Dear Mr. White:
I write to offer two constructive suggestions.
The first deals with the public's ability (or, more correctly,
inability) to observe meetings of the Board. On December 21, I appeared
in your offices in the Thompson Center as attorney for a candidate. The
hearing space was so cramped that only the participants in the ten or
so hearings that day were allowed into the meeting room on a
“case-by-case” basis – that is to say, only the parties were allowed in
(not the general public), and only when their respective cases were
being heard.
I recognize that space at the Thompson Center is at a premium – but I
also believe that some sort of accommodation must be made in order to
assure the Board's compliance with provisions of the Illinois Open
Meetings Act (5 ILCS 120/1). Perhaps you will consider remote
television monitors (or something similar) if this circumstance arises
again. Over the longer term – perhaps you will consider Internet
broadcasting of all ISBE meetings through the use of webcams.
My second concern deals with ballot applications derived from your
suggested form SBE No. A-14. In the McHenry County variation (copy
attached), you will note that prospective voters may check
“Democratic”, “Republican”, “Nonpartisan”, or fill in a blank. Therein
exists a bias, albeit a subtle one: Green Party and Moderate Party
voters in McHenry County must write out the name of their party;
Republicans and Democrats do not. Perhaps some voters who might
otherwise be inclined to take Moderate or Green ballots will not do so
merely because the application form does not make them aware of the
possibility.
May I respectfully suggest that Illinois election authorities using
pre-printed application forms must do one of two things: either print
the names of all established parties (of which there presently are four
in McHenry County), or require all voters to write out their party of
choice. To preprint some party names and not others is bias –
unintended as that bias may be.
Thank you for your consideration of my suggestions.
Very truly yours,
Scott K. Summers
...<< MORE >>Thinkin' of
Insights on
by Scott Summers
Here in
In my offerings, I intend to veer from tradition
Some of it will be whimsic
Much
of it, I think, will be new and illuminating for many readers. A bit
of it, I fancy, will be inspiring. All of it, I hope, will be education
I welcome your suggestions -- and your help. Please email your ideas for future topics to me. And if a few of you are so inclined -- I'll gladly turn this space over to occasion
Let's start "Thinkin'".
As it so happens --
Yes,
it's the 150th anniversary of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. Re-enactors
will be tracing the travels of The Railsplitter and The Little Giant
and performing at each of the seven debate sites.
The events nearest to
Of the seven debate sites, only one remains in the origin
for the debate ended up blocking a building doorway. The debaters and
the platform party were obliged to climb out of a first floor window in
order to reach it.
schooling. As he climbed through the window and onto the platform, he
quipped: "Now I can say that I have successfully passed through
college."
Remarkably, there are two other stories about
"(L)egend surrounds
Second Presbyterian Church, the temporary location of the House of
Representatives, in December 1840. The motive of the rash action, for
which
"No evidence besides or
http://www.lib.niu.edu/2000/ihsp0012.html
And so, readers -- my hope is that throughout 2009, you will find this little column to be a window on
On
May 3rd, the Rockford
Register-Star's
Chuck Sweeny ran an article on my Congressional opponents, Don
Manzullo and Robert Abboud, and their respective takes on energy
policy. www.rrstar.com/news/columnists/x883032543
(Memo
to self: tell Sweeny that Summers is running, too.)
Wow. Abboud wants one hundred new nuclear power plants. Public-private
partnership.
Well,
I guess we all should have expected something like this from Abboud.
Don't
get me wrong: Abboud strikes me as a highly intelligent man. He's a
nuclear engineer. And of course he's going to be a proponent of new
nukes. And as part of our three-way discourse in the 16th
district this year, he has every right to put it out there for voters
to consider.
But
excuuuuuuuse me: one-friggin'-hundred? This is as preposterous as
it is grandiose as it is ridiculous as it is irresponsible as it is
reprehensible.
It
will come as no particular surprise to my readers that I am adamantly
opposed to the expansion of nuclear power.
Permit
me to summarize the ways. For the sake of brevity, I'll limit it to
the first one hundred and four.
Reasons
1 – 100. Memo to Abboud: What? What? You want to build one
hundred new T-E-R-R-O-R-I-S-T T-A-R-G-E-T-S ????
Reason
101. It's over sixty-five years since Enrico Fermi's team split the
atom at the University of Chicago. And we STILL haven't figured out
how to store (much less dispose of, much less effectively reprocess)
thousands of tons of highly radioactive waste.
Sorry,
Bob: as a condition of even PROPOSING more nukes, it's up to
proponents like you to have a plan for dealing with the (polite word)
stuff. (Oh, and by the way: make the investors, and the
stockholders of the utility companies, and their ratepayers – not
the taxpayers – pay for it.)
Reason
104. State insurance regulators should compel insurers to remove
nuclear exclusions from policies – or at least offer an optional
endorsement at a ridiculously high extra premium. (And did you know
that, homeowners? If your home gets irradiated from a nuclear
accident at oh, say, Byron, you probably have no coverage, because
your insurer pointedly excludes nuclear accidents?)
And
not only that: if you personally are lucky enough not to be too
terribly irradiated, and can move a thousand miles away for the rest
of your life, why, please, just keep paying your mortgage on your
uninhabitable home. (Do you really think your lender is going to
give you a break?)
Let's
talk the obvious. Absent huge public subsidies, and absent a
requirement that the nuclear industry (and not the public at large)
come up with ways of storing the s**t, and absent the almost complete
lack of financial liability in the event of an accident, nuclear
energy simply would not be able to compete in the energy marketplace.
(See “Whatever Happened to Capitalism, Continued”.)
For
cryin' out loud, Mr. Abboud, time to STOP building more reactors! And if only we would let market forces rule -- there wouldn't BE any more reactors!
