It’s a legit story. It’s interesting. It’s longer than the story detailing 9 different trustees. It’s disproportionate. It’s how political opponents use the Trib and the Trib goes along with it happily.
Certainly SIU has gotten better over the years and the law school is different from undergrad admissions, but you need the Guv to get you into SIU? Seriously? How the hell do you plan to graduate if you couldn’t do well enough to get in in the first place.
It appears to be pretty much BS, but Rich does a fairly good analysis of the entire situation.
In my somewhat limited interactions with Cal, I generally like him. He’s a right wing nut, but a fairly smart guy who is at worst a true believer. I cannot speak for his longer term career because my contact has primarily been through blogging so I won’t make any sweeping statements, but he’s a guy who brings up issues regardless of whether they are comfortable for most folks.
I think Rich is right, Cal probably owes them an apology for an overstatement. Nothing to be too ashamed of there, I do it from time to time and hopefully apologize when it’s pointed out. However, like Rich, from what I can tell, Cal doesn’t hold blood feud grudges forever. He can be heated, but can discuss other issues later.
That said, that’s a pretty tough case to make for defamation.
The core of the complaint seems to be that Cal said the paper’s editorial board was in the pocket of the local GOP. While it’s legit to criticize the claim, that’s not a cause for defamation. It’s a figure of speech that anyone who engages in political discussion is likely to face. I’m in the pockets of people who hate each other much of the time. Who knew?
But you don’t sue over it. You criticize the claim or make an argument that is better reasoned. Or the Northwest Herald is going to be facing a whole lot of defamation suits whenever it writes a critical editorial.
Time to pull out the Where’s Sarah? buttons again created by Alaska Republicans in the Legislature there:
Brilliant strategery from Joe Birkett. Usually you bury bad news on the afternoon of a holiday weekend.
Then again, maybe it does make sense.
Yo Joe—You are doing it wrong.
Palin is stepping down early from her first term of Governor.
Freaks.
From press releases on the Climate Change bill. While a bunch of blue dogs defected–I’m looking at you Bill Foster–Quigley points out one of the most important elements of the entire deal–lower income individuals will end up saving money over time. While this bill is inadequate, change in the United States is incremental and it’s a start.
Quigley:
WASHINGTON, DC – This evening, Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL) voted to pass landmark clean energy legislation that will create millions of new American jobs, limit the pollution that causes climate change, and reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil. Cong. Quigley issued this statement following spirited debate and bipartisan passage of H.R. 2454, the American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACES):
“This is a great day for all of us, and all of our children, and all of our children’s children. This long-term investment is an investment in our economy, our health, and our future. Going green will save green, because future savings will quickly outpace immediate costs. This bill will grow our GDP, help clear our air of harmful pollution, create clean energy jobs that will stay in America, and provide us with both environmental and economic hope for tomorrow.”
With a combination of price spike protections, energy refunds and cost-saving technology, ACES will protect consumers, keep costs low,
and protect current jobs by helping energy-intensive industries transition to a cleaner, more profitable future. According to the EPA, the legislation would cost a typical American household less than a postage stamp per day, or less than $111 a year. Lower income households will see no new costs; in fact, the Congressional Budget Office found that they would actually save $40 per year with the plan. To maintain the return to fiscal responsibility that has become a hallmark of this Congress, the bill will not increase the deficit.
“It’s hard to see the road ahead when times are tough; I get that,” said Cong. Quigley. “But we can’t afford not to act. We have to remember, on this issue and others, that the cost of inaction far outweighs today’s price tag. Energy costs are on the rise due to increased demand, and we’re on an unsustainable path that will increase costs much more if we don’t take action now. This is an important legacy, and I’m proud to be a part of it.”
Illinois stands to greatly benefit by investments in a clean-energy economy, according to a recent report by the Center for American Progress. Research finds that Illinois could see a net increase of approximately $6.6 billion in investment revenue and 70,000 jobs based on its share of a total of $150 billion in clean-energy investments annually across the country. Illinois’ unemployment rate is currently more than 10%, a 25-year high for the state and higher than the national average.
