Welcome to WeeklyWilson.com, where author/film critic Connie (Corcoran) Wilson avoids totally losing her marbles in semi-retirement by writing about film (see the Chicago Film Festival reviews and SXSW), politics and books----her own books and those of other people. You'll also find her diverging frequently to share humorous (or not-so-humorous) anecdotes and concerns. Try it! You'll like it!

Category: Politics Page 25 of 35

Presidential caucuses have been Connie’s specialty in Iowa as she followed the elections of 2004, 2008, 2012 and wrote the 2 books “Obama’s Odyssey: The 2008 Race for the White House.” She also continues to follow politics by avidly reading everything she can get her hands on, including “Rolling Stone,” “Mother Jones,” “Newsmax,” “Time,” etc.

“He Named Me Malala” Documentary Shows in Chicago on Sept. 21, 2015

Davis Guggenheim.

Davis Guggenheim.

Sept. 21, 2015 Acclaimed documentary filmmaker Davis Guggenheim, who gave us “An Inconvenient Truth” about climate change and “Waiting for Superman” (about our public schools) appeared at the Chicago AMC Theater on Monday, September 21st, to speak about his latest documentary on Malala Yousafzai, the teen-aged winner of the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

Then fifteen years old, Malala was singled out by the Taliban in Pakistan, along with her father, for advocating for the education of girls in the country and the world. The Taliban shooter entered a bus on which Malala and her fellow classmates were riding on October 9th, 2012, called her out by name, and shot her in the left side of her forehead. The attack sparked an outcry from supporters around the world and she was air lifted to Birmingham, England, at the expense of the Pakistani government, where she underwent months in the hospital, recuperating from her injuries.

A crucial nerve that had been cut by the bullet’s trajectory was surgically restored by surgeons at Queen Elizabeth Hospital in Birmingham, re-establishing 90% function (surgeons had hoped for 80%) and a cochlear implant in her left ear attempted unsuccessfully to save Malala’s hearing in her left ear.

Since fleeing Pakistan, the entire Yousafzai family has been unable to return to Pakistan’s Swat Valley and has remained in Birmingham, England where her father Zia and her two brothers and her mother also struggle to assimilate to this new land. The Malala Fund, which has sprung up around her, invests in, advocates for and amplifies the voices of adolescent girls globally, urging education as a way to change the world. As Malala put it: “One child, one teacher, one book and one pen can change the world.”

Although, originally, Malala was speaking to the world via the BBC, undercover, with a pseudonym (Gul Makal), she eventually stepped from the shadows to speak publicly, saying, “There’s a moment when you have to choose whether to be silent or to stand up.”

The film is part standard documentary, part animated movie, as filmmaker Guggenheim explains that the original Malala was a warrior female not unlike Joan of Arc who led her male troops to victory in a battle that took place in 1880. She was given her first name Malala (meaning “grief-stricken”) after Malalai of Maiwand, a famous Pashtun poetess and warrior woman from southern Afghanistan.

Malala 361Filmmake Guggenheim used the story of the original Malala as a launching point and a touchstone for his documentary that both traces Malala’s past, documents her present, and speculates on her future. It is quite clear from the film that Malala’s activist outspoken ways come from grooming by her father, Zia, also an outspoken activist for education who owned and ran a string of schools in his native land (and still wishes he did.)

Following the showing of the film, these questions were asked of filmmaker Guggenheim:

Q1) “What made you want to do this film?”

A1) “Maybe it’s because I have 2 daughters of my own, but I received a phone call asking me if I’d consider doing this documentary and it started there. Education is liberation, your ladder up. I hope that message resonates as much with the citizens of Chicago as it does with the citizens of Pakistan.”

Q2) “Does Malala have any anger towards those who shot her?”

A2) “Sometimes you meet people who have a public life and they are different privately. One of the things I find extraordinary is that Malala is the same. She expresses, in the film, that she is not angry about the shooting. She said, ‘It was not a person who shot me; it was an ideology. They were not about faith. They were about power.’ In the ambulance on the way to the hospital, she worried about the mothers of the boys who shot her. Malala’s family is so full of joy and they live their lives without bitterness.”

Malala 362Q3) “Tell us about the beginning of this remarkable film?”

A3) “Walter Parks and Laurie Mcdonald got the rights to Malala’s story. They called me. I spent 3 or 4 days reading about the story and realized it had many more dimensions. It was about her relationship with her father, which is special. She was actually named after a girl who spoke out (Malala) and was killed for speaking out.

Q4) “Have you spent much time touring with Malala for the film?”

A4) “She Skyped in. She doesn’t like missing school (unlike my children). When she won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2014, she went back to her class to finish her Physics lesson.  At Telluride, her family told me that the act of making the movie was a form of therapy. I met them all when she was 5 or 6 months into recovery. She really feels she’s a spokesman for the 66 million girls who are being denied an education.”

Q5) “What sort of misinformation about her exists?”

A5) “Gossip. People in Pakistan refer to it as gossip. A very strong part of the population in Pakistan loves her and wants her to come back home. However, the Taliban has still vowed to kill her. Some of the hatred is backlash against the West.”

Malala 363Q6) “How did you come up with the idea of the use of animation and illustrations for parts of the documentary?”

A6) “The animation came from problems portraying the Battle of Maiwand, which took place in 1880. Malala is a national folk hero of Afghanistan who rallied local Pashtun fighters against the British troops at the 1880 Battle of Maiwand. She fought alongside Ayub Khan and was responsible for the Afghan victory at the Battle of Maiwand on 27 July 1880, during the Second Anglo-Afghan War. She is also known as “The Afghan Jeanne D’Arc.” We called up Abu Dhabi (which helped finance the film) and asked for more money to animate the movie. The imagery is often scary, repetitive and dark. I wanted to capture that. It was hand-drawn in my office using computers and is like a storybook.”

Q7) “Were there any restrictions placed on you as the filmmaker as to how you could portray Malala?”

A7) “No, but I always show the films I make to people like Al Gore for ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’ There were a few notes given us about how Islam is portrayed. They asked for some clarification in the subtitles. They wanted it to be presented better and their suggestions were improvements.”

Q8) “What is Malala’s favorite subject in school? And will she be going on to college?”

A8) “Physics, which they call Maths. She is going to college and has done very well on her exams. Originally, Malala wanted to be a doctor, but her father’s influence has convinced her that she should become a politician.”

Q9) “How did she keep from being scarred by the shooting?”

A9) “Malala has a big scar running along her neck. Her smile is not 100% returned to normal. Her mother refers to her birthdays as being born again and recently told her Happy Third Birthday. Malala feels a tremendous amount of responsibility for young adolescent girls everywhere and has visited Kenya, Nigeria and, on her 18th birthday, wanted to go to the refugee camps where the Syrian refugees are pouring across the borders into various European countries.”

Q10) “How has film managed to change the national and international conversation?”

A10) “Films that move people can move people to action. It is a very broad message. Malala is speaking at the United Nations next week about re-education for girls. African villages where girls are educated are different and do better in every way, including economically. It starts with theaters like this where people come together, hear an important story, and go home and talk about it. The film will open in 190 countries through Fox/Searchlight, ultimately.”

Malala 365Q11) (From a woman wearing a burkha): “Do you think any part of your identity caused a challenge to making the documentary?”