I'll
speak on energy solutions in other posts.
It's time to change the entire energy discourse -- by changing the handles.
Up until now, solar, wind, geothermal and their cohorts have passed as “sustainable” or “renewable” energy. Fossil and nuclear have been “conventional”.
Try this out instead: Wind/solar/geothermal are smart energy. Fossil and nuclear are dumb energy.
If we want to sustain the world economy in the years to come, we must do it in ways that are ecologically astute.
(Watch for my “eco-eco” treatise: ecology and economy are really bound up as one.)
We all know intuitively that solar, wind and geothermal will have the fewest adverse effects on our ecology. It's not a matter of if - it's a matter of when.
Fossil fuels aren't going to go away. But their supplies are finite, and the earth's capacity to absorb their effects is probably at its outer limits.
Nuclear? Look, we all know the waste is fiendishly toxic. And without (a) massive subsidies and (b) caps on liability, the economics are not viable. The most polite verdict I can render is that nuclear energy is a spectacularly failed experiment. It's time to move on.
So whatcha gonna go with? Smart energy? Or dumb energy?
From a recent Manzullo press release: “We also need to pursue more domestic production of oil and gasoline. The oil is there; we just have to want to get it... Using environmentally sound practices, we can produce an estimated 1.5 million barrels of oil a day on a tiny portion of the Alaskan National Wildlife refuge...”
Hoo-boy. Manzullo just doesn't get it.
Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is extraordinarily counterproductive and short-sighted. But for now, I'll spare you the global warming arguments, and the economic arguments, and the environmental arguments, and all the silly “pity the caribou” caricatures.
Saving the very last of our domestic oil now has become a national security issue.
That's right: according to the Federal Department of Energy, the USA has less than 2% of remaining proven world oil reserves. Two lousy percent. (Derived from www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html)
Essentially, Manzullo wants to pump it all out as fast as we possibly can. Never mind the future.
What will we -- and our children, and our grandchildren -- do in a couple of short decades if we have a war or a national emergency and have next to no domestic oil left?
Manzullo's petroleum policy amounts to “Bleed America Dry First.”
Scott Summers says: Rockford suffered twenty homicides in
2007. A Rockford attorney was shot in the back two weeks ago. And
now, the NIU tragedy.
Gratuitous, senseless gun violence
isn't “speculative”, Mr. Manzullo. It's fact.
Common-sense restrictions are
desperately overdue. You could begin, Mr. Manzullo, by introducing
federal legislation to:
Ban assault weapons and sniper
rifles.
End internet and mail order sales
of guns and accessories.
Limit gun purchases to one a
month.
Restrict bulk handgun sales.
Require drug testing as a
condition of FOID (firearm owner ID card) issuance
Ban large capacity ammunition
magazines.
But we all know, Mr. Manzullo, that
you'll do nothing of the sort. After all, you do have an “A”
rating from the National Rifle Association, don't you?
As the Illinois Green Party candidate for Congress for Rockford and
far northwestern Illinois, I -- Scott Summers -- will eagerly strive to earn an “F”
from the NRA.
I'll introduce or co-sponsor legislation
to do all of these things – and more.
I support very strict gun control measures.
Unfortunately, there are far too many
guns in circulation to control them very well.
Accordingly, I intend to augment gun control initiatives with ammunition control.
Did you know that a .22 caliber bullet
costs about a nickel? Larger caliber bullets range from about a
dime to fifteen cents each.
A bullet should cost at least as much
as a cigarette.
I propose an excise tax on ammunition,
with proceeds to be deposited in a trust fund for the sole benefit of
innocent victims of gun violence.
Similarly, gun owners should have to
provide proof of personal liability insurance as a condition of
Firearms Owner's Identification card (FOID) issuance. (Automobile owners must carry insurance. So should gun owners.)
The social costs of guns should be
borne by gun users -- not the victims of violence, and not the
general public (in the form of untoward law enforcement expenses and in
the form of Medicaid support for people rendered destitute by gun
violence). Gun owners should pick up the indirect and unintended
financial consequences associated with their privilege. Yes –
privilege.
Let me be clear. Although I personally would prefer that there be no guns at all, I'll not -- not -- interfere with careful and conscientious hunters and sportsmen and collectors.
I believe that most people are profoundly
weary of the consequences of gratuitous gun violence. They yearn for
common sense measures.
As Congressman, I will stand up for gun and ammunition
control. And I'll be strident – and fearless – about it.
_________________________________________________________________
Chicago Sun-Times, February 16, 2008:
Senator talks guns in wake of NIU
www.suntimes.com/news/nation/797907,CST-NWS-bamside16.article
MILWAUKEE -- Barack Obama said Friday that the country must do
''whatever it takes'' to eradicate gun violence following a campus
shooting in his home state, but he believes in an individual's right
to bear arms.
Summers says: sorry, Senator, you're trying to have it
both ways.
newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/clout_st/2008/02/daley-says-niu.html
(Chicago mayor Richard M.) Daley said he
believes America "is getting immune" to the issue of gun
violence.
"It doesn’t disturb us anymore. I think there’s something
wrong with our conscience. There is something wrong with our
leadership. I am not asking the candidates to commit political
suicide. I am asking the candidates to be real leaders."
Summers says: amen to that, Mayor. I couldn't have said
it better. And I intend to lead on this issue.
Lake Barrington gun plant targeted by March, August 28, 2007
www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=26722
“Barrington Hills Village President (and 16th district
Democratic congressional candidate) Robert Abboud is a proud gun
owner but supports banning assault weapons.”
Summers says: Well, okay: banning assault
weapons is a good start. Thank you for that, Mr. Abboud. Now –
tell voters more about the “proud gun owner” part.