The American Clean Energy and Security Act has received broad support from both industry and environmental groups and Members of Congress from across the country. It is backed by a coalition that includes consumer groups, electric utilities, car companies, manufacturers, environmental organizations, agriculture and forestry groups, and labor organizations among many others.
H.R. 2454 passed by a bi-partisan vote of 219-212 earlier this evening. Congressman Quigley voted in support of the bill.
Schakowsky:
Washington, DC (June 26, 2009) – Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-IL, released the following statement regarding the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009:
“For over a century the United States has embraced on energy policy based almost entirely on fossil fuels that have had several dangerous consequences for today. This outdated policy has compromised our national security by making us reliant on foreign oil, has led the United States to lag behind other countries in the research and development of new energy technologies that would have created jobs and has poisoned our planet. Now we have an opportunity to change directions.
“When I was back in my district last recess I could feel the crackling of new innovation. S & C Electric is making our electric grid much smarter and more reliable. Northwestern University is enabling entrepreneurs who are using nanotechnology and applying it to the energy field and using it to the electric window shut down, but those 260 skilled workers were rehired with help from the recovery bill that we passed. These are just a few of the thousands of success stories around the country, and the 1.7 million good jobs that will be created with the passage of this bill.”
Why I Support Cram-Down Reform.
As a former community banker, I know that there are many good, conscientious lenders who will do whatever they can to make sure families are not kicked out of their homes and onto the street. Good bankers understand that foreclosures don’t help our banks or communities thrive, and they don’t help keep the American dream alive. And frankly, it doesn’t help their bottom line.
Banks renegotiate the terms of mortgages outside of court to give homeowners a second chance all the time. But since the subprime mess, many banks haven’t been as kind. That’s why I supported this amendment; it only applied to lenders that failed to do the right thing by not offering loan modifications outside of court in the first place.
But the power players in the financial industry disagreed, and they certainly didn’t want to cede control of their business decisions to bankruptcy courts. They claimed the amendment would lead to more bankruptcy filings and prompt more homeowners to use bankruptcy as a threat to negotiate lower monthly payments, which would force lenders to raise interest rates.
Those arguments fall short. Homeowners do not want to risk long-term damage to their credit rating. Housing advocates dispute the higher interest rate claim and estimate the amendment would save hundreds of thousands of homeowners from facing foreclosure. In my experience, fewer foreclosures mean fewer bankruptcies.
But the Senate caved to powerful banking lobbyists when it gutted the amendment. And, to make matters even more frustrating, those lobbyists were paid for with money from the same banks that have received billions of dollars in subsidies from taxpayers in order to escape a financial firestorm of their making.
Senator Durbin said it best about banks: “they frankly own the place.”
The debate over the bill and its ultimate failure demonstrate why we need to reduce the influence of corporate interests and their role in shaping policy.
Cramdown makes sense for the vast majority of financial institutions. Foreclosure is expensive and in the short term there are housing gluts in the areas hit hardest by the mortgage finance crisis. This makes it even hard to sell the properties that are foreclosed upon. Those fighting cramdown legislation are largely institutions that aren’t banks and invested in securitized mortgages and/or made lots of subprime loans.
There are different kinds of borrowers facing problems. Speculators won’t be helped much by this sort of bill. They are essentially screwed with a market that evens out or drops.
However, homeowners who bought into bad loan agreements can benefit greatly. If you look at the Eddy Curry article (not a typical example–just the terms) his variable rate mortgage could go from somewhere around 3 percent to 15 percent. A millionaire pro-athlete isn’t a problem but a family that bought into a cheap monthly payment and didn’t understand the potential for escalating payments does. Or a family that might have bought in with a steady two incomes when one has now gone away.
