June 2006

On the Brady Audio

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Originally here…OneMan offered the suggestion that it wasn’t unreasonable for Brady to ask for what he did. However, the release with the audio and then the suggestion that the Legislature should be able to act immediately has some rather problematic issues that should be apparent to a Legislator. LMadigan is running at least one grand jury investigation into political friends getting benefits from this administration and from press accounts it certainly would appear that the hiring issues are one area of those investigations.

Now, let’s make this simple, if the there is a Grand Jury investigation, for Lisa to release evidence can be against the rules in some cases and in others it would weaken the case. If the Lege wants to carry out an investigation that’s fine, but doing so will likely either jeopardize the criminal investigation or lead nowhere since anyone with a brain will cite their 5th Amendment rights.

Brady’s release is bullshit theatrics that if carried out could well hurt the case. Beyond that, I’ve seen no evidence that Lisa is unwilling to go after the Governor. Far from what many of us expected when she was first elected, she hasn’t had much fear of crossing anyone.

Paris Murder Update

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Dan Curry, who represents a party in the larger press story has an update on some issues surrounding the investigation of a murder in Southern Illinois.

I tried to look into this and it took far too much time to make heads or tails of, “>but take a look at Dan’s posting. From what I can gather, I believe the original conviction was a miscarriage of justice. Beyond that, it’s too hard to follow, but I think the man Dan is representing deserves a fair public accounting and I believe that is what Dan is trying to provide.

Wurlitzer Claptrap

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Pinney tries to defend herself, but can’t quite bring herself to address the books she tried to ban from the classroom (and if you ban something from the curriculum, you are banning them from the classroom).

District 214 has a controversial issues policy, which the administration has been authorized to establish by the Board of Education. Within the procedures it discusses guidelines in determining whether a controversial issue or material should be presented in the context of an educational experience for a class or an individual student. It directs the educator to answer the question, ?Can the learning outcomes of the lesson be presented differently or with different material of equal quality, but with less controversy?? Also, community customs and attitudes are to be considered.

Perhaps a discussion about how controversy is defined would be in order. I contend that graphic depictions of anal sex, oral/genital sex, explicit sex, and gratuitous violence are controversial. I suppose those who disagree may say anything could be controversial. There certainly is a continuum and we must decide where that acceptable line lies. And we must ask what would be suitable for our community of students and parents as a whole, not just people of conservative faith perspectives or those who simply hold to a higher moral standard, but for all of those involved.

Of course, not all of the books she was arguing against contained gratuitous sex or violence–the Botany of Desire and Freakonomics to begin. Or in the case of gratuitous violence, it’s hard to imagine how violence is gratuitous in Slaughterhouse 5, a book about the horrors of war. One might argue it is graphic and uses graphic imagery and language, but it isn’t gratuitous. It is a fictionalized account by a man who lived through the firebombing of Dresden.

Pinney is trying to spin this as some sort of parent’s rights issue, but the problem is parents can have their kids opt out.

The reality of this whole ordeal is that Pinney is a part of the right wing Wurlitzer trying to raise the heat on school districts that parents are generally happy with in an effort to undermine that support.

Mississippi River Bridge

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Illinois is clearly under the impression that Missouri is not Mississippi with pro sports.

Illinois is wrong. Despite all the ranting about trucking companies going to other states, they won’t in Metro East because the alternative is a miserable ass backwards state that thinks infrastructure is less important than low taxes.

The number one priority in all local highway spending at the federal level around Saint Louis is the Mississippi River Bridge. The federal team came through with cash, Governor Boy Blunder cannot. In fact, Governor Boy Blunder wanted to further restrict taxes and revenues with a TABOR amendment.

If Illinois wants a bridge in Metro East, then it needs to sponsor a regional taxing district on the west side that will allow Metropolitan Saint Louis to tax itself for basic infrastructure from education to roads. Otherwise, Illinois is picking up the bill.

Tollway Lease Coverage

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Via Rich

A really good article on tollway privatization. Pat Guinane explores the issue in good depth. One of the issues not covered is ensuring that when public assets are leased, sunshine laws are extended to the private companies’ operations of the public assets.

The second thing is that no funding is used upfront if it diminshes future money in regular expenditures.

That’s The End of That

ArchPundit June 5, 2006 0 Comment

Madigan’s letter to legislators pretty much means the Lottery sale is dead.

“The governor?s multi-faceted, far-reaching plan would have profound long-term consequences for state finances and schools,” Madigan wrote.

Madigan?s call for scrutiny of the proposal is important because the speaker controls much of what gets voted on in the Illinois House.

While Madigan said the governor?s plan deserves “serious consideration,” he said questions must be answered on a number of fronts, including how the governor determined the lottery was worth $10 billion.

The hope would be that several elements of the plan could be salvaged from the consolidation portions to the elements that would give the state more standing to intervene in failing districts. Blagojevich, actually had the right idea in ending the current system of regional superintendents. If you combine that idea with professionalizing the system with curriculum and finance specialists, struggling schools would receive far more useful aid.

The funding is still the problem and with a hard and fast rule that he will not increase sales or income taxes in the State of Illinois, there is little chance to find the money for a large scale reform effort in terms of educational policy.

Strangely, Phil Kadner blames Madigan.

And you’re a mischief-maker.

You have been a leader downstate longer than anyone. If the state has financial problems, if the schools are in trouble, you are responsible.

Yet you have no solutions.

You simply pass around notes.

All you care about is keeping your gang of hooligans and no-accounts in control.

Yes, I hear all your little buddies snickering.

You are a disappointment, Mr. Madigan.

Unlike most of the others, you know better.

You are smart enough to realize that this state is falling apart financially.

You know the state’s system of funding public schools is unfair and inexplicable.

And you realize that all the other legislators look to you whenever someone proposes a solution.

The problem is that the Speaker pretty much said he’d seriously consider an income tax increase if the Governor wouldn’t veto it. The Governor said he would. Count the votes in Springfield and there aren’t enough for an override. Count the votes in swing districts and that means lots of Democratic candidates would get beat with a Democratic Governor vetoing a tax increase voted upon by Democratic House.

If you want that to change, you need to have a Governor who is willing to sign such a bill. Judy won’t answer the question clearly to date, and Blagojevich won’t do it. I think it’s a safe bet to say Blagojevich isn’t the Speaker’s first choice for Governor, but he’s what he’s got for now. Governor’s come and go, but Mike Madigan is always there. He’d like to be able to pass bills that help people in general in the majority instead of fighting to stop some really bad ideas in the minority–does anyone think that if Republicans controlled the General Assembly it would be better?

I want Madigan to pass the bill too, but I’d prefer he do it when it can actually pass and not just to make people feel better.

Brady Calls on LMadigan to Immediately Protect the Evidence

ArchPundit June 2, 2006 0 Comment

Hey dumbass, the Grand Jury has been empanelled for nearly 18 months.