You are currently browsing the monthly archive for August 2007.
The strangely anti-family and arch-conservative Illinois “Family” Institute tells us that ‘homosexual monitor’ Petey LaBarbera is in dire need of some help to continue pursuing his constant supervision of homosexual activity:
Please support Peter and Americans For Truth — the only national group focusing solely on educating and alerting America to the real threat to freedom and children posed by the homosexual/bisexual/transgender movement. (emphasis added)
So, being gay is a threat to freedom but somehow the fact that conservatives are working their tushies off to deny gay Americans equal rights and protections under the law is not? What is wrong these extremists who insist on bringing their nanny-state attitudes into everyone’s bedrooms?
In an even more bizarre twist, that IFI alert was sent out in response to a Holiday Inn conference center which decided to cancel a gay-bashing event set up to raise funds for Petey’s Americans for Truthiness money machine. Of course, it was conservatives at Concerned Women for America of Illinois and Missouri who started the whole “don’t let Americans use hotels if you disagree with their bedroom practices” jig in the first place (Missouri’s CWA branch being, curiously enough, led by a man; and the very manly Petey himself was also a senior “analyst” for CWA). Apparently these cons have never heard of karma. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Several folks have noticed that often the people who most rail against a given sexual proclivity — like Sen. Larry Craig and his long history of ardent gay-bashing and Rep. Mark Foley with his record of child “protection” work — seemingly do so because they are trying to force others to protect themselves from what they consider their own prurient interests. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Of course, debate by kilobyte is one thing. Anti-gay conservative extremists in other states are going several steps further, and it’s only a matter of time before Petey’s allies cross the line (indeed, some already have). In Ohio, “concerned” nanny-state extremists have taken to invading Christian churches that believe God’s love is for all people, whether gay or straight. Those loving churches have graciously welcomed such belligerent protesters (who apparently forgot God’s command to love thy neighbor as thyself). I think it unlikely that such mean-spirited “their way or the highway” congregants would return that favor. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
In addition, Petey’s comrades from Kansas, the ultra-conservative Westboro Baptist Church followers, have taken to protesting at military funerals across the country, claiming our brave soldiers deserved to die because America has gay people living in our country. (What was it that IFI said about a threat to freedom?)
Why Petey wants to review gay porn, gay parades, and gay pageants as well as frequent gay bars, men’s bath houses and homosexual “adult” stores is between him and the friends he makes while he’s “researching” gay folks. I could care less. Petey is his own person, responsible for how he excercises his own liberty. But, why he doesn’t bother to “research” heterosexual proclivities, including those among his fellow fundamentalists, is curious (h/t Lloydletta).
In fact, the virulently anti-American Petey and his conservative friends obsession with other men (gay or not) is really quite strange overall… We’re all Americans, why can’t these people accept that?
(Why “anti-American”? They ardently oppose Americans who just happen to be gay. They are free to do so, just as we patriots are free to acknowledge their anti-American and anti-liberty stands. Call a spade a spade.)
The Republican presidential candidates are apparently unable to successfully manage their schedules.
Earlier, we found out that the pachyderms were unable (or unwilling) to rearrange their calendars in order to answer legitimate, even if difficult, questions posed directly by real Americans (and American snowmen) as they feigned immobile engagements in order to avoid CNN’s Republican version of the YouTube debate.
Soon thereafter we saw that not a single Republican candidate bothered to fill out Labor’s questionnaire in order to qualify for the union-sponsored forum held in Chicago. While not every American is represented by a union, those who do benefit from such representation have the largest loudspeaker with which to speak about workers’ issues with presidential candidates, yet the Republicans couldn’t be bothered to answer questions from red-blooded American workers. (Some media-types and many conservatives have claimed this was a “Democratic debate” sponsored by the unions. In reality, it was an open forum and all candidates, from both parties, were invited — with the caveat that they needed to complete a questionnaire beforehand. No red candidates turned it in.)