A11) “I understand what you are saying. Would she react differently to someone like you? Instead, she got me: a half Episcopalian, half Jewish filmmaker with long hair. This is a true anecdote: when we had been working a while, Malala’s father came to me, touched my hair, and asked if it was real or not. (laughter) I think they thought I was some sort of alien, with my shoulder-length locks. Malala’s situation is interesting because, in our society, everyone is telling their own story all the time on Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, etc. They needed help to tell this story. When I walked in, they wanted to tell their story. The first three hours alone with just Malala and a microphone she told her story. Part of my job is to pull people out. I asked her about her suffering, but she did not give a complete answer in the film.”

Q12) “Is there any one thing that occurred during filming that made you change your opinions?”

A12) “I sat around their kitchen table and it was just like mine, but there was so much joy. They are a tight-knit family. We give lip service in our culture to the concept that ‘girls are equal.’ We say it, but her father acted on it, even putting Malala on the chart of the family tree, as we saw in the film. It’s not just saying that people are equal; it’s believing it and acting on it.”

Q13) “How did a young schoolgirl who started blogging anonymously at eleven and was shot at fifteen find the strength to do what she has done?”

A13) “Malala is a tough and focused person. She gets her sense of mission and her passion from her father. She gets her strength from her mother. She sat with Goodluck Jonathan and told him he must do more to get back the girls kidnapped by Boko Harum. She sat with President Obama and quizzed him about drone strikes in her country. Malala will go to college (an earlier question) and her presence has sparked a nationwide and worldwide movement at Malala.org. The Malala Fund is advocating for girls around the world, a nonprofit devoted to working to empower adolescent girls globally through gaining for them a quality secondary education.”

Bernie Sanders Speaks at Democratic Picnic

Democratic candidate for president Bernie Sanders, an acknowledged Socialist, visited Scott County Park for the Democratic Party’s picnic in the park on Sunday, August 16, 2015.

BernieSanders 013

A 47-year resident of the Quad Cities, I had trouble finding the Whispering Pines Shelter at 18850 270th Street in Eldridge, and Lord only knows what Bernie must have thought as he was being escorted to the venue in a black van (Bernie was at the Iowa State Fair in Des Moines yesterday). It is quite literally out in the middle of nowhere. BernieSanders 005

I was told by the state trooper directing traffic into the park that there would be nowhere to park my car, so I parked 3 miles away (see photo below), the very first empty spot I saw, which turned out to be a very bad idea. There were parking spots right next to the Whispering Pines shelter. (Isn’t Whispering Pines the name of the town in that spooky TV series? No?) Therefore, I hiked 3 miles to the lodge (or whatever you call it) in 94-degree heat, and, along the way, was chastised by some young girl sitting on a chair in an orange vest under an umbrella, who told me to walk in the grass (easily 4 feet high) next to the blacktopped road “for safety”. [I cannot print here on a wholesome blog what I told her in response.] I did put my thumb out to try to snag a ride with a stranger and a guy with a dog stopped. (The dog was seated on the front seat, where I would have had to sit). I wish I could tell a fun and warm and fuzzy story about how he gave me a ride to the front, 3 miles away, but that didn’t happen. All the other cars that went by were full. (And so it goes.) On the “good news” front, I did get a ride BACK to my small Prius on a yellow school bus, and I was probably the last person to get such a ride as the last bus for Eldridge was leaving at 3:30 p.m. and I was on it. [Just me, one guy who was parked in the opposite direction, and the driver].BernieSanders 001

My main goal was to score a good picture of Bernie and to take the temperature of the crowd. I visited a Bush (Jeb) rally on Thursday (temperature: tepid), so now it was Bernie’s turn. Rumors from places out East (Bernie is a Senator for Vermont) are that 28,000 people have shown up for his rallies. I can quote Thom Harte, who was in charge of the arrangements for the picnic,  (and is often in charge of Democratic politics in the area), that Bernie had nearly 1,000 confirmed attendees. We both feel there were more people inside the shelter in the 94 degree heat who perhaps did not venture out of it to hear Bernie’s speech, which received many roars of approval that could be heard 3 miles away. (Poor Bernie: it was hot enough to fry an egg on the sidewalk; trust me on the 3 miles away comment. I know what I’m talking about there.)BernieSanders 008

As for me, I’ll read about Bernie’s talking points later. I was there to see if he was really drawing big crowds of enthusiastic supporters. I could hear the crowd roaring its approval from the 3 mile hike I was taking to get my picture of Bernie and considered (briefly) cutting through a very overgrown field that would have taken at least 2 miles off my trek, but also would have given me poison ivy.  I also met a candidate who wants to run against Republican Senator Charles “Chuck” Grassley, (hopefully to unseat the old poop.) I’ll write about him later.BernieSanders 002

I talked to Judith Schwartzbacker from Minnesota (South Powderhorn neighborhood) who held an event for Bernie on July 29th (one of 3,300) and so many people showed up that it had to be moved to a nearby church. (Walker Community Church)

BernieSanders 016I talked to Clari Lagerstam of Beloit, Wisconsin, who had come in on a bus with others and said, “We have to do something. We CANNOT have Scott Walker get in. He has ruined our state.”I spoke with Arlys Mills of Machesney Park, Illinois (near Rockford) who had also come a long way on a bus to hear Bernie.BernieSanders 009

Verdict for today: Bernie has some die-hard supporters who are more enthused about his candidacy than they are about Hillary Clinton’s. Temperature: hot. Very hot. Too damn hot for a 3-mile hike through overgrown weeds.

Jeb Bush Campaigns in Iowa on Aug.13, 2015

Jeb Bush came to the St. Ambrose University Student Union in Davenport, Iowa (“the Beehive”), to speak at something billed as APPS: Americans for Peace, Prosperity and Security. Attending the campaign event was encouraged by the head of the Arsenal Island munitions command located in Rock Island, Illinois, in our local newspapers, and, therefore, it was assumed (by me, at least) that most of the discussion would be about national security and keeping America safe. [I could say something unkind about how much less safe Jeb’s brother made us with his decisions to invade a variety of countries that were not involved with 9/11 and were not buying yellow cake uranium from Niger, but I’ll leave that to history, for now, and soldier on summarizing Jeb Bush’s remarks—those I heard, anyway, after becoming hopelessly lost on campus trying to find “the Beehive” for the first 15 minutes or so of his remarks].[One student we asked for directions actually said: Turn left, then right, then left, then right, then go down an alley.” ]O…………..K…………

CruisethruJeb 447

Finding “the Beehive” on the campus of St. Ambrose University is akin to finding your way into or out of an Iowa corn maze. My assumption is that it is called “the Beehive” because the sports teams are the St. Ambrose Bees. I once taught Advanced Composition there, but it was a long time ago, and buildings have changed and been built since the Challenger blew up. Plus, I don’t think the exterior of the building actually says “The Beehive,” nor does it resemble a beehive, in case you wondered.

I assumed Jeb’s remarks would be carried on the nightly news channels, but I did not see a single television tripod, [which is usually a bad sign]. However, it’s early in the campaign season, and I wanted to hear what GeorgeW. Bush’s brother (and George Herbert Bush’s son) had to say. He seemed like a nice guy, just as voters said they’d like to have a beer with his brother, George W, when he was running for president.

CruisethruJeb 448

First, let it be known that Jeb admitted publicly that his brother George’s disbanding of the Iraqi military was a mistake. (You think?)  That disclaimer led, quickly, to a mention of the 19 beheadings on the shores of Libya,as a lead-in to comments on the growing threat in the world of ISIS/ISIL, terrorist organizations.

CruisethruJeb 453

 

Jeb kept repeating that, “You’ve got to have a plan over the long haul.” I seriously doubt that this administration (and the last one, and the ones before that) didn’t have “a plan.” The probem has been whether the plan(s) were any good. [Obviously, the last Bush governor we elected (twice) had plans. They just happen to have been horrible plans, concocted by the likes of Rumsfeld and Cheney].

