Guantanamo detainees in Illinois

Generally I'm a fan of Congressman Mark Kirk.  He is a moderate who normally isn't afraid to cross the aisle to work on important issues, a trait he inherited from his predecessor John Porter.  I take issue however with his recent position on the potential to house Guantanamo detainees in the Thomson Correctional Facility in Northwest Illinois.

Looking at this issue with a wide perspective: We have a President committed to moving the Guantanamo detainees out of Cuba and into a US facility, a plan that has shown large scale support from the US population, along with a large amount of International support (not that their opinion truly matters in this instance).  We also have the legal issue of how and when to try the suspected criminals, since we have recently moved to regard them as terrorists rather then enemy combatants.  Couple these points with the fact that we are currently in one of the worst recessionary periods that most Americans have seen since the Great Depression.

Now lets look at the local situation of Thomson Illinois.  According to local government officials unemployment in the town of roughly 5000 people stands at 10.2 %, slightly above the National Average.  Couple this with a State budget that can't even afford to fully open the institution for fears of the operating expenses.

It is in this situation that what Gov. Quinn calls the sweetheart deal comes in.  The Federal Government will purchase the facility (money to the State budget which is badly needed), will invest more money to further develop the facility (local construction jobs), and will open/ operate the facility for an indeterminate period of time (a general boon to the local economy with new industries and jobs being created to service the prison). 

Where's the negative here?  The phantom threat of terrorism in Thomson Illinois?  A break out of terrorists?  Are the terrorists so strongly connected to one another that they would try a break out, obviously not since most cells have no contact with one another? 

Really, who should we be more afraid of break outs by murders and serial molesters (normal inmates to a state maximum penitentiary) or that a band of angered Al-Qaeda will come and try to overthrow the 100+ guards to free their comrades?

And to the idea of terrorists attacking Thomson town square; haven't we learned that terrorists like big, populace, highly visible targets.  I mean they didn't destroy the world's largest ball of twine in Indiana or something similar on 9/11.  There simply wouldn't be enough shock value to bringing fundamentalist jihad to the small quiet town of Thomson, for an aerial view of Thomson I went to Google Maps and retrieved this image:

So let's thing about this again right here in Illinois we have a facility ready and waiting for the detainees, that was built to supermax specifications and is currently empty.  On the other side we have a Federal Government that is willing to purchase it, improve it, and operate it, a total benefit to the local economy estimated to be nearly $1 billion over the next 4 years. With Governor Quinn estimating that $223 million will go directly to local incomes.  

Quotes and figures taken from Fox News Article: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/16/thirst-jobs-drives-cities-beg-feds-guantanamo-detainees/

The basics of Health Care Reform's importance

Lets look at some basic information:  America is a nation with nearly 305 million citizens with an estimated 37.5 million residents (both legal and illegal) residing here as well (1). 

According to the US census, in 2007 there were 45.7 million legal citizens (roughly 15.3%) without insurance of any kind.  As a percentage the amount of citizens utilizing government health insurance programs was nearly 28% (2).  What is interesting to note in this last statistic is that this 28% had deductibles, coverage plans, and specific primary care options.

Switching gears a bit preventative medicine has been estimated to be able to save between 82 and 161 Billion dollars (3).  The problem with this piece of information is that it doesn't take into account the amount of savings that could be realized if the 45.7 million mentioned above had access to regular medical care, not to mention the 37.5 million residents, of which a large amount aren't accounted for in the Census information and yet can be safely assumed to be primarily uncovered.  

Am I proponent of Universal health care, you could say yes.  Am I in support of the current rendition of the plan? Not entirely.  BUT something is better then nothing.  At this point most critics are arguing "why should I pay for the health insurance of someone else who doesn't provide it for themselves?"  Besides the moral obligation we have to each other there is the basic answer that you are already. 

When someone has an accident or a heart attack and requires emergency room care who do you think pays for it if they can't?  Mr. and Mrs. tax payer.  Either directly through State and Federal programs or indirectly through higher costs of medicine and hospital visits, the money has to come from somewhere.