This week, we learn from conservative partisan Brent Bozell’s willfully ignorant complaining about media time that Republican candidates have made themselves less available to media interviewers, despite numerous invitations from TV news producers. Mr. Bozell complained that the network’s morning news shows had more time for the Democratic candidates. But even he acknowledges that if Republicans turn down interview requests, they won’t be getting the TV time he so desperately craves for them, according to the Associated Press (via USA Today):
“The candidates are responsible for how much time they generally get,” [ABC's "Good Morning America" Executive Producer Jim] Murphy said. “They can get it by agreeing to interviews and agreeing to forums.”
Bozell conceded that Republicans have shown a more pronounced reluctance to go on the air.
Now, today, we also discover that only one of the 9′ish Republican candidates has been able to set aside time for Univision’s planned Sept. 16th Spanish-language debate. Only Sen. John McCain has seen fit to make time to speak to America’s Latino voters.
In each of these cases — the YouTube debate, the Labor-sponsored forum, basic news interviews, the Spanish-language debate — the Democratic candidates have taken the time to answer questions, debate differences in opinion and speak directly to the American people. They have discussed their plans, their experience and, perhaps most importantly, their heartfelt values and principles.
If these Republican candidates can’t manage their own time to tell us who and what they are, how can they expect we Americans to entrust them with managing our great nation?
That, or why are they collectively trying to hide from the voters they want to elect them to the most powerful office in the world?
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution reads:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. (emphasis added
Congressional candidate Mark Pera has this to say about an incumbent “Democratic” Congressman who, it turns out, is apparently anti-Bill of Rights:
On Aug. 5, before he left Washington D.C. for vacation, U.S. Rep. Dan Lipinski gave President Bush and former-Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez permission to run the domestic wiretapping program without judicial oversight.
A Congressman who is aware of the troubles befalling our nation should know by now that this Administration won’t just let the wiretapping program gather dust. We can be sure that sometime during the next six months, President Bush will exercise the power given to him by Congress.
It is shocking to see such blind trust from “Democrats” like Lipinski who willy-nilly throw away Congress’ own power in deference to a President who has routinely demonstrated to the American people and to Congress that he cannot be trusted.
In my experience as Assistant Cook County State’s Attorney, I requested wiretaps and I respected the protocol involved in the process, of going to a judge and having a third party sign off on the request. It never impeded my ability to do my job.
It is particularly troubling that Lipinski again capitulated to Bush’s and other Republicans’ blatant use of concerns about terrorism in presenting the proposal. By bucking the Democratic Party and voting with the Republicans, Lipinski has again withered in the face of fear mongering.
This whole issue brings to mind what Benjamin Franklin once said, “The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either.”
What makes Lipinski’s vote that much more egregious is it granted expanded powers to the former Attorney General, someone who has lost credibility with even the staunchest Republicans. The Gonzalez resignation is another reminder that we, the critics of this Administration’s rampant disregard for our Constitutional system, must remain vigilant against a “unitary executive.”
“Must remain vigilant” indeed.
From today’s Chicago Tribune non-editorial editorial gossipping about US Sen Larry Craig (R-ID) and his ‘accidental’ guilty plea to lewd behavior in a Minneapolis airport men’s room (allegedly soliciting sexual favors from other men in the restroom):
Craig is up for re-election next year. If he runs, perhaps he’ll argue that what he does on his own time is his own business.
Idaho voters can ponder his words, and then have their way with him. (emphasis added)
Insert bad joke along the lines of “I’m sure he’d like that” here…
Of course, Sen. Craig did himself no favors in discussing Pres. Bill Clinton’s heterosexual proclivities. From Meet the Press, 1999:
MR. RUSSERT: Larry Craig, would you want the last word from the Senate be an acquittal of the president and no censure?
SEN. CRAIG: Well, I don’t know where the Senate’s going to be on that issue of an up or down vote on impeachment, but I will tell you that the Senate certainly can bring about a censure reslution and it’s a slap on the wrist. It’s a, “Bad boy, Bill Clinton. You’re a naughty boy.”