Jeb feels that we have sent a signal to Russia and the rest of the world that America is not serious (about maintaining our national security). He mentioned the damage that leaks of the Manning/Snowden variety have done to us and to our allies. He began talking about “rebuilding our defenses.” This is a direct quote:  “When an attack happens, we need a strategy with the private sector to defend and we need to fund it.” (*My mind interpreted that as “more defense spending,” while our nation’s infrastructure, schools and other institutions crumble and decay.)

CruisethruJeb 454

At that point, my attention wandered to a woman sitting in the 4th row, whom I recognized as former Iowa State Senator Maggie Tinsman. When I covered the 2008 campaign, Maggie Tinsman was often the person introducing the Big Names. She served as a State Senator in Iowa from 1989 until 2007 (18 years) and was a Scott County Supervisor for 10 years before that. The 79-year-old Tinsman has been an outstanding advocate for early childhood education, serves on many boards, has won many awards, and is a graduate of both the University of Colorado and the University of Iowa. She formed Maggie Tinsman, LLC, a group lobbying for early childhood education. Now, she was sitting quietly about 4 rows back from the front of the room. (Usually, Republicans of this stature are onstage behind the candidates). I was not surprised to see her at the rally; I was just surprised that she was merely a spectator there.

I was also very surprised that there wasn’t much security getting in to this speech. No metal detectors. Few men who looked like they were security. Nobody even took our tickets, (which we had gotten online). I was also surprised at the (small) size of the room, which was not much bigger than my kitchen and living room, combined, and did not hold more than 200 people, total. (*I’ve read that Bernie Saunders, whom I hope to hear on Sunday at a picnic, drew a crowd estimated at 28,000).

Did the organizers want a small room to make it look crowded (which it was)? Did someone screw up in booking “the Beehive” for the event? (They did as far as ease of finding it, as I practically needed bread crumbs to find my way back to my car.)

There were 4 rows of chairs with 22 chairs in each row, and, after that, rows of 4 chairs and many people standing in the entryway, which I have pictured (below). Still, the total number of people listening to the man who may well end up being the standard bearer for the Republican Party was small.

CruisethruJeb 449 Other topics:  Cyber-attacks from China. Jeb responded that he was more concerned that China is building a base in the middle of the South China Sea. He repeated that we need to “send a signal that we’re in it for the long haul” in talking about the pivot to Asia. While saying that, 20 years from now, the most significant relationship this country will have will be with China, he mentioned that we should “re-engage in Asia and pass the Trans-Pac Trade Agreement. It would send a signal that we are not abandoning the area.” Bush added, “This is a relationship that you could see get out of control very quickly.”

Jeb mentioned a visit to China made by the current occupant of the White House where Barack Obama’s wife, Michelle, did not accompany him, and commented: “That was a huge insult to China.” I wondered about Laura Bush’s travel itineraries while she was First Lady. Did she accompany George W. to every far-flung country on the planet? I wondered if throwing up in the lap of the Japanese head of state (George Herbert Bush) was a worse faux pas than simply staying home to take care of two school-age children in the United States?

When asked by an audience member: “What steps to deter China should we be taking?” Jeb answered, “I think we’re on the right track,” mentioning specifically how Obama has prosecuted cyber terrorists. Added Jeb:  “China watches everything that happens. We will not tolerate cyber espionage…They see us as weak and in decline. We need to send a message that that is not true.” I wondered if by “sending a message” about how strong we are, militarily, he meant rattling  more sabers, because it seems that the United State of America is pretty war-weary right about now. (I know I am). He also mentioned “devaluing their currency” (China’s), which totally confused those of us who didn’t know whether he meant that this action was going to happen here or there. (Not a Chinese scholar here; please leave your comments on the Chinese currency situation so we can bring everyone up to speed.)
CruisethruJeb 451Questioner (from the audience) Molly O’Toole wanted to know how Jeb’s policies would be different than Obama’s? That set off comments about counter-terrorism being part of Homeland Security (which, I thought, it already was).  Quote: “I believe it was a mistake to repeal the meta-data part of the Patriot Act.” (*This references the taking of your cell phone and e-mail records without warrants).

Asked to comment on Obama’s having made the statement, “We tortured some folks,” Jeb was extremely cautious, actually living up to Trump’s criticisms of Jeb’s tentativeness onstage and his lack of “energy” and “enthusiasm” [which, to Trump, seems to mean extreme self-confidence that you (and you alone) are right.]

Quote:  “I’m cautious about making statements when I’m running for president…I’m cautious about making blanket statements. Everything is digitalized.  My every word is dissected.” So, we have established that Jeb is cautious. That’s not a bad thing, after George W. It almost sounded like the candidate was paranoid, to a degree, about saying anything substantive, for fear he’d have to backtrack later (as with some comments about his brother’s Iraq War made right out of the box.)

To provoke polite applause, Jeb threw this out there:  “I’m proud of what he (“W”) did to secure a safe environment for this country after 9/11.” (Who isn’t going to approve of that comment? It’s like asking if you like kitties and puppies.)

Another safe quote:  “One of—-if not THE—most important duty of a President is to keep us safe.” Again: not a controversial statement. He then did make a slightly sarcastic statement about how “enhanced interrogation isn’t okay, but it’s okay to kill them (with drones)”, re terrorists, and added, in an incredulous tone, “Really?”

When asked where we should put all the terrorists that need to be locked up, Jeb responded (Q:  “Where do you put them?):  “You keep ’em there in Guantanamo.  There is no other option that I can see.  90% of those in Congress agree with my position.” He denied that bringing them back to maximum security prisons in the U.S. was a viable option.

Jeb was hugely critical of the Iranian Nuclear deal. He didn’t seem to give much credence to the fact that it was quite difficult to even get the Iranians to the table at all, and that that table contained representatives from many other allied nations and the participants negotiated for weeks, if not months, (even after Secretary of State John Kerry broke his leg)

Exact quote:  “This is a bad deal.  The verification part is too weak. This is really trouble. We’re not sending the right signal to the rest of the world. They’ve violated almost every agreement, so far…It is very naive to think that Mullahs go quietly into the night.” He added some comments about how the World’s Biggest Economy ($13 trillion), the U.S., should be able to do better, rather than “betting on the come.” He felt that: “We should not take those options off the table.”

I’ve heard it said that this Iran Deal is, indeed, NOT the Best Deal Ever, but, without it, the world has NO deal, whatsoever, and that could  mean war between Israel and Iran, a war into which we would be dragged. Again: not an expert on the Iran Deal, but a lot of time has been spent trying to hammer something out and our allies are onboard. Isn’t “something better than nothing?” Don’t know. Can’t tell you. Please ask the guy(s) denouncing it.

Overall, Jeb Bush was not hugely critical of Barack Obama, even saying, at one point, “I applaud President Obama for doing it” (i.e., mobilizing against terrorists.) His talk of “a plan” was all well and good, but we didn’t hear much about HIS plan (i.e., no specifics), and we certainly are not going to hear much about anybody’s plans during debates that feature Donald Trump.

Jeb came off as a gentleman, a tad cautious and timid, much more knowledgeable than he appeared onstage during the first Republican debate, and I’m betting that, when this is all over and the dust clears, it will be Jeb and somebody like John Kasich (Ohio) or Marco Rubio (Florida) who team up against the Democratic candidates in 2016. The evening news with Dan Rather, however, was headlined, “Is Jeb Bush in Trouble?”