By having a universal program we are enabling/ requiring, those who normally wouldn't have insurance to get it, either privately or through the Government.  With such a program everyone would be able to see a primary care doctor, many times costly emergency surgery can be avoided by diet changes, medication, or other preventative methods.  Having John with clogging arteries be prescribed cholesterol lowering medicine and given a regiment to follow will save money.

This article is not a end all on the debate, it merely shows why I think we need reform to require universal coverage.  Please post replies, no Nazi comments nor dining room table retorts. 

As a side note Barney Frank's greatest quote from that now famous Town Hall meeting was: "As you stand there with a picture of the President defaced to look like Hitler and compare the effort to increase health care to the Nazis my answer to you is, as I said before, it is a tribute to the first Amendment that this kind of vile contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated."  G-d bless the freedoms we so readily enjoy and yet do not appreciate enough. 


(1) Number of Immigrants Hits Record 37.5M, Washington Post 9-12-07
(2) http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/hlthins/hlthin07/hlth07asc.html
(3) http://www.newsweek.com/id/133751

Irresponsible journalism

Irresponsible journalism

I was just visiting Drudgereport, as I often do, and came across a news article highlighted in red by Matthew Drudge's editorial team:  SEPTEMBER SWOON: STOCKS OPEN DOWN...


I must say that this is just another example of what I call irresponsible journalism.  I understand that the media feeds off of sensationalism, but can there be any doubt that they cause more harm then good?  Seriously, we've had ONE day in September and they're ready to write off the entire month..

The public is already in a panic, we're in a bad economic cycle, a deteriorating situation in Afghanistan not to mention a myriad of other social issues going on.  So my point is this: Media, report the news don't try to drum it up.  A headline of "Dow has poor day as it looses 187 points" is reporting, what you have is an editorial.

There are rightful places for editorials, like blogs!, but always inform the public when you are writing your opinion versus reporting.

Edward Moore Kennedy

I've been quiet on the passing of a great politician, allowing the mainstream media to write their glowing commentaries on his passing.


As I see it two distinct individuals died with his passing.  The public view of Senator Ted Kennedy and the private family man of Edward Kennedy a member of what many call the 1st family in America.


There is too much to post on either one of these two men here.  I suggest that you visit his official website at: http://kennedy.senate.gov/senator/index.cfm to read of his amazing contributions to the American people.


But I would be remiss to not mention a few of his more public gaffes: 

1. The 1969 death of Mary Jo Kopechne, viewable here at wikipedia's site: The Chappaquiddick incident.  After reading the article, and several others, myself I must admit my dismay at his not reporting the accident immediately.  I will not comment on the rumors surrounding his silence.  What I will say is that it seems ironical that a man that was so pro-equality of the races and gender that he did not have to serve any part of his sentence as it was suspended by Judge James Boyle after a joint recommendation by both Kennedy's attorney and the State prosecutor.
2.  Another major snafu was in his response to a question by Roger Mudd on CBS while he was running in the primary for the 1980 Presidential Election.  At that time he was unable to answer the question, "Why do you want to run for President?"  Unfortunately here there was a plethora of possible answers he could have given.  In my opinion he was a man of singular moral turpitude and would have made an amazing President.  

As to his political life I would like to highlight a few of his more well known iniatives in legislation:

• Health Care Reform
• Civil Rights
• Immigration Reform &
• Education

Just to name a few.  So Senator Kennedy, a grateful nation thanks you for your service.  And we look forward to the next generation of Kennedy's, we hope that they follow the legacy of your distinguished family.

my thoughts on Sarah Palin

Okay, so I was asked on what I thought of Sarah Palin.  And here it is:

I don't agree with most of what she says or does.  In fact I think a lot of the time she could do with a bit more fact checking.  She should also make some of her views a bit more clear (Bridge to Nowhere).  But I am gladdened that she is willing to go out there and say it.  Anyone who is able to spark debate and garner interest on political topics is a good thing.

Express your views, if you think she's a quack (or me for that matter) then feel free to shout it from the roof tops (or better yet post it here or somewhere else for the public to see). Don't be afraid to insult others get Americans out of their couch potato state and into the discussion and debate.

The only serious problem is that many people take what she, and other spokespersons, say as 100% the truth.  People don't blindly follow anyone.  Question everything even your beliefs, following orders is a poor excuse for a bad outcome.  

food for thought: why should I vote?

A quick post here regarding why you should vote.

You are not governed by a selection of the populace.  Rather you're politicians are elected by a majority of those that VOTE.

Is your neighbor the type that puts election posters on their lawn for every election?  You know the type, the one that wears the pro deforestation button to make room for a big box store... Well if you don't vote then they get to choose your next leader, whether it be for your city, park district, state or federal election get out there!  Your opinion can only count if you go to your election polling station and make your voice heard.

Think about it, if you don't vote you are giving the activist neighbor the right to choose for you.

Town Hall Meetings

A surprising statement: The presence of a politician at Town Hall meetings is counter productive. What's even worse are the shipped in protesters, not saying that all of them are transients but a good number of them (on both sides) undoubtedly are.

What's distressing is the name calling and mud slinging that's taking place. Calling someone a Nazi for their views on health care is counterproductive. Attack policies, offer new ideas, but don't attack a person for supporting a view.

To curb this I suggest asking politicians not to come. Allow citizens and experts to really have a Q and A where we can be educated on the bill and its possible repercussions. A friend of mine, who will rename nameless unless he posts a comment here, will argue that this is hampering free speech. And I would disagree, although his comment that my idea of disallowing mass media advertisements by politicians is well on point.

By taking out the actual decision makers on this proposed legislation we allow true thoughts to be expressed calmly and clearly. They simply act as a flash point by which anger can be directed to.

To help this idea I am currently trying to organize a true Town Hall Meeting at my Alma Mater Stevenson High School in Lincolnshire Illinois. When the date and time is finalized I will publish it here and in the local papers. I would respectfully ask for Congressman Mark Kirk not to attend, although I recognize that it is his right to be there. Further I will try to limit participation to constituents of the 10th Congressional district. A full audio recording will be provided on this site so that all those interested can hear what took place.

Of course I will arrange for a panel of experts to be present to help field questions along with those in favor and against the current bill.

More to follow later.

Image taken from http://technologyinprevention.wikispaces.com/THM+meets+TWC (under the Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License).

Robert Novak

The world has lost an amazing individual today. For those of you who don't know Robert Novak I am going to publish several posts to his biography below. While his life is gone, the contributions he made can not ever be forgotten nor can his follies including the outing of a CIA agent in the field.

Wikipedia's brief biography on Robert Novak

Answer.com's biograghy

Chicago Sun Times, one of his syndication, biographies of the man.

His contributions were great, and while I might not agree with all of his positions he wasn't afraid to make his views clear.

There's a lesson to be learned in this, stay true to your beliefs

What political party are you?

Republican or Democrat? Conservative or Liberal? I'm asked that often. My answer is more akin to a cliche, what does it matter? As if a political party that I assign to myself defines who I am on every facet of the political spectrum. The real question you should ask: where do you stand on X (fill in the blank with what matters to you).

What's one of the worst things to threaten democracy? Straight ballot voting. If you don't know the politicians on a ballot then don't vote. WHAT!?!?!? Am I suggesting that you give up your right to elect officials? No, I'm saying be an informed voter. It doesn't take much, simply pick up a paper and read, view the candidates websites or position pages.

I remember in the 2004 campaign that there were masses of people voting for John Kerry simply because he wasn't George Bush. Yet if you stopped to ask some of the most ardent supporters why they could simply tell you what they didn't like about the then current administration. Just as some Republican supporters couldn't site their own reasons for their positions.

Political action is great, getting involved is what America was built on (literally for the ideal of self-governance). Change is good when there's a legitimate reason behind it.

campaign contributions

Where have we gone wrong? When did running for political office require big corporate donations, or fundraisers aimed at $500 a plate dinners? I'm not saying that its wrong or immoral to seek out support. But come on... Read these figures that I got from GovTrack (click on the link for the whole congressional report entered by by Rep. Kaptur)

"Campaign finance authority Herbert Alexander estimated that $540 million was spent during the 1976 period on all elections in the United States. By 2000, that figure had risen to over $4 billion. To run for this job in the House in 1976 cost on average $87,000. Today, the average Member has to spend nearly $1 million, and some $2 million, 10 times what was spent just 30 years ago, and the population hasn't gone up by 10 times."

This is insane, how can the normal American ever hope to run for office unless they are backed by a political party with an established contribution program or aligning with private interest groups.

Why were political groups started? To band together like minded individuals in support of specific legislative goals. But today it seems that if you want to get elected you have no choice but to join one of the two establishments. Is the answer to follow the old Republican ideal of the creme rising to the top, so that only the rich and successful can lead the nation? Bluntly, no.

The remedy in my mind is to offer a means for the average John or Jane to enter the race. Am I in favor of public funding? Again no. Maybe by prohibiting mass advertising. What a shocking idea, why allow paid commercials by candidates or tv commercials? Now I'm not attacking the Sierra club or other philanthropic organizations from running ads supporting one candidate or another. Rather to bar the direct advertising by political parties or candidates themselves.

Got a better idea? let me know, write a response on how we can help more individuals enter the political arena.

right and wrong way to get attention

Read this article first: Men tote assault rifles at Obama event

Okay protests are great, don't get me wrong, and since the media often pays as much attention to the protesters as the actual program its a successful way to get your message across. BUT bringing assault rifles, even in open carry states like Arizona, is a dangerous way at getting attention.

You don't need to go to these extreme measures to show your point of view. If anything it makes you, and your message, seem less legitimate. Instead try organizing, pass out leaflets, use word of mouth, but not publicity stunts.

bumper sticker

I read a great bumper sticker yesterday while driving home from the Chicago Air and Water show. To paraphrase it:

"Liberty is having the ability to express unpopular views while being safe doing so."

The exact words or language used not be right but the point is clear. What we have in America is the amazing ability to say what we want about any topic imaginable without fear of a government official taking us away in the middle of the night. In many parts of the world this just isn't the case. Look at Burma, China, and even Russia for examples of this.

Even Iran, which with its many faults has generally had a freedom to express opinions, has cracked down on protesters over the recent elections. So don't take this freedom for granted use it and express yourself. March in a demonstration you feel passionate about, write your Congressman, start a petition, and get others motivated about something.

Empathy is not only dangerous in the fact that you blindly follow what others lay out, but it is also the basis for reducing your rights and stripping from the public the ability to voice dissent.

links to blogging sites

blogarama.com

political opinions

This post starts out awkwardly, my apologies for that. It's a result of an exchange I overheard at work where one colleague shot down another for asking a question regarding the new health reform. As it turns out I thought their question, regarding the coverage of illegal aliens under the bill, was right on point.

Thomas Jefferson once said, "[a]ll tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." The point he was making is simple: voice your opinion. Unfortunately this point needs to be resounded. Never allow someone to say that you are unqualified to make comments on your government. The right to free speech and the expression of ideas are the cornerstones that our country was founded on.

Rather ask what gives them the right to censure you; to question your free expression in what you think is right or wrong in our society.

One's ideas might be unpopular or even uneducated, but by sharing your thoughts you afford others the opportunity to render theirs, thereby fostering healthy discussions and debates.

This reminds me of another famous saying "the only bad question is the one that wasn't asked," don't feel ashamed to say what you think and then ask questions. How can anyone expect you to grow as a person without questions.

This seems obvious but if you look at the comments being registered on CNN articles or the like you would be amazed at how many of them are attacking others for their sheer audacity at voicing another opinion.

ground rules for my posts

If you're reading these posts then might wonder how I post so many in such a short time span. The answer is that I write what I feel. I do not go back, reread, and edit them to fit a popular opinion; nor will I. From time to time I will clarify them, but when I do I will put the edits in red so that you know that this is either a change or simply further development.