The American people already know that Bill Clinton is a bad boy, a naughty boy.
I’m going to speak out for the citizens of my state, who in the majority think that Bill Clinton is probably even a nasty, bad, naughty boy.
Naughty indeed.
Now, the conservative partisanry is full-throttled foaming at the mouth in the wake of another one of their staunchest spokespeople ending up as little more than a hypocrite.
Conservative talking head Kevin McCullough writes:
Conservatives on the other hand punish those who act out. The truth of that statement the very evidence that Denny Hastert became majority leader in the House. (Gingrich and Livingston were both tossed overboard.)
Senator Craig pleaded guilty to soliciting bathroom sex. GROSS. Resign, be done with it. And I’m not the only who says so…
No defense, no speculation, no waiting for the winds of change to blow. Resign Senator Craig, resign today. (links are McCullough’s)
One problem there, Mr. “Conservative Whack Job”… (McCullough begins his post railing against “liberal whack jobs” who point out Sen. Craig’s hypocrisy.)
Former Rep. Mark Foley (R-FL), whom Mr. McCullough conveniently ignores, was making inappropriate advances to underage Congressional pages for years and the Republican leadership did little more than try to keep it quiet and even asked him to run for re-election even when he wanted to resign. Then-Speaker Denny Hastert didn’t force Mark Foley’s resignation, a call from ABC News led to Republican Foley’s decision.
For that matter, former GOP Speakers Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston were tossed overboard because they were adulterous hypocrites who were dragging down the Republican party’s polling numbers. Heck, Newt Gingrich is one of the leading non-candidates for the Republican nomination, saying he may jump into the race ‘if needed’.
I could care less if Sen. Craig is gay or bi or whatever. But when people like Larry Craig unleash vitriolic hate against their fellow Americans simply because they’re gay it’s appalling and runs counter to the American Spirit (the Statue of Liberty’s inscription doesn’t end with “…Except you gay folks”). For him to have done it out of some sort of shame-filled self-denial is simply pitiful.
Sidenote: ArchPundit makes a good point about arch-conservative ‘undercover homosexual lifestyle investigator’ and gay bar frequenter Petey LaBarbera:
The problem here, for Petey, is that as a guy who makes a habit of going undercover to investigate homosexual practices, he might want to be careful about supporting such convictions [as those supported by the anti-gay Idaho Values Alliance]…
Compare that with Lee’s comment at horsesass.org:
…it’s becoming more and more obvious that there’s a segment of the Republican Party whose main motivation in politics appears to be making laws that are an attempt to keep themselves from their particular dysfunctional behaviors.
Eric Kleefeld at Talking Points Memo notes that the Bangor Daily News (Maine) has a major conflict of interest regarding US Senator Susan Collins (R-ME).
Turns out that the Daily News’ executive editor, Mark Woodward, is married to a member of Sen. Collins’ staff, Bridget Woodward.
Says Mr. Kleefeld:
In other words, if Collins were to lose the election, the wife of the executive editor of a major newspaper in Collins’ home state would be out of a job — which would cause some serious inconvenience for that household.
Gee, I wonder why Daily News editorials have been supporting Republican Senator Collins?
Maybe our local conservative partisans like Dan Curry, Fran Eaton and others who constantly gripe that the media is oh-so-liberal would care to explain this one. Perhaps they chalk it up to their twisted definition of “family values”.
Many in the Bush administration (and their partisan parrots) claimed no one could’ve predicted how Katrina would affect the Gulf Coast…
The folks at Daily Kos — simply citizens like you and me — prove that to be nothing but a lie as their comments from just before Katrina hit show that normal folks’ eyes were wide open to the then-potential destruction.
