That might make for an exciting screaming debate show on CNN, but it doesn't encourage a serious discussion of the issues.

The problem became most obvious when Wolf took intelligent questions asked by audience members and disfigured them into simple-minded "gotcha" questions. The worst example was a serious question one audience member asked about tax policy that Blitzer dumbed-down to, "Who is rich by your definition, John?"

Blitzer's hypothetical scenarios were asinine and when Hillary finally pointed that out it was one of two moments when the audience applauded a candidate's criticism of Blitzer's poor job as moderator. The other instance was Obama's excellent point about the divisiveness of Blitzer's question about making English the official language.

Another example was his questioning of Hillary about Bill Clinton's policy on gays in the military. Hillary answered the question clearly by saying "don't ask, don't tell" was a transition policy and went on to say what she would do differently as President. Apparently, Wolf wasn't happy with a clear statement of policy because he interrupted Clinton to repeat his "gotcha" effort to point out that her position is different than her husband's. Who needs to discuss an issue in depth when you can take cheap shots against someone who isn't even running?

During the break between sections of the debate we got to hear Candy Crowley remind us that Hillary Clinton needs to appear strong because she's a woman. Gosh, how insightful! Its not as though I haven't heard that exact point on EVERY political talking head show on every network every week. Its a good thing we have CNN there to tell us what to think about what we just saw. And how smart of CNN to have a woman remind us of the sexist double standard applied to candidates. I wonder if Candy "I swear I'm not a stripper" Crowley feels the same pressure to act strong at her own job.

I noticed the audience applaud Kucinich's call for US withdrawal from NAFTA and the WTO, which is a topic you're unlikely to hear any moderator bring up as long as the debates are hosted by any of the corporate media networks. The way the national media discuses politics is embarrassing and breaking up the media conglomerates is one of the best things that could happen to America.

Also, did anyone else think Blitzer was a little unfair towards Richardson? He interrupted him constantly and then loudly cut him off when he went over time. Wolf, you can't complain about someone not answering a question if you're going cut them short as soon as they do try answering.

I wish I had more to write about what the candidates said but I got so irritated by Blitzer, just like I was with Brian Williams, that I had a hard time focusing on the points candidates made in between his moronic questions. Can't we let the League of Women Voters take over the rest of the debates?

Posted by Will at 8:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)