Rewriting history, or in this case posts, to make you seem right doesn't add value to society. If I am wrong on something I will admit it.

That is where the readers come in. Leaving comments allow me to review and reflect like an ongoing discussion. No person has all the answers (a common theme in my posts) nor can they be right all the time. Society at large helps to form what we think, feel and learn.

Politicians minimum and maximum age requirements

As most people know in the US we have minimum age requirements for elected officials. Clearly this is a beneficial idea to only allow those with sufficient experience and education (not necessarily through formal institutions) to help shape and guide our democracy.

But too often age is used as a weapon against those who seek to aid the public in an elected post. During last years elections I was appalled to hear quips from both sides regarding the political contenders.

Frankly speaking any individual with competent mental facilities is a valid candidate. McCain was not too old to run for President just as Obama was not too young. Rather these two prominent citizens should have been praised for their decisions to run for the highest post in our land. What possible attack can be made on the decision making skills of a younger citizen or older. I've spoken with people my grandparents age (90's +) and that of my youngest cousin (11) who have valid concerns for our country. Yet these are extremes of the principle of the arguments. Too young, too old what does it matter? If an educated decision can be made by the person then they are in the right stage of their lives to run for office.

National debt

I am a 26 year old Highland Park Illinois resident who is concerned about this country's future.

We are allowing ourselves to let partisan differences tear away what truly unites us all together, a hope that our children will have it better then we do now. In that we need to look at our financial obligations both on a personal level and as a nation. Deficit spending is not sustainable, if you doubt this try continuously running up your credit card bills.

Eventually a time comes when the tab must be settled. By continuing in our current fashion we simply delay this time to future generations. The idea that trillions of dollars can be spent that we simply don't have is not possible.

Keynesian economics, the idea behind economic stimulus packages, has a place and a time. Unfortunately that time is now, but it is not an ongoing practice. I am not against actions designed to spur the economy into growth. What I am against are programs that continuously drain money from the public's coffers in exchange for minimal or negative results.

At the bottom of every economic plan must be consideration for how can this be paid for. The mindset behind a stimulus is that the eventual growth will cause an increase in the size of the economy and therein tax collections that will offset the cost associated with it. If this is impossible then the plan by definition fails.

I liken the idea to Adjustable Rate Mortgages, there is nothing dirty or wrong with ARM's. Simply that people must consider what the long term costs are of over extending themselves. If you know that in 5 years your income will be able to sustain the house you are stretching to buy now then it makes sense. If your thought is that simply by buying more now you will reap greater benefits when a house increases in value later then it is a bad decision. Too many outside variables affect this outcome, there is nothing you can do to change the eventuality and you might as well gamble your money.

I've been questioned by friends how this is different then investing in a stock market portfolio. There your capital is combined with countless others to provide companies with the means necessary for future products or offerings. By buying stock in a new company you allow its officers to expand a production line or commit to research and development with tangible results. If you choose wisely and do your homework on the management team and their vision then you are investing for the right reasons.

The same approaches should be put in Federal Deficit Spending. By now you should be asking yourselves "what is the solution? How can we turn the tide in the growing debt?" The answer is a difficult one but the beginning must be made by reviewing programs that under perform and perhaps changing the way they are administered. More to come on these ideas in a later post.

Health Care Reform

There has been a lot of information and misinformation being reported about President Obama's health care reforms. Call me a bit old fashioned but I think this is getting out of hand. Here's a couple points I would like to make:

1. Reform of any kind, especially one as important and impacts as many as insurance, is not something that should be rushed through.
2. Interest groups on both sides should come out with their views publicly instead of hiding behind 'concerned citizens' at town hall meetings.
3. America needs to change the way it funds and spends medical treatments.
   
4. Medical bills have gotten out of control. Period. Families shouldn't have to choose between putting food on the table and life saving, or even life enhancing, medications.

Now do I or anyone else have all the answers? NO, but action is necessary and now not later.

Comprehensive Universal Medical Care is practical, if not in its current rendition then in some yet unseen form.

I welcome comments but be constructive. It sounds like a cliche but it is easier to tear down the to build.