Cramdown still delivers a fair rate of return to the financial insitution and decreases the risk of default to go along with that so that there is compensation for the change in terms. It keeps people in their homes if there is a reasonable chance for a family to afford the new payments, and it reduces the housing glut in those cities where one exists.
The resistance is there because it will affect the value of those securitized mortgage packages out there and create more accounting problems for some institutions who are staying afloat by largely overvaluing assetts. That’s probably necessary in the short run, but can also be solved with emergency accounting rules.
The House of Representatives is filled with cowards. Not surprisingly it’s headed by the father of a candidate for something next cycle who can’t be found to take a position on a very basic issue–how to close a huge budget deficit.
Every option the House is offering is inadequate and we are getting more leadership from Cullerton than from anyone in House or the somewhat erratic ramblings of the Gov. There is a structural deficit in Illinois that has to be dealt with not by one year gimmicks, but by fundamentally changing the tax structure. Cullerton has put up, the Governor is willing and trying to push the message, but the House continues to run scared. What good is power if you won’t wield it every once in a while?
The media keeps talking to the guy who wrote Is She Really Going Out With Him…
So sayeth the base about Mark Kirk and his reality based vote for cap and trade.
With Mark Kirk being one of the eight Republican U.S. House members to give Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi the votes they needed to pass the huge tax-increasing Cap and Trade energy bill last Friday night, most say Kirk is no different than the incumbent Roland Burris, and that without base support, Kirk’s a no-go for U.S. Senate.
Okay, Kirk’s done. As one IR commenter noted, though, talk is cheap. The Republicans need a candidate in 2010 that can beat Burris, Alexi Giannoulias or any other Democrat. We’ve been through this candidate-searching trauma before, need we be reminded? For all the criticism of the IL GOP’s State Central Committee, things were tough in 2004 after Jack Ryan dropped out. Dr. Sauerberg’s campaign to take on Dick Durbin never got off the ground in 2008.
Purity of Essence Bitches.
Not to minimize the gross dereliction of duty, but at least when Sanford got up there he talked to the public like adults and did not try to make excuses or try and hide behind his family.
Imagine Rod Blagojevich like that.
LOL–neither can I.
Hiking the Appalachian Trail
Back in the morning
Hysterical Sneed bit from when I was gone:
It’s Chris
The Kennedy beat…
Begorrah! The Merchandise Mart’s Chris Kennedy may not yet have “officially” announced his bid for the U.S. Senate in Illinois — but his cousin, Ted Kennedy Jr., did the “unofficial deed.”
* To wit: “I was told not to talk politics tonight, but…you here in Illinois can have your own Sen. Kennedy — my cousin, Chris, is running,” Ted Kennedy Jr. said at an Access Living dinner at Navy Pier Tuesday night.
* Backshot: U.S. Sen. Ted Kennedy’s son made the statement while accepting an award on behalf of his ailing father.
* Slipshot: Chris Kennedy, vice chairman of the event, kept quiet. Gov. Quinn, who told Sneed recently that Chris Kennedy was one of his heroes, was also there. And so was first lady Maggie Daley.
We could have our own Kennedy! What lucky duckies we are!
Oddly, the Sun-Times pulled that though and replaced it with:
June 4, 2009
BY MICHAEL SNEED Sun-Times Columnist
Begorrah! The Merchandise Mart’s Chris Kennedy may not yet have “officially” announced his bid for the U.S. Senate in Illinois — but his cousin, Ted Kennedy Jr., did the “unofficial deed.”
The Blago beat . . .
I’m sure an honest editorial decision.
Other than his name is Kennedy there is no justification for his run for US Senate. While DC goes all aflutter for Kennedy’s its hard to say why a Kennedy would be a good Senator or candidate even from Illinois. His background is largely in taxpayer subsidized busines which in itself isn’t bad, but he’s shown a propensity in Cleveland to use the taxpayers as his personal piggybank.
The notion that he can come in and be above the fray is idiotic given he’s a symbol of insider deals. The Kennedy sense of entitlement just makes it worse.