Thoughts on Aug. 6, 2015 Republican Debate

I watched Fox’s telecast of the top 10 Republican contenders tonight, and I’m still trying to make sense of it all. Venturing onto Twitter while it was ongoing probably didn’t help. The opinions expressed were not in line with what I was seeing and hearing. One fellow thought retired neuro-surgeon Ben Carson had done a great job because he came off as relatively normal and scored a few points for levity. I mainly heard a political novice spouting religion to the base.

The most cantankerous moments revolved around The Donald—and who was surprised by that? The front-running Republican candidate was miffed at Megyn Kelly, the moderator, and accused her of not treating him very nicely. He and Rand Paul scuffled verbally, but most of the scuffling made Paul seem like a small terrier with its teeth sunk into the pantleg of his owner. Perhaps it was Paul’s ploy to get a little bit of press coverage by “drafting” in the wake of Trump, but he just came off as petulant and out-of-sorts, to me. When Rand Paul went to the table at the conclusion of the debate to speak to the three Fox anchors (presumably to thank Megyn Kelly, Chris Wallace and Brett Baier), he didn’t appear as gracious as he was attempting to look. He seemed like a grumpy young man throughout the evening.

Knowing what I know about Old Union-Busting Scott Walker of Wisconsin, I cannot enjoy any of his comments, whether about his state or his family of origin. He is anti-Union and all you have to know about Scott Walker was covered in the documentary “As Wisconsin Goes, So Goes the Nation,” which I highly recommend watching before jumping on his band wagon.

One thing that struck me was how young Marco Rubio looked. He literally looked like he could be a college kid. His speaking was far superior to many onstage. He put Jeb Bush to shame. (It has been said that Rubio was Jeb Bush’s protege).

For me, the Republican candidate who appeared the most normal and reasonable throughout was John Kasich of Ohio, and it didn’t hurt that his hometown crowd in Cleveland gave him a standing ovation. Kasich hit all the right notes about uniting the country, not dividing it.

Meanwhile, Trump ticked everybody off right away by raising his hand immediately to say that he would consider an independent bid—something that experts say would siphon just enough votes away from the Republican candidate to guarantee a Democratic victory.

When Megyn Kelly nailed The Donald with some of his insulting comments about women, he at first tried to laugh them off as being all about Rosie O’Donnell, but Kelly persisted in attaching some truly deplorable past statements to the front-running candidate. He did not seem to like it and said he didn’t have time to be politically correct.

Chris Christie got into a testy exchange with Rand Paul, which was entertaining. Rand Paul could be seen rolling his eyes at Christie’s retort when Paul chided him for hugging President Obama when the president visited New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy. Most of the candidates did the “political spin” thing, where they answered whatever they felt like answering and avoided unpleasant terrain, and there was entirely too much waving of the religious flag for my tastes.

There didn’t seem to be any clear winners or losers amongst the Top Ten, but, from what moderator Megyn Kelly said, I would like to hear Carly Fiorino’s remarks from the earlier debate, which wasn’t carried live.

For me, Kasich seemed to be the adult in the room and I am beginning to think that George was “the smart one,” which is a sad commentary on the offspring of George Herbert Bush. Jeb was even booed when the failed Common Core educational program was mentioned. He also became very vociferous about being right-to-life. Anyone who remembers his Governorship of Florida (he’s been out of office 8 years) would remember how he became involved in one tragic family decision about pulling the plug on a brain-dead woman in Florida, even involving his brother, then President Bush (“W”). [I wrote about it in great detail in Book #3 of “The Color of Evil” series, “Khaki=Killer.”]

I can’t even imagine what sort of representation most of these men would give the United States of America abroad. I did think that Kasich seemed statesmanlike, and Rubio was much-improved from his water-guzzling rebuttal to the State of the Union message. Jeb was just ineffectual, Ben Carson was a lightweight, Huckabee was fatter (and with less hair) but seemed just as far out as he always was (don’t forget: he won the Iowa caucuses in 2008), and I’m offended even laying eyes on Scott Walker. I do enjoy it when Walker turns around and his bald spot is displayed for the world to see; I only wish his truly horrible policies were more baldly displayed for the world to judge. At least we didn’t have to suffer through Rick Perry’s glasses and another “Oops!” moment.

Apparently the next months will have us on the edge(s) of our seats wondering if The Donald IS going to run as an Independent.

Stay tuned for that and other developments.

Mel Reynolds: The Mighty Have Fallen

There was a time when Mel Reynolds was one of the most promising young politicians in Illinois.

That was before he was sent to jail for having sex with a 16-year-old underage campaign worker. That was before he became a registered sex offender in 1995, forbidden to live within 500 feet of a school. That was before he was charged with failing to file income tax returns from 2009 through 2012. (Each count carries a maximum sentence of one year in prison or a $250,000 fine on conviction.) That was before he was found to have child pornography, tried to sabotage the case against him, and was sentenced to 5 years in prison.

In 1997, Reynolds was convicted, while serving time in prison, of 15 counts of illegally raising campaign cash and defrauding banks out of hundreds of thousands of dollars. For that, he got 6 and 1/2 years in prison.

He served 2 and 1/2 years in state prison and was then transferred to a federal prison, but in 2001, Bill Clinton commuted his sentence hours before leaving office, at a time when Reynolds had 2 years left to serve.

In 2003, Reynolds made several attempts at a political comeback, running against another sterling example of rectitude, Jesse Jackson Jr. in the 2004 Democratic primary. That failed. Ten years later, Zimbabwe would deport him from that African country on charges that he had sexually explicit photos and videos on his mobile phone, in violation of a censorship law…in Africa! Although the charges were reduced to a misdemeanor visa violation, he was sent packing and came back to the U.S., where, on July 31st, while leaving the Dirksen US. Courthouse in Chicago, he was trying to find a place to spend the night.

Reynolds was able to secure a court-approved place to stay on an emergency basis and was ordered to appear in court at 2 p.m. on Friday with a more permanent address. Asked by reporters who he was talking to on his cell phone, Reynolds declined to answer fully, saying only, “This is a one-night deal,” and, of the charges of failing to pay taxes for four years, “The narrative has been that somehow I didn’t pay my taxes. I didn’t file.  By going to trial, this is going to set the record straight.” Mel Reynolds is 63 years old, claims to have a “very sick” daughter in Africa, and is a convicted felon.

Maybe he and Jesse Jackson and Anthony Weiner can start a club aimed at “Redemption” (the sign in the background of the old campaign photo.).Mel Reynolds

 

U.S. History’s Most-Insulted President

(*The following editorial opinion was first published on page 31 of the Chicago “Tribune,” an article written by Geoffrey R. Stone, who is a law professor at the University of Chicago.  It is important enough that it deserves wide distribution.)

I’ve been thinking lately about the persistently vituperative and insulting attacks on President Barack Obama since 2008.  It is, of course, commonplace in American politics for presidents to be lambasted for their policies, their programs, their values and even their personal quirks.  Sometimes, the tone crosses the line.

 

John Adams was accused by a political opponent of “swallowing up” “every consideration of the public welfare…in a continual grasp for power.”  James Madison was demeaned as “Little Jemmy” because he was short.  James Buchanan, who once declared that workers should get by on a dime a day, came to be mocked as “Ten Cent Jimmy.”

 

John Tyler, who assumed the presidency after the death of William Henry Harrison, was ridiculed as “His Accidency.”  Congressman Abraham Lincoln castigated President James Polk as “a completely bewildered man.”  Opponents of Woodrow Wilson’s reinstitution of the draft in World War I accused hi of “committing a sin against humanity.”  Critics of Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal attacked him as an “un-American radical.”

