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

After years of listening to Ray Lytle it was pretty cool to be on his new show. This one is a political show and he had me on to discuss the Springfield mayoral election. I wasn't representing any campaign or organization other than my own blog this time so that's fun.

I'm not used to radio and he asked a few questions I hadn't thought about. I would have been happy if he had cut out a few parts. I can understand actors who say they never see their own movies because I was a little nervous about listening to myself. But it ended up being a fun talk about why we ended up with the final four candidates who won and what happens next. You can get the podcast at Ray's blog.

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

I'm posting the news articles, blogs and links to photos I've found so far from Saturday's rally at the Illinois Capitol building. Please let me know if you've seen any I missed.

A Quad City Times article mentioned at least 50 car pooling from Bloomington and estimates the crowd at 500-700. Some people thought it was over 1,000.

The St. Louis Beacon headline downplays the crowd size but includes a good set of pictures.

WICS TV news has a good video online with clips from several attendees.

The articles I've seen cover it as a union rally without mentioning other groups represented such as NAACP and Sierra Club. There's no coverage from Springfield's State Journal-Register so far, although they always seem to have reporters available for Tea Party rallies.

The candidates and elected officials who attended included Sheila Stocks-Smith, Chris Boyster, Mike Ziri, Sam Cahnman, and Michael Higgins. Bill Houlihan spoke for Senator Dick Durbin.

The Illinois Education Association blog has pictures plus a video of IEA President Ken Swanson's speech.

My friend Alan put a few pictures on flickr.

I stole a few that Wes King put on facebook.

Posted by Will at 5:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I was asked to speak for the Sierra Club at the rally to save the American Dream held on the steps of the Capitol building in Springfield, Illinois in solidarity with Wisconsin public employees. The large crowd was fired up from previous speakers so I was glad to have very enthusiastic response. Here's the text of my speech from the February 26 rally.

(Springfield NAACP President Teresa Haley on the left introduced speakers.)

I’m here to say a few words as Chair of the Illinois Sierra Club about why Sierra Club and other environmental groups are supporting these rallies across the nation. But I’m also here because I’ve been a union member and organizer. And because my dad was a state employee in AFSCME Council 31 from before I was born until he retired.

I know what the right to organize means for a workplace. I know that those politicians who try to take away our right to organize are the same ones who would take away our right to clean air and clean water. Those who would unfairly apply budget cuts to public employees are the same forces attempting to gut environmental protections.

I know that an organized workplace that protects the safety of its workers is more likely to protect the safety of the environment and the community they work in. It's no coincidence that non-union coal mines with poor safety records are usually the same mines with poor environmental records.

The Sierra Club knows we don’t have to choose between a healthy environment and good union jobs. Auto plants in Michigan and Illinois are reopening to build fuel efficient cars and hybrids. Illinois fields that cover abandoned coal mines are now growing wind farms that are providing the good union jobs of our energy future. America's economy is being rebuilt on a foundation of green union jobs.

Public employees in Wisconsin, Illinois and all 50 states are working to protect your environment through EPA, the Department of Natural Resources and other agencies. They work to protect natural areas and prevent corporate polluters from dumping toxins in our communities. Well trained professionals protected from retaliation are better empowered to stand up for clean air and water. An attack on public employees is an attack on the environment.

The Sierra Club stands today with our brothers and sisters in the labor movement in support of an American Dream that protects the right to organize, the right to a safe workplace, and the right to a healthy community.

Posted by Will at 1:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Attendees of CWLP's Smart Energy Forum on Tuesday learned about the upcoming appliance rebate and today the official announcement went out. Rebates will be offered to encourage people to replace some of the most common energy-sucking appliances with newer, more efficient models.

It applies to energy star refrigerators ($400), dishwashers ($200) and dehumidifiers ($100). Rebate applications will be available at local stores. You can view the details and participating stores at the Energy Services page. Funds are provided through federal stimulus grants.

This is on top of a long list of continuing efficiency programs, including the refrigerator roundup, air conditioner rebate, home energy audits and more.

Participating in any of the programs doesn't require you to thank an energy services office employee, Barack Obama, or tree-hugging clean energy advocates. But you could.

Posted by Will at 3:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

City Water Light & Power's Smart Energy Forum on Tuesday featured previews of forward thinking programs that could be coming to Springfield soon if they're approved by the city council.

