This weblog is a work-in-progress. As we learn more about blogging, it will probably undergo change. Its initial purpose is to enable us to get ideas out into the e-universe faster than we have done with the "New Material" section. Regarding two-way commentary, etc., we are definitely "newbies," so that may be a rocky road for awhile--if it works at all.--kpm
Our Weblog
Let's be honest about being honest, Governor Quinn 062809-On the Chicago Tribune's website of this date, Illinois Governor, Patrick Quinn is quoted regarding the raising of taxes in Illinois: "Asked again about . . . mixed signals, Quinn replied, "Well one that's crystal clear from the day I gave the budget address, I know that we need more revenue in Illinois to balance the budget. So we're going to have to do that this week, hard as it is, it's the only way to be honest. We've got to make sure we invest in the important things."--http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2009/06/quinn-only-way-to-be-honest-on-budget-is-tax-hike.html Regarding the unelected Governor Quinn's assertion that we have to be "honest" about balancing the budget . . . let's examine the components of "honesty" involved. First, our state budget is already a model of dishonesty--if not insanity--in that the employees of the "corporation" (the State of Illinois), dictate to the "employer" (the actual taxpayers) regarding their salaries. How would you like to work for a company where you tell the boss how much your salary will be--and when you will get a raise, and for how much--and know that the boss can only say, "Okay"? Secondly, the governor and his confederates try to intimidate the taxpayer with their, "You must give us more money, or we will cut back services to you. There is no other alternative" mantra. But repeating a lie with vigor does not make it more true. What if we refuse to accept such a self-serving assertion. What if we, instead, insist that they consider another alternative, such as identifying the fat in the budget and cutting it out? Fat, in this instance, refers to offices and functions that are not performing the work that they are paid to do. Examples that come to mind are state offices that are not open during the full range of hours that they are supposed to be, with staff unavailable when they are supposed to be, and/or treating the public like misbehaving children for seeking their help, etc. I would not be surprised to learn that Illinoisans reading this commentary can provide examples of waste by state offices. Thus, I believe that it is fair to insist that the way for the Governor and his confederates in the state government to be honest is to insist, as any intelligent manager might, on accountability, and on maximizing the efficiency of government offices and functions. Where inefficiency exists, cut the waste-causing components--personnel, procedures, whatever--to insure that Illinois taxpayers are getting "maximum bang for their bucks." After you have done all of that, let's see what kind of financial needs exist in the State of Illinois. If some still cause concern, perhaps we (the bosses/taxpayers) need to insist that the employees (officeholders/lawmakers) curtail the too-frequent ritual increasing of their own salary/benefit packages. Finally, if there is still a need for more funds, let us then talk about raising taxes. That is, truly, "the only way to be honest." Regarding Mr. Quinn's qualifications to speak about honesty, anyone who listened to Lt. Governor Quinn on WGN Radio--the evening he discussed the arrest of then-Governor Blagojevich--will recall that he said that the only honest thing to do was to turn the question of Obama's replacement in the Senate over to the voters in a special election. Clearly, Mr. Quinn already knows a great deal about "doing the honest thing." -- kpm ###
041109-We live in an era when media can "prove" almost anything. Thanks to digital imagery, we have the ability to broadcast the "authentic" meeting of President Richard M. Nixon with Genghis Khan, at the nation's capital on the Moon, with Prince Hamlet of Denmark as the moderator. What is real, these days, is certainly open to debate.
I am old enough to remember the hysteria in the mid-, to late-1960s, when science-related media trumpeted the coming Ice Age, at least one of them mounting a cover on one issue that predicted that Manhattan Island would soon be beneath a mile of ice! Last week, I was reminded of that hysteria as ABC-TV's "Good Morning America" program ran a streamer stating that the Arctic ice will completely disappear within the next 30 years. Clearly, prophecy related to science is far from reliable, especially when that "science" has been bent to serve political ends.
One of the many problems associated with the politicization of science is the damage that is done to valid work by the warping of science. I worry about that today because I am involved in work that is concerned with intelligent solutions to environmental problems.
When political ends are grafted onto useful programs, those programs are at risk of contamination by those political agendas, endangering their survival because of the danger of "guilt by association,'" when the political aspects fall into disfavor, which they inevitably do. It was only through fancy footwork that the initial, highly debatable, outcry over "global warming" (a very specific claim), was morphed into the undebatable, amorphous, "climate change."
In the Calumet Region, where we live and work, there is much legitimate, important work to do in restoring an environment that heavy industry had used poorly, not discounting the fact that heavy Industry had also made possible a level of educational and economic growth that would enable residents to eventually re-evaluate the impact of that industry on the environment.
If we permit transient, politically-shaped pseudo-science to drive our approach to environmental work, we will lose the legitimacy needed to sustain environmental restoration over the long haul. It will be important for us to educate, more than to legislate, when such legislation is too often short-sighted. I still marvel at a "green" Chicago, in which fall leaf burning is prohibited, while widespread, year-round, outdoor charcoal cooking is not!
There is the potential for engendering a quasi-religious fervor within the "green" movement, one in which we decide that people whose choices do not fall within our perceived range of acceptability are judged as being morally deficient individuals for whom we must fashion controls.
That would be dangerous, in many ways. It would limit our ability to communicate persuasively with "the judged," creating an "us-vs-them" atmosphere--in both directions--and would decrease the likelihood of our achieving our goals. Instead of engaging our neighbors by introducing them to the delights of our natural environment, we would become the "green nuts" who were trying to destroy sensible economic and technological progress.
So let us work hard to insure that our message is one of caring for our fellow citizens as part of our natural environment, rather than caring for the environment at the expense of our neighbors. --- kpm
0 Comments