 

Richard Nixon was famously known as “Tricky Dick,” and of course, he was “not a crook.”  At the height of the Vietnam War, LBJ was excoriated by his opponents as a “murderer” and “a war criminal.”

 

But no presidency in our nation’s history has ever been castigated, condemned, mocked, insulted, derided and degraded on a scale even close to the constantly ugly attacks on Barack Obama.  From the day he assumed office—indeed, even before he assumed office—he was subjected to unprecedented insults in often the most hateful terms.

 

He has been accused of being “a secret Muslim” and of being born in Kenya, of being complicit with the Muslim Brotherhood, of wearing a ring bearing a secret verse from the Quran, of having once been a Black Panther, of refusing to recite the Pledge of Allegiance, of seeking to confiscate all guns, of lying about just about everything he has ever said, ranging from Benghazi to the Affordable Care Act to immigration, of faking Osama bin Laden’s death and of funding his campaigns with drug money.

 

It goes on and on.  Even the president’s family is treated by his political enemies with disrespect and disdain.

 

If one browses even respectable websites, one can readily find bumper stickers, coffee cups and T-shirts for sale with such messages as “Dump This Turd” (with an image of President Obama); “Coward! You Left Them To Die in Benghazi” (with an image of Obama); “Somewhere in Kenya A Village Is Missing Its Idiot” (with an image of Obama); “Islam’s Trojan Horse” (with an image of Obama); “Pure Evil” (with an image of Obama); ‘I”m Not A Racist: I Hate His White Half Too” (with an image of Obama); “He Lies!” (with an image of Obama); and on and on and on.

Now, don’t get me wrong.  Every one of these messages is protected by the First Amendment, and people have a right to express their views, even in harsh, offensive, cruel and moronic ways.  We the People do not need to trust or admire our leaders, and we should not treat them with respect if we don’t feel they deserve our respect.  But the sheer vituperation directed at this president goes beyond any rational opposition and is, quite frankly, mind-boggling. (Some of us would add, repugnant).

 

In part, of course, this might just be a product of our times.  Perhaps the quality of our public discourse has sunk so low that any public official must now expect such treatment.  Perhaps any president elected in 2008 would have been greeted with similar scorn and disdain.  But, to be honest, that seems unlikely.

 

Of course, there are those who say that this phenomenon is due, in part, perhaps in large part, to the fact that Obama is African-American. But surely racism is dead in America today, right?

 

One fact that might lend some credence to the theory that racism has something to do with the tenor of the attacks on Obama is that only one other president in our history has been the subject of similar (although more subdued) personal attacks.

 

In his day, this president was castigated by the press and his political opponents as “a liar,””a despot,” “a usurper,” “a thief,” a “monster,” a “perjurer,” an “ignoramus,” a “swindler,” a “tyrant,” a “fiend,” a “coward,” a “buffoon,” a “butcher,” a “pirate,” a “devil,” and a “king.” He was charged with being “cunning,” “thickheaded,” “heartless,” “filthy,” and “fanatical.” He was accused of behaving “like a thief in the night,” of being “the miserable tool of traitors and rebels,” and of being “adrift on a current of racial fanaticism.”

 

He was labeled by his enemies “Abraham Africanus the First.”

 

But, of course, race had nothing to do with it then, either.”

Hillary Clinton Campaigns for Bruce Braley in Davenport (IA) on Oct. 29, 2014

Davenport, IA, Oct. 29, 2014 – I drove over to the Hillary Clinton appearance in support of Democrat Bruce Braley’s race for Tom Harkin’s soon-to-be-vacated Senate seat this evening at the Davenport (IA) River Center. I was surprised to see NO Braley signs along River Drive on my way to the venue, but a lot of Joni Ernst signs.  At first, I thought, “It’s because this is a pricey neighborhood and primarily Republicans live here.” However, as I exited the building after the rally, I spoke with an African-American voter from a neighborhood far removed from those I had just driven by. She told me that they had seen no signs in their neighborhood, either, leading me to believe that the influx of outside money allowed the Republican challenger to literally blanket this county far removed from Ernst’s  home base of Red Oak, Iowa—which is in the very southwest corner of the state, while Davenport is literally the opposite side of the state, on the Illinois border.
This Senate race is one of the most hotly-contested in the nation. The Democrats stand to potentially lose control of the Senate, something they want to avoid at all costs. This contest also pits two candidates against one another who are in stark contrast to each other.
Joni Ernst is an out-and-out Tea Party Conservative whose bus doesn’t even bear the word “Republican.” She is trying to become the first woman Iowa has ever elected to the Senate. That has earned her the support of some millennials and campus-age females, even though they are, in essence, voting against their own self-interest because of Ernst’s stances against access to contraception in any form. With Ernst’s avowed plan to promote a federal bill supporting “personhood,” young women of childbearing age would not have access to abortion or contraceptive services, even in the case of rape or incest, and such essential services as mammograms might not be provided. She was pleased to be publicly endorsed by Sarah Palin, the former Alaska governor who was John McCain’s running mate in 2008.
Joni Ernst grew up in Montgomery County, Iowa in Red Oak, Iowa, and served as a Lt. Colonel in the Iowa National Guard and also served in Kuwait. She is a mother and grandmother, married to Gail, who is Career Army; she has served as Montgomery County Auditor. She has campaigned primarily as an anti-Washington D.C. candidate, but her controversial positions on trying to pass a federal “personhood” amendment that would deny women the right to abortion and contraception services, , even in cases of rape or incest, is noteworthy.
Ernst also failed to show up for the local newspaper’s (Quad City Times) round of editorial questions, which means she apparently has no need of endorsement by the Davenport-based newspaper, because she has far wealthier backers, the billionaire Koch Brothers. Clinton, in commenting on this, said, “Only one of the candidates answers your questions? She doesn’t show up for editorial board vetting? I’ve never seen anything like it!”
Braley, from Brooklyn, Iowa, has fought for such causes as veterans’ rights, environmental action, renewable energy, a raise in the minimum wage and equal pay for equal work. He first ran for Congress in 2006. He was re-elected in 2008, 2010 and 2012. His hard-luck story of a young boy whose father was injured in a grain elevator accident, (forcing his mother to go back to college and earn her teachers’ certificate so she could work to support the family) resonated with voters. (Braley’s mother still substitute teaches at age 85). He worked his way through college and attended law school at Iowa, ending up in Waterloo, where he and his wife still live. The Braleys have three grown children and live in Waterloo, Iowa, which is the northeast corner of the state and near where I grew up (20 miles away).
However, the single biggest issue in the Midwestern states that “Meet the Press’s” Chuck Todd is visiting by bus, (primarily Iowa, Wisconsin and Kansas) is Washington gridlock. Iowans are sick of the infighting in Congress and the Senate and want both parties to work together to move the country forward. Anyone running on that platform has an edge, and that gives Ernst the nod over Braley, even if her idea of a woman’s place is something out of “Little House on the Prairie.” The prevailing mood is: punish the Democrats without rewarding the Republicans, because Republicans aren’t trusted as agents of change.
In Iowa—the “first in the nation” caucus state—the polls show a dead heat between Ernst and Braley or a slight lead for the challenger (44% to 44% on Sunday and slight movement in the 3 days since). Out of 7 sitting Senators, only 2 incumbents have a favorable rating, according to the “Meet the Press” Sunday morning (Oct. 26) poll results. To a certain extent, I agree with Rob Ortman (R/Ohio) who said on “Meet the Press,” “This is a national election. People are looking for a change.” Being in office is not a “plus” this election season; it is a negative. Therefore, Democrats are fighting an uphill battle, as President Obama’s approval ratings are only 36% in Iowa and not above 40% in any of the contested states.