Two of the choice comments from that time:
I wonder if anyone has told Bush yet. Isn’t he always awake for his early-morning exercise by now? What sort of prep have the Feds done? by Louise on Sun Aug 28, 2005 at 06:11:06 AM PDT
Our government better get its ass in gear and get these people out of there … by Marie on Tue Aug 30, 2005 at 02:16:21 PM PDT
Why is it that average, every-day Americans could see what was about to happen but our conservative Bush Administration was unable to figure it out?
God Bless New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. There is much more yet to do.
(h/t DarkSyde)
Jill “breathless about sexuality” Stanek is all hot and bothered because anti-abortion protesters outside the planned Gemini Office Development medical complex in Aurora (a tenant of which is scheduled to be Planned Parenthood) were told by police that they had to keep their signs and other political material in motion, in order to follow local sign ordinances.
Maybe the folks at the staunchly partisan Thomas More Law Center who are now engaged in helping the anti-privacy extremists wend their way through court could combine forces with the DuPage Duo who were arrested (arrested!) in DuPage County for holding up signs protesting the White House.
Maybe…
Jill “Likes her ‘Debbie Does’ Series” Stanek is questioning the new health clinic in Aurora, which was developed by a group called Gemini Office Development, LLC.
Apparently, on some paperwork filed with the City of Aurora, the Gemini developers stated the tenant was unknown at the time the paperwork was filled out. (The Chicago Tribune broke the story a few weeks back that the Gemini clinic’s main client was going to be Planned Parenthood; thus Ms. Stanek’s knee-jerk reaction to any news about the clinic.)
Where else have we heard the “I can’t recall” claim? That’s right, with our very own disgraced Attorney General — the most forgetful guy in DC.
Jill Stanek doesn’t seem to have any problem with Alberto “I have no recollection of that” Gonzales or his boss, Pres. Bush. Wonder why that is.
Now, to be fair, Gemini Office Development could very [well] not have known who all the tenants would be at the time of their permit applications. Indeed, since it is the goal of the anti-privacy extremists to evict Planned Parenthood before the clinic is even finished, how could Gemini have known whether or not Planned Parenthood would even be able to move in?
Moreover, Ms. Stanek’s ardent anti-woman stance flies in the face of her self-proclaimed “pro-life” attitude. As Steve Trombley of Planned Parenthood clearly stated, 90% of their healthcare work in the area is related to reproductive healthcare — education, exams, screenings, treatment for STDs and other issues. Perhaps Ms. Stanek, a nurse by profession, would rather these women who seek medical attention suffer some horrible fate at the hands of a disease rather than see a doctor (she’s already made it quite clear where she stands on viruses that lead to cervical cancer).
As noted in the Tribune story linked above, it’s odd that the anti-Planned Parenthood extremists needed to bus in protesters from as far away as Virginia. Why are conservative partisans so against science and medicine that they would go to such lengths against a women’s clinic that isn’t even open yet?
A few choice quotes that Nurse Stanek chose to ignore, from the Aurora Beacon-News (part of the Sun Times News Group):
“It’s a legal use and it’s going to be up to them (Planned Parenthood) to see if it’s going to be a peaceful use in the neighborhood,” [Aurora Alderman Chris] Beykirch said. “The tactics of pro-life supporters isn’t always savory.” (sic)Trombley said Planned Parenthood was open with city staff and committee members about the development being used as a doctor’s office.
“They don’t inquire of other providers (which types of medical services will be offered),” he said. “We were very open about the fact we were putting a medical office there.”
(emphasis added)
IlliniPundit (and I’m sure several others) beat me to the punchline…
“My goal in life has been to be a U.S. congressman,” Oberweis, 61, said after a rally at the North Aurora plant for his namesake boutique dairy. “The fact that I was running for the Senate was really an accident — partly caused by Denny Hastert, by the way, who asked me to get involved at that time.”
So not only does he now, on his 4th attempt at major elected office, realize his goal in life had nothing to do with the US Senate or the Governor’s office (let alone the stock market, milk and ice cream) … but he also slams the guy whose seat he is now seeking to replace.
It is quite possible that Mr. Oberweis has the biggest case of foot-in-mouthitis known to mankind. Thanks for the giggles Mr. Helicopter.
For those of you who vote with your wallets, yes, this is the same “Oberweis” whose family owns the dairy farm and chain of ice cream shoppes. You can buy his products if you support his antics … or not, if you don’t.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales resigned over the weekend … though he may have forgotten that he did that and still showed up for work this morning.
Congress should have impeached him just to avoid the precedent that’s now been set. Maybe they forgot too.
News reports indicate Solicitor General Paul Clement will be named Acting AG. Congress is currently in recess, and Pres. Bush may make a recent appointment — which would violate an agreement he had with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to not make recess appointments.
Reaction from DNC Chair Dr. Howard Dean:
“It’s about time … Gonzales now joins a long list of Republican officials resigning under a cloud of scandal, but these resignations cannot purge the Bush administration of its problems. The true problem rests with the Bush White House itself, which continues to put what’s best for the Republican Party ahead of what’s best for America.”
Party before country has never worked, no matter the party that has tried it.
UPDATE: He’s not leaving til Sept. 17, if he remembers.
The league of extremist gentlemen is at it again as Ed Murnane screws around with fuzzy math to come up with a bizarrely partisan “civil justice” ranking scheme legislative scorecard. Such biased tools are frequent canards offered by all sides of the political spectrum.
Go read Yellow Dog Democrat’s well-rounded explanation of just how pitiful Mr. Murnane’s attempts at stacking the deck actually are. The money quote (among many priceless nuggets of common sense YDD offers) comes in response to the ICJL’s opposition to HB 1798 “Wrongful Death Act-Damages”:
Ironically, the ICJL didn’t oppose GOP legislation passed a couple of years ago that provides the same compensation if someone kills your pet, but opposes wrongful death benefits if someone kills your kid. Murnane must be a dog lover.
Or a complete goof with a bunch of money to toss at pet political projects. Then again, I’m sure Mr. Murnane has no love lost for Mr. Yellow Dog Democrat.
State Representative Elizabeth Coulson (R-17, Glenview) today came out swinging against one of the strongest opponents she’s faced in years. In this Winnetka Today article on her upcoming reelection campaign, Rep. Coulson complains about Democratic challenger Daniel Biss using the benign ActBlue Illinois PAC fundraising tool:
That Biss reported donations totaling $19,150 from “Act Blue,” a national Web site that allows Democrats to set up accounts to raise money for candidates of their choosing, bothers Coulson.
“Act Blue” donations are reported in lump sums, but individual contributors through “Act Blue” are not required to be identified “so we don’t know where the money is coming from,” Coulson said. “It’s a (political action committee) that raises money from all around the country. It’s exactly the kind of PAC we’ve tried to address in ethics reform.”
(As clarification, there is an “ActBlue” federal PAC and an “ActBlue Illinois” state PAC. Mr. Biss’ donations have come from the state PAC, ActBlue Illinois.)
You can see for yourself exactly that ActBlue is basically a means for candidates and campaigns to easily process political donations. Rep. Coulson, political animal that she is (that’s a joke, friends), tries to misconstrue that basic function by pointing out that the donations that come into ActBlue Illinois for Mr. Biss are aggregated together such that the Biss campaign does not have to reveal who the actual donors are.
I understand the trepidation there but Rep. Coulson is conveniently ignoring two facts, making her appear a bit hypocritical.
First, because it is an Illinois registered PAC, ActBlue Illinois’s donations to state-level candidates must be listed on the ActBlue Illinois D-2 forms. Reporter Stiefel writes that ActBlue reports in “lump sums” which is technically true — transfers to candidates are reported as a lump sum on that candidate’s D-2 form.
But, ActBlue’s own D-2s themselves must, by law, list the individual contributors of $200 or more. Anyone can look up that info and find out the names of the donors, just as with any other registered Illinois candidate, campaign or PAC. Moreover, since Mr. Biss is currently the only state-level candidate in the Land of Lincoln using ActBlue Illinois, it’s very simple to determine the donors intending to raise funds specifically for him.
And that’s precisely what Mr. Biss himself is now doing. An advocate of ethical and transparent governance himself, he immediately recognized the issue as being important and resolved it by simply listing every donor over $200 that has contributed to his campaign via ActBlue Illinois. In other words, Mr. Biss is going above and beyond by applying state law — disclosing $200+ donors — before such a law even exists. (In fact, he even lists several donors who fall under that threshold.)
Mr. Biss states:
Due to a quirk in campaign finance law, contributions made via ActBlue are listed in a separate section of Illinois’s campaign finance disclosures. This has caused some people to wonder whether transparency is compromised. Actually, ActBlue gives rise to greater transparency. For example, my ActBlue hub actually says how many contributions I’ve received in addition to the total dollar amount; it also breaks this information down for each fundraiser. However, the confusion is understandable. I am deeply committed to openness and transparency in politics, and consequently, I am using this page to supplement the information provided in the Illinois disclosures. (link is original)
The second fact Rep. Coulson chooses to overlook is that she herself receives PAC money … a lot of PAC money.
In just the past two years, Rep. Coulson has accepted well over $100,000 in PAC money (seek out “Transfers In” on the D-2 forms). Remember, Mr. Biss had only raised $19,150 via the ActBlue Illinois PAC up to the end of the latest reporting period.
ArchPundit points out that, to be intellectually honest on this topic, Rep. Coulson ought to now determine who all the donors to all those myriad PACs are that have helped her own campaign and publicly disclose those individuals (just as Mr. Biss immediately did).
In addition, the Winnetka Today reporter, Lynne Stiefel, in a follow-up article about the 17th district ought to disclose some of the basic information I’ve discussed here (chiefly, that it’s relatively easy to determine who ActBlue Illinois donors are and that Rep. Coulson has taken in more than $100,ooo of PAC money in just the last two years herself).
For how much Republicans nationwide complain that people ought to be able to donate however much they want to political campaigns (as a “free speech” issue, which I suppose implies that money talks), Rep. Coulson sure has an odd way of showing it.
(c/p at Illinoize)
It’s blogfather ArchPundit’s 5th anniversary of being “on the air”. Go razz Larry.
TIME Magazine’s Joe Klein, discussing an op-ed essay written by active duty members of the 82nd Airborne on their experiences serving our nation in Iraq, puts the wool-over-your-eyes conservative partisans to shame:
It puts to shame–and shame is the appropriate word–all the Kristol, McCain, Lieberman, Pollack and O’Hanlon etc etc cheerleading of the past two months.
What would make him say such? This essay from those brave heroes of our Armed Forces, all non-commissioned officers honestly relating their direct experiences:
As responsible infantrymen and noncommissioned officers with the 82nd Airborne Division soon heading back home, we are skeptical of recent press coverage portraying the conflict as increasingly manageable and feel it has neglected the mounting civil, political and social unrest we see every day. (Obviously, these are our personal views and should not be seen as official within our chain of command.)…
In short, we operate in a bewildering context of determined enemies and questionable allies, one where the balance of forces on the ground remains entirely unclear. (In the course of writing this article, this fact became all too clear: one of us, Staff Sergeant Murphy, an Army Ranger and reconnaissance team leader, was shot in the head during a “time-sensitive target acquisition mission” on Aug. 12; he is expected to survive and is being flown to a military hospital in the United States.) While we have the will and the resources to fight in this context, we are effectively hamstrung because realities on the ground require measures we will always refuse — namely, the widespread use of lethal and brutal force….
Political reconciliation in Iraq will occur, but not at our insistence or in ways that meet our benchmarks. It will happen on Iraqi terms when the reality on the battlefield is congruent with that in the political sphere. There will be no magnanimous solutions that please every party the way we expect, and there will be winners and losers. The choice we have left is to decide which side we will take. Trying to please every party in the conflict — as we do now — will only ensure we are hated by all in the long run….
In the end, we need to recognize that our presence may have released Iraqis from the grip of a tyrant, but that it has also robbed them of their self-respect. They will soon realize that the best way to regain dignity is to call us what we are — an army of occupation — and force our withdrawal.
Now contrast this with the forthcoming “September Report” which was supposed to have been written by the men in charge on the ground in Iraq — political appointees Gen. David Patreaus and US Ambassador to Iraq Ryan Crocker. We already know that the report is being ghost-written by the White House instead, which has led a majority of Americans to be predisposed to considering the “findings” suspect (not that this Administration has ever told we Americans rosey-colored fibs like the mission was accomplished, corners were being turned and the insurgents were in their last throes).
These courageous soldiers will undoubtedly be called traitors and America-haters (at the worst) or self-doubters (at the least) by the increasingly shrill partisans who keep hoping to pull the wool over our eyes with their continued falsetto refrains of “See, the surge is working!!!” … When asked to explain why they think the surge is working, their inevitable answer is, “Because we say so!!!” and they tout twisted words and half-quotes from others as some sort of illusory evidence that boatloads of people agree when in fact they do not.Is the surge working? Only as much as one can successfully squeeze Jell-o or pudding. Sure, you’ll be able to contain some of it but, as the recent bombings that killed hundreds (not dozens, hundreds) of Iraqis in one day unfortunately demonstrate, the more you squeeze (the more you “surge”) the more the rest of the insurgents, and other new ones, will slip out into previously “safe” areas (“safe” being a relative term in Iraq these days). The surge is tentatively working in some parts of the country, but clearly not in others where it’s having no effect.
And politically the Iraqi government is clearly not concerned with making progress towards a peaceful, equitable society. Even Secretary of Defense Robert Gates admits that things in Iraq are “somewhat discouraging” (his words).
Many conservative partisans have glommed onto the recent report by Michael O’Hanlon and Kenneth Pollack as evidence that “even liberals are coming around” on approving the surge … but those guys were always in favor of the Iraq invasion to begin with and have since sought any excuse they can find to prop up their initial zeal.
In their effort to fool themselves with their self-congratulatory back-patting, they’ve obviously confused the conservative partisans also — which seems unfortunately easy to do when it comes to Iraq.
(h/t mcjoan)
The Trib reported Monday that Hanover Park village trustees think an electricity-generating windmill proposed by the local Keeneyville school district might be an “eyesore” in a residential area. While Village President Rodney Craig disagrees, thinking the windmill would instead be a sign of progress, the issue is being dragged out.
School officials tout the windmill as a means of saving on rising electric rates using an efficient, ecologically responsible tool. They expect to be able to save upwards of $8 million in power costs during the windmill’s three-decade long lifespan.
As a taxpayer, my gut tells me an $8 million electric bill is the bigger eyesore, especially considering the school district is willing to work with other local entities like the DuPage Forest Preserve District to place the windmill in a less residentially-dense area. One of the other complaints was that the village board may have others applying for windmill installations, such as a McDonald’s restaurant. That’s a red herring given that a McDonald’s is a business transacting goods and money with only its customers, not a municipal body serving the entire community. (On the other hand, if Hanover Park decided to lead on this issue they’d start a smallish windfarm somewhere in their borders — perhaps in an industrial park — and let that hypothetical Mickey-D’s buy into that particular electric grid if they so chose.)
Hanover Park trustees ought to let the school put the windmill up. The public school is eligible for a private grant from the Illinois Clean Energy Community Foundation to cover some of the installation costs, but the village board’s resistance is hampering that grant application (for obvious reasons). Other Illinois schools have benefited from windmills and from such grants.
With the cost for windmills rising as the market tightens up due to demand, the taxpayers are not being well served by such delays.