The first portion of the meeting focused on existing efficiency programs including a limited time rebate for efficient appliances. The new project manager for water conservation programs was present as well.

Two renewable energy programs are being developed. One would add incentives for distributed renewable generation such as rooftop solar panels. CWLP would add to existing state and federal incentives to lower the up-front costs.

Distributed solar would help develop more clean energy locally so that we don't have to rely on buying wind power from other states. One benefit of distributed generation is that it uses power more efficiently because it doesn't require transporting energy across long distances. Also, solar will produce the most energy on long, hot summer days when energy demand is high. That's why even the coal plant engineers like it better than wind power that peaks at night.

The next program would provide rate incentives and develop infrastructure for plug-in hybrid and electric cars. This is an economic development opportunity if we use it to attract businesses with plug-in hybrid fleet vehicles. There aren't many on the road yet, but it's a chance for Springfield to jump ahead of other cities.

Besides facilitating vehicles that pollute less it could also promote the market for wind power. One drawback to wind is that it often produces the most output at night when power demands are lower. So, when does it make sense to power up a plug-in vehicle that drives around all day? Oh yeah! Overnight when utilities are trying to figure how to use all that extra wind!

That makes it a good plan for tree-huggers like me who want more wind farms and are concerned about how much extra power demand electric cars will create. It also makes sense to the utility engineers who want to balance out demands on their energy load.

Both programs are in the development stage so contact the Energy Services Office for more details. All of this will need approval by the Springfield city council. Since there's a city council election happening right now this would be a good time to ask candidates where they stand on developing Springfield's clean energy future.

Posted by Will at 7:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (1)

This is the future. Students shut down a coal meeting in Peabody's home town. The student paper at Washington University covered the story.

A National Coal Council meeting in downtown St. Louis was canceled following a protest from Washington University Green Action.

Directly after council members had finished taking roll call on Tuesday, students from Green Action and Missourians Organized for Reform and Empowerment entered the meeting at the Hilton St. Louis at the Ballpark. The students unfurled a banner proclaiming, “Coal is never clean” and sang, “Clean coal is a dirty lie.”

“Clean coal doesn’t exist, and we’re opposed to the lie that there’s any way to use coal safely without hurting communities,” said Green Action member Harry Alper, a senior.

Yes, it happened in coal country. The clean energy movement is being lead by the young and the corporate press is missing the story.

I realize that part of the problem with press coverage of energy and climate change results from the influence and advertising dollars of the fossil fuel industry. But, I think part of it is also an age issue. The best stories I see about the problems of coal are usually by reporters in their 20's. Most others ignore the issue or write from an industry perspective.

I suspect that many news editors and pundits don't recognize the significance of the growing movement around climate change because they're viewing issues from an outdated perspective. In Springfield, for example, our daily paper is ignoring clean energy issues in their city election coverage despite all that's happening with our public utility. They're far more focused on their old grudge against former CWLP manager Todd Renfrow. They ask candidates inane questions about management rather than discussing energy efficiency projects and investment in renewables.

Frankly, the same thing happens within the environmental movement. It's understandable that people continue to work on the same important issue they began working on 20 years ago. But, it's frustrating to see the lack of passion about fighting a problem that's the biggest threat to humanity since the invention of the atomic bomb. Nothing else we're facing has the potential to cause so much destruction to human life and prosperity.

Of course there are exceptions. People of all ages are leading the clean energy movement. But the greatest hope of that movement comes from the passion and aggressive action of today's rising generation who see this as the great challenge of our time. That's why the story from Wash U is so encouraging.

Posted by Will at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Rahm? What? Who? Whatever.

My attention yesterday was on the race for mayor in Illinois' largest city south of the Chicago area. The primary runoff narrowed the field of candidates from seven down to four: Mike Houston, Sheila Stocks-Smith, Mike Coffey, and Frank Kunz.

I expected Stocks-Smith to finish second, but I was very surprised that Republican-endorsed candidate Mike Coffey finished third instead of first. Republicans have a long list of precinct workers with patronage jobs at the county, convention center and other units of local government they control. I thought their organization would win the day.

Here's my guess about why Houston did better than expected: retired people who never left Springfield. This was a low turnout election, which means a large portion of the voters were retirees who can be counted on to always vote.