.
Complicating the race is the infusion of outside cash. It is estimated that these mid-term elections might cost as much as $44 a vote, with Republicans outspending Democrats $5 for every $1. That is because outside billionaires (like the Koch brothers, who are worth $41.9 billion apiece) are pouring money in through PACs. Also, the Republicans have taken a page out of the Democratic playbook of 2008 and 2012, using early voting to their advantage.
Over $200,145,000 has been spent, to date, according to the Des Moines Register, which identified a list of contributors to each candidate as follows:
For Bruce Braley (D):
1) Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee
2) Bruce Braley
3) NextGen Climate Action
4) Sierra Club
5) League of Conservative Voters
6) Vote Veterans Action Fund
7) Environmental Defense Action Fund
8) International Association of Firefighters
9) American Wind Energy Association
10) Planned Parenthood Votes
11) Service Employees International Union COPE
12) AFSCME People
13) MoveOn.Org
For Joni Ernst, (R):
1) American Crossroads
2) National Republican Senatorial Committee
3) Joni Ernst
4) Freedom Partners Action Fund
5) Crossroad GPS
6) United States Chamber of Commerce
7) Priorities for Iowa
8) American Chemistry Council
9) B-PAC
10) National Republican Senate Committee
11) Conservative War Chest

Hillary Clinton’s appearance was full of references to her new granddaughter, Charlotte, and the birthdays that Braley and Clinton had either recently celebrated (hers, October 27th) and Braley’s the next day (October 30th). She commented on Joni Ernst’s failure to answer questions saying, “In Iowa people do not get away without answering questions—except for those that are far in the future.” This was most certainly a coy reference to her potential run for president in 2016. (Buttons touting “Hillary for President” were being sold outside the venue.)

It is 6 days until the election. My drive (along River Drive) that showed no signs for Braley concerned me. Another thing that concerned me was the general lack of a large crowd (only approximately 250 folks) and the fact that the crowd was primarily old. That is never a good sign. It signals that the mid-term election isn’t of much interest to the generation that swept Barack Obama to victory, and it is these voters, plus minority voters (what few exist in Iowa) that Braley needs to turn out in order to win.

Hillary made some brave pronouncements on behalf of Braley, one of which was, “He tries to find common ground, but he’s not afraid to stand his ground.” Said Hillary of Braley’s female opponent, “It’s not enough to be a woman; you have to be committed to expanding rights and opportunities for womanhood.” Clinton added, “It’s almost hard to believe these are some of the issues in this campaign…I think it’s amazing that we’re still debating this in the 21st century.” Another great Clinton quote: “Fear is the last resort of those who run out of ideas and out of hope,” in referencing the many negative ads that have been launched at Braley.

I feel concerned for Braley’s odds, given the mood of the country, which is anti-incumbent(s). Still, he seems the better choice in terms of his political policies. If a voter is in favor of saving the planet, equal pay for equal work, women’s rights, veterans’ rights and a middle-of-the-road approach, it would seem that he would be the better choice. As the woman introducing the pair said, “We can win this race. We can win this race. I’ve done this a lot of times and I can feel it.”

I do believe that woman was sincere, and I do believe Bruce Braley can (potentially) win this race.

“The Look of Silence” Documentary Is Powerful Testimony to Man’s Inhumanity to Man

 

The heinous massacre of anyone who had been affiliated with the Communist party in Indonesia is the subject of “The Look of Silence,” a documentary directed by Joshua Oppeheimer that was produced by such important documentary and filmmaker names as Errol Morris (“The Fog of War”), Werner Herzog and Andre Singer. It is a joint production from Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom that tells a harrowing story every bit as horrible, in its details, as the Holocaust.
Indonesia’s transition to the “New Order” in the mid-1960s, ousted the country’s first president, Sukarno, after he had spent 22 years in power. One of the most tumultuous periods in the country’s modern history, it was the beginning of 31 years of Suharto’s presidency.
Described as the great puppet master, Sukarno drew power from balancing the opposing and increasingly antagonistic forces of the army and the Indonesian Communist Party, or PKI. By 1965, the PKI extensively penetrated all levels of government. The army lost power as the PKI gained it and this led to a coup.
On September 30, 1965, six of the military’s most senior officers were killed by the 30 September Movement, a group from within the army, and the Indonesian government was overthrown by the military. Within just a few hours, Major General Suharto mobilized forces under his command and took control of Jakarta.
Subsequently, over one million citizens who were on lists as being Communists were rounded up, hands bound behind their backs, and either killed immediately or imprisoned until they could be systematically exterminated, much like Auschwitz but in a much bloodier and more primitive fashion. It was a method no less systematic and inhumane testifying  once again to man’s inhumanity to man. The PKI, which was officially blamed for the crisis, was destroyed.
The film follows a local optometrist, Adi, age 44, whose brother Ramli was murdered in the anti-Communist purge. His mother and father’s lives were totally shattered by the brutal slaying of their oldest child. As Adi’s mother says, it was only Adi’s birth two years later that saved her sanity.
One interview subject says, “We did this because America taught us to hate Communists.”
The politically weakened Sukarno was forced to transfer key political and military powers to General Suharto, who became head of the armed forces. In March 1967, the Indonesian parliament (MPRS) named General Suharto acting president. He was formally appointed president one year later.
Suharto’s pro-Western “New Order” stabilized the economy.
However, those whose mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and children were brutally murdered for no offense other than affiliation with the Communist party, the memories do not fade. They must live next door to those who murdered their beloved family members. We learn, as the film progresses, that Ramli, was gathered up, bound, and initially imprisoned. Trucks would take loads of 30 prisoners per truck each night and either hack them to death, throwing their remains into the Snake River, or, in some cases, the victims would be buried alive.
One survivor, Kemat, describes how he jumped from a truck with his hands bound behind his back and escaped through a warehouse. He reminisces, “Ramli was screaming for help saying, ‘They’re going to kill us.’”
“Were there any spectators watching the trucks taking people to be murdered?” asks Adi.
“No. Everyone was too frightened to watch,” says Kemat. “I thought, ‘I’m about to die. I’d better accept it. I’m going to be beheaded, my body and head thrown into the river. And then I ran.”
Adi, the protagonist, decided to search out each of those responsible for ordering the murders or implementing the murders of his brother and others (simply for being members of the Communist party). He used his vocation as a traveing optometrist as entrée.
As we learn, “In many cases, entire families were eradicated, and it happens to this day. Some Communists were starved to death in prison or released periodically to be killed by the local citizens.” The group responsible for the executions was Komando Aksi. Adi searches and finds Amir Hasang and Imang, leaders of the Death Squad in one city.
Not only are these perpetrators not ashamed of their actions, Inong, aged 72, who was the leader of the village Death Squad, appears onscreen as a bit of a loon, repeating that he would take two cups to the executions in order to drink human blood from the severed jugular veins.
“If we didn’t drink human blood,” says Imang, “we’d go crazy. Many went crazy. Drink your victims’ blood or go crazy.” He adds, “Human blood is salty and sweet.”
Imang also claims that he “only cut once.” pantomiming the use of a machete to cut a victim’s throat, but then adds, “Once I cut off a woman’s breast. It was just like a coconut inside.” He pantomimes how he would use a machete on a woman, and his wife giggles while he does so.
“But I thought you said you only cut once?” reminds Adi.
Imang becomes hostile. He says, “I don’t like deep questions. It’s over. Everything is safe now. The past is the past.” He also shows a book with sketches depicting how they killed their neighbors. There is absolutely no remorse or regret shown by anyone who, firsthand, either ordered the murders or committed them. The exception is one murderer’s daughter near the end of the film, who murmurs, “Sadistic” and semi-apologizes, saying, “Adi, we apologize. We feel the same way you do. We knew nothing about this.”
Aside from this one lone young woman, who appears to be about Adi’s age, nobody else—especially those who actually committed the crimes—shows any remorse or expresses regret. In fact, the head honcho at the time, Secretary General of Komando Aksi, expresses the opinion that he should be thanked for his actions and perhaps receive a free trip to the United States—perhaps to Disneyland—maybe a cruise.