The thing about Springfield is that it's full of people who prefer comfortable predictability over excitement and change. If they liked to experience new things then they would have left town years ago like most of their children did. So who would someone like that support for mayor? The familiar name who used to be mayor 30 years ago, of course.

Sheila Stocks-Smith's strong showing was a victory for those who think Democrats should be Democrats. She has the support of Dick Durbin, Sierra Club, and most of Springfield's progressive Democratic leaders.

Conservative Democrats backed Republican Mike Farmer. Farmer is an intelligent and likable candidate so his loss can be attributed to the lack of organization among the old guard conservative Democrats.

Nominal Democrat Frank Kunz won his own ward (with less than a third of the vote), but also showed that he has little support elsewhere in the city. The biggest impact he can have on the race is to drop out and endorse the only Democrat with a shot at winning.

So what happens in the April 5 general election? First, those who backed the three losing candidates will have to pick someone new. More importantly, additional voters will show up since they'll also be voting for city council candidates.

It will be a different electorate in the general election so there's no guarantee that a familiar name will beat out organization again.

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

Hunter Lake dam is dead. The Corps of Engineers decision that the environmental impact statement is out of date could add years and millions of dollars to the project. Even some of its strongest backers are saying it's time to abandon this decades-old idea.

Opponents have conclusively shown that Springfield's water needs can be met by less expensive alternatives, including conservation programs. The only remaining rationale for the project's existence is that a relatively small number of people will make a mint building it.

Next, the city must decide what to do with the property it purchased for the dam project. Sheila Stocks-Smith became the first mayoral candidate to raise the possibility of selling the land to the state for the creation of a park or preserve. The state has dedicated land acquisition funding for the creation of parks and conservation areas. Selling it for that purpose would create the kind of recreation area that Hunter Mud Puddle wouldn't be.

Most cities and tourist attractions of Springfield's size have a major site for hiking and other outdoor recreation. Turning the land into a state natural area is the kind of quality-of-life improvement that will attract more residents, businesses, and visitors to the area.

Selling the property piecemeal to private buyers would be a wasted opportunity. It's encouraging to see Stocks-Smith show support for a big idea that would have a significant impact on Springfield's future.

Posted by Will at 9:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

I'm surprised at how many informed people I've talked to who don't realize there's a runoff election for Springfield mayor coming up this Tuesday (2/22).

Turn out will be low, which usually favors candidates with a better get-out-the-vote operation. Republican Mike Coffey will probably finish first since he's the only candidate with the backing of a major party organization. That result won't necessarily hold true in the general election when more people vote and more political groups pick a candidate.

Posted by Will at 7:20 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Personally, I think teachers and other public service professionals deserve higher pay than men who play games with balls. Even if their team did win the Superbowl this year.

Posted by Will at 8:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Senator Dick Durbin has already recorded an automated call and recruited his Springfield supporters to volunteer and donate to Sheila Stocks-Smith's campaign for mayor.

Below is part of an email that went out from Durbin yesterday.

Springfield's my hometown, so I care deeply about our city's political leadership and next Tuesday's mayoral election.

I'm proud to support Sheila Stocks-Smith for Springfield Mayor, and hope she earns your vote on February 22, too.

Sheila may be new to the Springfield political scene, but she's served the community for decades -- as the city's first Education Liaison and as a member of countless boards and committees focused on governance, public policy, program management, advocacy, educational reform, health, and citizen involvement.

I was making phone calls at campaign headquarters with other Sierra Club members last night, and it's easy to see from the response that support among reform minded voters is coalescing around Stocks-Smith.

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

I'm concerned that there's an impostor posing as Congressman John Shimkus in Washington. I don't know how else to explain the dramatic contradiction between what he tells newspapers back in the district and what he actually does when Congress is in session.

Two articles will illustrate my concern. In January, a paper back in his district interviewed Shimkus about his new role as chairman of the subcommittee on Environment and Economy. He expresses a concern for defending real science.

"I’ll mostly deal with the EPA, making sure that what they claim is real science actually is real science, and that their restrictions are focused on the health and welfare of the public, not just a political agenda," Shimkus said.

That sounds good! We need environmental policy based on science and public health and not written by those with just a political agenda.