It’s nearly impossible to believe how callous the killers are.

We also learn that children in school are indoctrinated with propaganda that teaches them things such as, “The Communists had to be killed because they were sleeping with each others’ wives.” The entire schoolteacher snippet is ludicrous in justifying the mass murder of 1,000,000 people.
Adi tells his small daughter and son that what they are being taught is all lies. One teacher actually says, “Some of the Communists want to be killed.” The teacher adds, “The Communists were cruel, so the government had to repress them. Their children could not work for the government or be in the Army.” [Actually, after the actions of Komando Aksi, there weren’t that many Communists left alive.]
There are extensive film clips of the Death Squad leaders explaining in great detail (and often with laughter) how they would systematically murder men, women and children. Their excuse, “I was only following orders.”
We learn that Adi’s brother, Ramil, who was then a young Communist male, was initially stabbed repeatedly in the shoulder and stomach (The Death Squad members laugh at the memory of his intestines spilling from his stomach.) He managed to crawl through the rice paddies back to his parents’ house, where he asked his mother to help him and make him a cup of tea. While she attempted to attend to his grievous wounds, the Death Squad Komando Aksi members—who received the names of their victims from the Army—returned to her house and promised to take her son to the hospital. She begged to go with him and offered two cows to barter for Ramli’s life; they refused.
Rather than taking Ramil to the hospital, he was taken back to the Snake River where he was stabbed repeatedly and then flung into the river, where he clung to foliage and begged for help. They fished Ramli out and cut off his penis. (The men demonstrated how this maneuver could be done from behind, with a push of the boot to the victim’s butt to push the corpse to the ground where the body would bleed out.) The victims’ bodies were then thrown into the Snake River. (Villagers would not eat any fish from the Snake River for two years, knowing that the fish had been feeding on human remains.)
Those in power made it appear that the people were rising up spontaneously to exterminate the Communists, in order to protect the image of the Army nationally and internationally. This was not true. The Komander Aksi members got lists of 500 to 600 victims’ names nightly from the Army and acted on that information.

When the Secretary General of Komander Aksi is seen onscreen, he seems completely unconcerned about his role in ordering the purge, saying, “That’s politics. Politics is the process of achieving your ideals.” This man continues to be head of the Legislature, since 1971 and says, to Adi, in a threatening manner, “Do the victims’ families want the killings to happen again? Sooner or later, it will happen again.” The message to Adi (who refuses to divulge his last name or city of origin): “Drop it!”
Throughout the film, the insistent messages are these:
1) The past is past. Forget about it. Don’t speak of it
2) I was only following orders.
3) Revenge for these murders will be taken by God after death.
One of the most revealing moments comes when Adi visits his Uncle (his distraught mother’s brother). He learns that his uncle was a guard and, in fact, in charge of guarding Ramil the night he was killed. Adi’s uncle is now 82 years old. The uncle protests, “I was just a guard. They came and took truckloads of 30 at a time. I was just told to guard the prisoners. I did not help! I did not take a machete and murder people!”
But, objects Adi, couldn’t his uncle have tried to defend his own nephew, Ramil?
“I did it to defend the state. Better just to follow orders,” says the elderly uncle.
When Adi later tells his mother that her own brother was complicit in the savage death of her son, Ramil, she is shocked at the sadistic news, saying, “I never knew this before.”
Some notable quotes from the film that illustrate Point One (above):
#1) “Because Joshua makes this film all the wounds are open. Forget the past. You want us to be open, but how can we be? I don’t want to remember. It’s covered up. Why open it up again? What are you trying to do? Just leave it? Let it go. Leave it to God.” (From various speakers)
The revenge motif (Point #3 above) is voiced this way, “It’s up to God to punish those who hurt our friends and family. It’s not up to us.”
This mini-Holocaust makes you instantly think of Auschwitz and the Nazi Death Camps, and those who made it obviously do not feel safe in Indonesia even now.
Nearly all the end credits (other than Joshua Oppenheimer) are listed as “Anonymous” because those who contributed video and reminiscences to this film still fear retribution. “The Look of Silence” is a joint production of Denmark, Indonesia, Norway, Finland and the United Kingdom and it’s an eye-opening film.

Press to Bustos: Give Back the Money

 

The Chicago “Tribune” is hammering Cheri Bustos in editorials demanding that she give back 10% of her pay, as she supposedly promised in interviews with the “Tribune’s” editorial board.

Transcript:

John McCormack:  “If you’re elected, are you going to say to whoever the HR department is, “Keep 10% of my pay?”

“I’m saying—” she began.

“It’s yes or no,” McCormick interrupted. “Are you going to voluntarily give up 10% of your salary?”

“Yes,” Bustos said.  “And I would propose that there’s a vote to cut 10% of the pay for every member of Congress.”

End of remarks.

Despite the fact that the “Tribune” leans Republican and “seldom is heard an encouraging word” about any Democratic office-holder, from the President on down through the Mayor and/or local representatives, the “Tribune” first hammered her on Wednesday, September 24 with the headline “Promises, Promises,” on page 23, in an article written by Eric Zorn. (Schilling’s attack ads have also picked up the scent of blood in the water and capitalized on it, which makes what I am going to suggest much more plausible.)

Zorn has proven himself capable of pointing out inconsistencies in candidates of both parties and once wrote a rather scathing indictment of former Governor Small (a review of another’s book), so one shouldn’t dismiss his comments as partisan, out-of-hand. The second attack came on Friday, September 26th, just 2 days after the first editorial (which was larger with a  large picture) in a small piece on p. 20, Section 1, entitled, “When You Say It, Mean It.”

I think we’ve all had the misfortune to say something we later regretted. (Joe Biden, anyone?) I know I did, when I said, “That makes me mad enough to spit” within earshot of a reporter for the Moline “Dispatch”, which I quickly told the reporter was “off the record.”( It was in reference to a school board meeting in the seventies in Silvis, when I was leading the charge for recognition of our teachers’ group as Co-Chairman of the Silvis Education Association). Although I told the reporter the remark was NOT for attribution and that it was off-the-record, and the reporter agreed, she  printed it, anyway. (Too bad the reporter supposedly covering the recount vote during the 2005 election, Jenny Lee, when I had more votes than the incumbent, didn’t report those results at all!)

I was particularly impressed by Eric Zorn’s piece, because it was bigger, appearing on the Perspectives page under a large picture of Bustos, and he has shown at least some degree of objectivity in past articles. Plus, Zorn had what I consider to be a really good idea, which was phrased this way in his piece entitled “Promises, Promises:”  “One thousand dollars ostentatiously donated from Bustos’ personal account to each of 35 worthy charities in the district would repay her ostensible debt, put Schilling on the spot to make a similarly generous gesture, and mark her as ‘someone who can be trusted,’ as she says, instead of someone who will say anything ot get elected.”

Zorn went on to say: “All falling trees make sounds, just as all promises, no matter how quiet, create obligations  Politicians with skill know how to turn those obligations into opportunities.”