But then something odd happened when Shimkus' committee held hearings in Washington about the clean air act.

"Do you find it strange that at this hearing of this importance we have no scientists?" asked Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.), the subcommittee's ranking member.

Rep. John Shimkus (R-Ill.) swept aside such critiques, telling ClimateWire, "This is about jobs. This isn't about science. The science committee may turn it into that and get into these issues, but we want to address how this affects jobs."

EPA administrator Jackson, held her ground, pointing out, "Chairman Upton's bill would, in its own words, 'repeal' the scientific finding regarding greenhouse gas emissions."

Back in his district Shimkus said he would focus on science and public health. But the impostor Shimkus in Washington doesn't include real scientists in the discussion. Not only that, but many of those chosen to testify before Shimkus' committee represent organizations who place their company profits and political agenda ahead of public health needs.

Shimkus then suggested that EPA might regulate plumes of dust behind tractors. No one has ever proposed anything remotely like that so its something he just pulled out of his ass.

Also, the real John Shimkus should know that most of the new energy jobs being created back in Illinois are from wind farm construction and energy efficiency projects, not coal mines.

Shimkus often speaks about his Christian faith, so I know he wouldn't tell his constituents he was going to do one thing and then do the exact opposite. That would be hypocrisy. Or a lie. The only logical explanation is that the man in Washington is an impostor. Someone please look into it!

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

You'd think that something as simple as yard signs wouldn't be a big problem for political campaigns. But, a bad sign strategy is one of the most common mistakes made by rookie candidates and even some seasoned veterans. Here's my free, unsolicited advice to campaigns based on dealing with more political signs than I care to remember.

A common mistake candidates make is buying more signs than their organization can handle. They see that it doesn't cost too much more to get an extra 500 or so signs. Why not order a large number to get more visibility?

But then the signs show up. At some point the candidate or campaign manager has an "oh shit" moment and realizes that they need to place another 700 signs that are sitting in the back room collecting dust.

So they recruit a volunteer to be the sign manager. Then they get a crew of volunteers to place signs all over creation. Maybe you run a phone bank to ask people if they'll put one in their yard. The sign crew goes out every weekend or several times a week putting up new ones and replacing those that disappeared.

Pretty soon you realize that half your volunteer efforts are going toward placing those damn signs. Those are volunteers who could be knocking on doors, making phone calls to undecided voters, or doing something useful. Not good!

Don't buy more signs than you can handle!

Other campaigns have the volunteers and staff to place all the signs they want and go overboard. I see this every year in Springfield, most often from any candidate endorsed by the local Republican organization. Party foot soldiers spam the town with endless signs in front of rental housing, abandoned lots, and public medians.

Springfield mayoral candidate Mike Coffey is the latest example but he's by no means the only offender. One wonders how seriously he'll take city beautification after letting his supporters clutter the town with signs.

Signs do not equal votes! Spamming all creation with illegally placed signs is for crackpots like Scott Lee Cohen and machine-backed candidates. You might gain a few votes but you'll probably lose more.

When I worked for the '04 Kerry campaign in Illinois we had the opposite problem. Every day I heard from angry supporters demanding a sign. We had nothing since Illinois wasn't a swing state. I finally started telling people that their sign was sent to Wisconsin or Missouri where the race was closer. They could buy one online if they wanted it that badly. People understood that in a Presidential race but local candidates can't get away with that excuse.

People expect signs. You'll piss people off if you don't have them. More importantly, political leaders will take a lack of yard signs as a sign (eyes rolling) that a campaign isn't serious.

The trick is finding the porridge that's just right. Buy enough to supply those who want one in their front yard, have a little visibility, and show that you have supporters. That's all you need your signs to accomplish. Putting up an extra 1,000 yard signs never won an election.

And finally, take your signs down after election day! After I ran for county board I had dozens of people commenting and thanking me for going to each house and taking signs away within two days after the election. People will remember it if you ever run again.

No, I'm not going to end my post by linking that damn Tesla song, but here's Bob Dylan littering with signs. Don't do that either.

Posted by Will at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

As far as I can tell, you're the only one with thinks that Al Gore's personal life has anything to do with resolving the climate change crisis. I'm one of your many constituents who notices that the recent climate disasters are exactly what scientists have been predicting. Please stop making Glenn Beck-style personal attacks and help solve the problem.

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

Ronald Reagan would have turned 100 today. A Republican Congressman's proposal to replace U. S. Grant with Ronald Reagan on the $50 bill gives good reason to compare the nation's most underrated President with its most overrated.

Ulysses Grant's reputation has been attacked over the years, but no President other than Lincoln did more during the first 185 years of our history to fight domestic terrorism and defend the basic civil rights of all Americans. Grant used powers given to him by Congress to successfully destroy the largest domestic terrorist organization in American history, the KKK. He stepped in when local authorities refused to prevent or prosecute attacks on freed slaves.

Grant used the military and Attorney General's office to protect the right to vote and hold office for African-Americans. After he left office, it would be nearly a century before the federal government once again intervened to guarantee the civil rights and safety of all Americans in the South.

How does Grant compare to Reagan? It would be hard to argue that any President has done more to support acts of terrorism than Ronald Reagan. I know it's not very nice to write that on his birthday but let's be honest about his record amidst the whitewashed hero worship.

I'll start with his well known support of Saddam Hussein. The Reagan Administration authorized military aid to Iraq, including chemical and biological weapons of mass destruction. He sold helicopters that were used to gas the Kurds and Iraqi Shiites.

He gave Iran intelligence and sold them weapons in violation of the law. He lied about negotiating with terrorists who took American hostages.

He supported the Nicaraguan Contras, who carried out horrifying acts of torture and terrorist attacks against civilians, in addition to lending direct and indirect support to roaming death squads in other Latin American nations.

"I'm a Contra too!" - Ronald Reagan

His administration trained multiple dictators and terrorists at the School of Americas.

Reagan supported, along with the South African apartheid government, a terrorist campaign in Angola and other African nations.

Along with Osama bin Laden, he aided the Afghan Mujahideen who he called the "moral equivalents of America’s founding fathers.” Yes, that means Reagan indirectly helped give rise to al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The verdict is easy. Grant, the fighter of terrorists, wins out over Reagan, the funder and enabler of terrorists.

When I point out Reagan's support of terrorism to die-hard conservatives they usually start by denying that Saint Ronald the Liberator would ever do something so vile. When I cite specific examples they shift from denial to justifying it as a defense against Communism.

It's amazing to see how quickly people will abandon their core beliefs, like the idea that America shouldn't support terrorists and brutal dictators. All you have to do is find a charismatic leader and frighten people by exaggerating an external threat.

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

She won't say it but Senator Claire McCaskill is showing by her actions that she wants more climate disasters like the snowpocalypse that has me stuck in my house right now.

I haven't seen it mentioned on my local news, but the storm blowing across America is just the sort of thing scientists have been telling us would happen more often due to global climate change. It's no coincidence that so many unusual, once-in-a-generation storms have happened in the last few years.

McCaskill and five other Democratic Senators obviously can't take a hint because they're re-introducing a bill to prevent the EPA from regulating pollutants that cause climate change. They want to stop new EPA regulation from going into effect for two years while Senate Republicans (and a few cowardly coal Democrats) obstruct a meaningful bill from passing Congress, just like they did for the last two years. If they really believe it's better for Congress to act first, as they claim, then all they have to do is pass a clean energy bill right now.

Climate change is one of those problems that has deadly consequences for delaying action. Waiting means that future climate disasters will be more frequent and more severe. We can expect more catastrophic blizzards, tornadoes, hurricanes, droughts, food shortages, flooding, disease epidemics, and other problems that threaten human life.

But hey, they're in swing states. They have to get re-elected, right? I guess they're supposed to get a pass for making the future of our nation the cost of their political ambition.

While I'm on the topic, I'll point out that Senator Lamar Alexander wants downtown Nashville to flood again, James Inhofe wants even worse tornadoes in Oklahoma, Kit Bond is eager for major destruction along the Mississippi, and John Shimkus wants harvesting and planting seasons interrupted by unpredictable heavy rains. At least, that's what they're telling us by their refusal to support meaningful efforts to slow climate change.

For all the politicians whose loyalty to the fossil fuel industry is greater than their concern for the well being of future generations, I would like to present my favorite picture of Johnny Cash.

Right now is a good time to call your favorite coal or oil politician and thank them for the nice weather we're having!

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