I wrote this as a Bustos supporter (full disclosure) and, given the fact that her husband recently received an unexpected career boost to acting Sheriff, (which probably comes with an increase in pay, I’m thinking), and because I feel confident that $35,000 would be obtainable for someone with her political connections, I would agree with Zorn. It’s what Spike Lee called (in his film of the same name), “Do the right thing.” I’m not suggesting that Bustos has done the “wrong” thing;  I’m merely pointing out what Zorn has already done so eloquently.

View this as an opportunity, Cheri.  I say this as the woman who ran the most active scholarship program in the country out of 900 Sylvan Learning Centers and received a Bi-State Literacy Award from then-sitting First Lady Barbara Bush as proof (a Republican leading lady, let it be noted). Did that cost me money? You bet! Was it more than $35,000? Probably, since it ran for close to 20 years and we never turned a poor kid away. Do some REAL good with the mean-spirited Schilling ad!

There are MANY worthy charities, locally, state-wide, and nationally, that would welcome $1,000 gifts, including my own old stomping ground (Sylvan). $35,000 would probably not derail the funding of your campaign, and I doubt if it would cramp your personal lifestyle, given your husband’s recent good fortune (at the expense of another Rock Island County officeholder biting the dust; by the way, whatever happened to Dick Leibovitz’s criminality? Just swept under the rug?)

I would suggest my own personal favorite non-profits, like the Midwest Writing Center, followed by various charitable and health organizations (Bi-State Literacy Council), followed by whatever health problem you care to support (diabetes, ALS, heart disease, breast cancer, etc.) There are homeless women’s shelters begging for funds, and I’d take a close look at them, as well. And just because Zorn says to make 35 different $1,000 contributions doesn’t mean you can’t divvy up the funds in some other manner.

All this simply means you should “carpe diem” and divvy up the funds in a timely fashion to prove your point.  I do think you can be trusted. I do think that it would be a savvy political gesture, but I also think it would enhance your political prestige and reputation as the very first woman to serve as representative of our 17th district.  I hope you and your political advisors consider Eric Zorn’s words carefully [and publicize your actions when you make good on the pledge].

Yes, the Republicans will decry your donation(s) as a “gesture” and as “politically motivated’ and as you being “shamed into it,” but the Republicans can’t really sit on too high a horse in the “shame” department these days, what with gridlock in Congress and all the partisan bickering the Sarah Palins of the world have brought us. You’re better than that, and your constituents should know it and see tangible proof of it.

Carpe diem. Seize the moment. If properly publicized (and you could  even allow residents to vote on who gets the donation) it could seal the deal on this election for you. Godspeed! And remember: the election is just about a month off, so get cracking!

Worst Illinois Governor Ever? The Debate is On.

The Award for Worst Illinois Governor Ever May Be a Tie
Jim Ridings’ 2009 Self-published Book Awards the Traveling Trophy to Another Scandalous Illinois Governor with a Quad Cities’ connection.

Fifty-nine year old Jim Ridings has self-published a new book (342 pp.) about a corrupt governor of Illinois, which includes statements like these:
“He is so unscrupulous that his lack of principle gives him the appearance of audacity.”
“Insufferable”
“Small-minded”
“Unprincipled”
“Maybe his bad record is a help to him — It is so bad, it is unbelievable. When the truth is told, people say it cannot be so, and that there must be a vicious reason behind the telling of it.” (Chicago Tribune editorial about this governor.)
“The great game of politics is played everywhere, but nowhere with greater zest than in the state of Illinois.” (“Time” magazine article about this governor).
First Governor of Illinois to be arrested while in office.
“Is the worst governor the state ever had. We believe he is the worst governor any state ever had. He has contaminated everything with which he has come in contact in politics.” (Editorial from the Chicago Tribune)
So, who are we talking about here?
The question is valid, because, at this point, the book begins to outline how the governor of Jim Ridings’ book “did wickedly, willfully, unlawfully and feloniously embezzle and fraudulently convert to his own use” more than a million dollars in state money when he was Illinois treasurer in 1904, prior to becoming Governor of Illinois, a post he held from 1921 to 1929.
When arrested, this Governor refused to surrender to authorities for nearly 3 weeks, claiming that the doctrine of separation of powers protected him from arrest. He threatened to use the National Guard to place Springfield under martial law to protect him.
Prosecutors said the accused Governor had deposited millions into a fictitious bank to defraud the state out of interest payments, and that he had operated a money-laundering scheme. The defense maintained that the governor didn’t really know what was being done in his name and was the victim of his mean-spirited political foes. This Governor considered the Chicago Tribune to be chief among his “political foes,” as a current website about the governor and his family says, “The Chicago Tribune championed a cause against the Governor which impressed upon him the importance of hometown newspaper(s).”
I know you have all been reading this and thinking that the scoundrel’s name was Rod Blagojevich.
In reality, Rod Blagojevich was the second Governor of Illinois to be arrested while in office. The first was Lennington Small, a Republican from Kankakee whose offspring went on to found the Small Newspaper Group, and the SNG website says, “He established the integrity of the business through personal example.”
Lennington Small, when brought to trial, was acquitted, but a juror and two Chicago mobsters were later indicted on charges that the jury had been bribed. Small, upon his acquittal and subsequent re-election bid, commuted the sentences of two other mobsters who had been jailed for refusing to cooperate with the grand jury investigating the circumstances of Lennington Small’s acquittal. It should be noted that Lennington Small lost a civil lawsuit and was forced to repay the state of Illinois $650,000. But he wasn’t impeached and—will wonders never cease—even won that second term in office.
Lennington Small died in 1936. His name was largely forgotten until his great grandson, Stephen Small, then 40, died after being buried alive in a botched kidnapping attempt in 1987.
The Small Newspaper Group began in 1913 with “The Daily Republican” in Kankakee (one of three newspapers in the town) and went on to acquire The Daily Times in Ottawa (1955); the LaPorte Herald-Argus (LaPorte, Indiana, 1964); the Daily Dispatch in Moline (1969); The Leader (Iowa Quad Cities) in 1978, (which has now ceased operations, although the SNG website does not note this); Star Publication weeklies in the south Chicago suburbs (1975-1995); SNG group prints 80,000 to 105,000 copies of “USA Today” in Kankakee (1983 to the present); “Family Weekly” magazine, which later became “USA Weekend”, was sold to CBS in 1980; Rochester “Post-Bulletin” (1977), the largest afternoon daily in the state of Minnesota; “Times-Press” in Streator, IL (1980; current Daily Dispatch publisher Roger Ruthhart came to Moline from Streator); Palisadian Post in California (1981); The Rock Island Argus from the Potter family, “one of the state’s oldest continuously published newspapers” in Rock Island, IL (1995), which also ceased operations in the recent past; and, in 1969, brothers Len and Burrell divided the family’s holdings in print and broadcast properties, with Len taking the newspapers and Burrell inheriting such properties as WKAN, in existence since 1947.
The SNG (Small Newspaper Group) website says of Governor Lennington Small, “The Governor is best-known for the 7,000 miles of hard roads he built in Illinois and for his support of the State Fair.”
Perhaps author Jim Ridings, who has written Len Small- Governors and Gangsters, a 342-page book about the “worst governor ever” would suggest other things for which Governor Small might be remembered, such as setting the bar so low that it took 90 years for someone (Rod Blagojevich) to lower it further.
SOURCES: SNG (Small Newspapers Group) official website; “The Worst Illinois Governor?” by Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune, July 21, 2010; Jim Ridings’ self-published book “Len Small: Governors and Gangsters.”

Page 25 of 35

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén