As Gaza writhes today in agony, let us ponder the stupefying irony of another unspeakably brutal event:  the 1943 uprising of the Jews confined by the Nazis to the Warsaw ghetto:

At 3am on the morning of April 19,(1943) the Nazis surrounded the (Warsaw) ghetto and the battle began.(About) 2000 Germans armed with a tank, two armored cars, three
light-anti-aircraft guns, one medium howitzer, heavy and light
machine guns, flame throwers, rifles, pistols and grenades faced off
against 700-750 Jewish resistance fighters. The Jews had managed to
stockpile a few thousand grenades, as well as a few hundred rifles,
revolvers and pistols. But they possessed only two or three light
machine guns. The Germans planned to clear the ghetto of 60,000 Jews
in three days. The Jews hoped to hold out as long as possible.

ByApril 22, fire was devouring several sections of the ghetto, forcing
many Jews to leap from burning buildings. In the next few days, the
Germans began capturing and killing more and more of the ghetto
inhabitants some of whom reported that the resistance fighters in the
bunkers had become "insane from the heat, the smoke, and the
explosions." Some Jews tried to escape through the sewers. The
Germans responded by blowing up the manholes and using poison gas. On
May 8, (the 24-year-old Jewish commander Mordecai) Anielewicz was
killed. By May 15th, the shooting had become so intermittent that it
was clear the ghetto fighters had been defeated. As a sign of the
German victory, the Nazi commander blew up the great Tlomacki
Synagogue.

All in all, several thousand Jews had been buriedin the debris, and more than 56,000 had been captured. About 30,000
of them were either immediately shot or transported to death camps.
The remainder were sent to labor camps. Though the Nazis did raze the
ghetto as Himmler had ordered, the resistance fighters had achieved
at least one of their goals. Their commander Anielewicz articulated
what this was in a letter to a friend shortly before his death. "My
life's dream has been realized," he said. "I have lived to
see Jewish defense in the ghetto rally its greatness and glory."
By the end of the year, with very little left of Jewish life in
Poland, the task for the Jewish resistance had become, in the words
of one member of the underground, to "keep alive the remnants
who have survived...so there will be some reserve for the future and
witnesses to this crime."

Source:  www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/holocaust/peopleevents/pandeAMEX103.html

...<< MORE >>

Yes, you read that correctly:  Booth saved Lincoln's life.

"Wait!", you say.  "Booth murdered Lincoln!"

Ah.  But I speak not of Abraham Lincoln and John Wilkes Booth.

Rather, I recall a largely overlooked encounter involving the president's eldest son, Robert Todd Lincoln, and Edwin Booth, elder brother of  "Wilkes" (as the Booth family referred to the president's assassin).

The scene:  1863 or 1864,  in a Jersey City, New Jersey train station. The president's son, a student at Harvard University, is on vacation and enroute to see his parents in Washington.  Edwin Booth, a highly acclaimed Shakespearean actor whose theatrical talents greatly eclipse those of his soon-to-be-reviled brother, is on his way to Richmond, Virginia -- in the company, as chance would have it, of his friend, John T. Ford, owner of Ford's Theater in Washington.

Robert Lincoln narrates:

The incident occurred while a group of passengers were late at night purchasing their sleeping car places from the conductor who stood on the station platform at the entrance of the car.  The platform was about the height of the car floor, and there was of course a narrow space between the platform and the car body.  There was some crowding, and I happened to be pressed by it against the car body while waiting my turn. In this situation the train began to move, and by the motion I was twisted off my feet, and had dropped somewhat, with feet downward, into the open space, and was personally helpless, when my coat collar was vigorously seized and I was quickly pulled up and out to a secure footing on the platform.  Upon turning to thank my rescuer I saw it was Edwin Booth, whose face was of course well known to me, and I expressed my gratitude to him, and in doing so, called him by name.

There is no evidence that Robert Lincoln ever told his parents about the incident -- perhaps because he knew it would be highly upsetting to his mother, and perhaps because he knew that his father was heavily burdened with wartime issues.  Robert's recollection above was provided to Richard Watson Gilder, editor of The Century Magazine,  in a 1909 letter.

So there you have it.   Booth indeed saved Lincoln's life!

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license:  Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works-2.5 Generic.
...<< MORE >>

Yesterday, Defense Secretary Robert Gates delivered a policy speech at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.  Here are excerpts of his remarks from www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1305

"(W)e must deal with the messy realities of the world in which we live.  One of those realities is the existence of nuclear weapons."

"Try as we might, and hope
as we will, the power of nuclear weapons and their strategic impact is
a genie that cannot be put back in the bottle – at least for a very
long time. While we have a long-term goal of abolishing nuclear weapons
once and for all, given the world in which we live, we have to be
realistic about that proposition."

"To be blunt, there is
absolutely no way we can maintain a credible deterrent and reduce the
number of weapons in our stockpile without either resorting to testing
our stockpile or pursuing a modernization program."

Mr. Gates, it seems, is intent on keeping our nuclear menace trigger-ready.  For shame.  For shame!

Not only that.  He would have us spend new billions on refurbishing and retooling our fiendishly awful nuclear armament.  And testing it!

For Secretary Gates, genie stuffing is just oh-too-much-trouble.  Can't-be-bothered.  Let-somebody-else-do-it.  "A very long time" from now.

Sorry, Mr. Gates.  You have it precisely backwards.  Horribly, awfully, appallingly, disgustingly backwards.

The "messy reality" you blithely overlook is the prospect of annihilation of the planet.  The "messy reality" you cavalierly deny is the possible extermination of the human race.

And the time to deal with it is now.  Now.  NOW.

No more obfuscation.  No more excuses.  No more deferral.  No more delays.

Rather than retool weapons -- let us retool treaties and protocols.

And rid ourselves of the curse and scourge and fear and terror of nuclear weaponry.

Let us finally, finally lay claim -- for ourselves, and for our children, and for generations yet unborn -- to the stirring ancient prophecy of beating swords into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks.

And in so doing, may we avert the apocalypse foretold by Winston Churchill:

"If you go on with this nuclear arms race, all you are going to do is make the rubble bounce."



 
 



...<< MORE >>

Let's try out some synonyms -- all "u" words -- for health care today in the USA.

Unaffordable.  Unfair.  Unsustainable.

And -- for nearly 46 million uninsured people -- unavailable.  (1)

As
far as I'm concerned, adequate health care is a basic human right.  And
it's a fundamental part of our social compact --  like police and fire
protection, infrastructure, elementary education, and a common defense.

Every major industrialized country in the world has some form of universal health care.  Except the United States.

I say:  it's high time that we implement "Medicare for All".  Period. 

"So what!" quoth you, my erstwhile and gentle readers.  "It doesn't matter much what YOU think, Scott Summers!"

Right you are.

So.  Let's be calculating and steely and ruthlessly objective.

Let's count dollars.  Let's count beans.

Friends, we're not getting our money's worth.  We're not getting good value for our health care dollars.

Per
person, we put more money into health care -- twice as much money per
person, in fact -- than any other country in the world.  (2)

Yet
we get so-so medical outcomes.  And still we have the aforementioned 46
million uninsured.   Plus stark disparities in care linked to race,
gender, geography, education, economic standing, and age.

Billions
of our health care dollars don't even get spent on health care.  They
go right off the top for insurance company marketing, and for bloated
overhead.   All to service thousands upon thousands of convoluted and
bewildering health care plans.

That's bad enough.  But systemwide, our priorities are way out of whack. 

In
this country, we give lip service to preventative care, and instead pay
copiously for exotic procedures and protocols associated with advanced
disease. 

That's not smart.  As the old adage goes -- "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure."

Associated services and products are way out of whack, too.

Pharmaceuticals. 
Medical equipment.  All at preposterous prices that dwarf those for the
same products in other parts of the world. 

Consider this: 
government already pays for over half of all health care spending in
the United States.  (3)  This is in the form of direct insurance
(Medicare, Medicaid, other programs) and indirect insurance
(governmental entities such as schools purchasing private insurance for
their employees).

Note well that with the exception of the
military and the Veterans Administration and a few other programs, this
is government-provided insurance.  It is NOT government-provided medicine, i.e., "socialized medicine".  

Does anybody -- anybody -- really have a problem with the concept of Medicare?

For
over forty years, we've watched  -- largely with approval -- as our
parents, and grandparents, and great-grandparents, have benefited from
the Medicare program. 

Look.  There's nothing magical about the age of 65. 

Medicare works for America. 

Let's now let ALL of America buy into Medicare.

In
addition to finally, finally providing universal coverage, a new
national health plan based on the Medicare model will provide a
consistent and cost-effective single payer system that will keep
administrative costs low.

And people will be able to choose
their own physicians.  Preventative care will be emphasized.  Rather
than being marginalized, public health will play an integral role. 
Leverage in purchasing power will drive costs down.  Quality and care
standards will be raised.

To be certain, Medicare needs
retooling.  Lots of it.  Cost pressures have become enormous, and the
program as presently constituted is in greater fiscal peril than Social
Security.

Universal health care will be hugely expensive.  And I
say plainly that the massive new debt being taken on by the federal
government now has me despairing -- greatly -- about the feasibility of
all of this. 

But I press on.  My advocacy will not be stilled.

How
shall we pay for "Medicare for All"?  I say:  (a)  A modest increase in
the existing Medicare payroll tax.  (b) A slight (one or two percent)
bump in federal income taxes, scaled mostly toward higher incomes. 
(c)  Punishing new taxes on alcohol and tobacco and junk food.  (d) 
Handsome savings as health marketing costs are largely eliminated and
administrative overhead is reduced.  (e) Fund transfers from a
slimmed-down military.  Plus a major intangible:  a new social compact
in the form of peer pressure.  If we're to have national health care,
then each of us -- as (and if) we are able -- MUST eat right, keep fit,
refrain from tobacco, and drink but little.

Note well the significant savings that will serve as tax offsets. 
Some health costs as we now know them will largely disappear.  Health
insurance premiums.  Co-pays.  Deductibles.  And we also can build in
some new financial incentives in the form of restructured IRA-style
health savings accounts:  people can accrue modest sums of tax-free
cash by engaging in wellness activities.

"But Scott, why the big fix?  Sure, health care needs work.  But an entire makeover?"

I
believe that the incremental health care tweaks now being proposed by
Democrats and Republicans alike simply will not solve the basic
problems -- the stunningly high cost of health care, and the shameful
lack of accessibility to it.

You know, it's kind of like owning
an old beater of a car.  It keeps breaking down, and you fix it, and
fix it, and fix it, and defer, and delay, and the car just keeps
breaking down no matter what you do.  At some sorrowful point, you
realize that you're merely throwing good money after bad.   And in your
sadness and disgust and denial and despair, you finally come to the
realization that you simply can't go on trying to fix it.

I really think we're at that stage now with health care.

We
simply can't afford a fancy new car, figuratively speaking.  So let's
junk our pathetic beater of a health care system, and go instead with a
decent and serviceable and reliable vehicle that all of us have come to
know:  Medicare.  

Medicare for every American.  "Medicare for All".

I
am not alone in my thinking.  Physicians for a National Health Program
(www.pnhp.org) has endorsed "Medicare for All".  Senator Ted Kennedy
and Representatives John Dingle and John Conyers are among its eloquent
advocates on Capitol Hill.

And if the voters of the 16th
Congressional District of Illinois see fit to elect me, I, too, shall
work tirelessly for universal health care.

"Medicare for All".  The nation's health -- quite literally -- depends on it.

__________________________________________________

Footnotes:

(1)  www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/09/15/gvl10915.htm

(2)  www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/publications_show.htm?doc_id=673038

(3)  www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/335/7630/1126
...<< MORE >>

A number of weeks ago, I answered a series of questions posed by a group called "Your Candidates, Your Health".

It sketches out my positions on health care.  Please see this link:

http://www.yourcandidatesyourhealth.org/profile.php?c_id=MjEzMjEy
...<< MORE >>

Meanwhile..............back in Washington..............

Congressman Manzullo recently voted "no" on the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights Act of 2008.  It passed anyway. 

Congressman Manzullo recently voted "no" on the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Tax Act of 2008.  It passed anyway. 

Congressman Manzullo recently voted "no" on the Job Creation and Unemployment Relief Act of 2008.  It passed anyway. 

Congressman Manzullo:  what are you thinking?
...<< MORE >>

POSTSCRIPT, September 29:

Today, the House of Representatives voted down the "financial rescue package", a/k/a "buy-in", a/k/a "bailout".

And markets worldwide are down precipitously.

Fasten
your seatbelts, friends.  And make sure that the figurative airbags are
working.  This is -- and will continue to be -- nasty.  Very nasty.

President
Bush, and Treasury Secretary Paulson, and Federal Reserve chair Ben
Bernanke -- inadvertently or otherwise -- have us all in panic mode. 

Wrong. 

You know, I think Congress did the right thing today.

Whether or not the members really thought about it, Congress stood up for itself.

The founders intended for Congress to be a deliberative body.  Not a sheep ranch.

America simply will not write a gigantic check unless there are meaningful reforms.

I still think that Congress needs to enact a comprehensive solution. 

And Congress needs to move expeditiously.

But this is an opportunity.  An opportunity to create smart new public policy.

We,
through our Congress, can -- and must -- resolutely work through the
wreckage, and seize the opportunity to rework national fiscal policy
for the better.

Tonight, I say:  let's stay positive, friends. 

In the coming few days, Congress will -- indeed, must -- set the stage for thoughtful and far-ranging solutions.

"We the people" have every right to expect that this debacle will not be visited upon us again. 
...<< MORE >>

In meetups and speeches and one-on-ones during my current campaign for Congress, I've been asking a rhetorical question:  "Whatever happened to capitalism in this country?"

When all of the financial dominoes fell, that became far more prescient -- and salient -- then I would have thought mere weeks ago.

We don't do capitalism anymore, friends.  We've devolved to a perverse sort of semi-socialism.

We have welfare for the wealthy.  And peanuts for the poor.

Privatize reward.  Socialize risk.

Think about that.  Wealth with no risk for elites.   Debt with no chance of reward for everyday Americans.

What kind of deal is that?

Whenever times are good, the fat cats make out.  Big time.

Whenever the fat cats become too arrogant and stupid and greedy, they dump their problems on the rest of us.

Today, the treasury secretary is saying cavalierly -- and impatiently -- that Congress needs to get a move on.  The mountains of overly ripe kitty litter are starting to reek.  Hurry up and send in the taxpayers to start a-cleanin'.

"Clean it up," the secretary seems to say.  "Or else the fat cats won't come back!"

Like -- we, the cleaning crew, WANT them back?  Oh, please!

Okay.  Enough of a rant.  Deep breath.

People are asking:  "Scott, what do you think?  Scott, what should we do?"

It's a bunch of lousy choices, friends.  For now, all we can do is make the least lousy choices.

Not a happy thought.  Not a happy prospect.

On balance -- I think we have to go through with it.  Bail 'em out.

If we don't, everything else is at increased risk.  Our jobs.  Our homes.  Our retirements.

I'll not rehash all of the common-sense conditions that must attach, other than to mention a few in passing.  More regulation.  More oversight.  More transparency. 

Instead, I'll dwell on a few items that no one else is talking about.

Have you noticed that all the so-called regulation and reform is directed toward the big markets?  And to the aforementioned fat cats?

As part of the overall package -- how about correcting some of the onerous and oppressive financial abuses under which so many of us labor?

How about workouts and writedowns for individual homeowners in mortgage trouble?

How about credit card reform?  Payday loan protections?

Remember the "stick-it-to-'em" changes to bankruptcy laws a couple of years ago?  Recind them.

Another thing.    We need to raise some revenue to service the monster debt.

In the best tradition of the old Ronald Reagan sleight-of-hand -- borrow and spend (which George W. has happily, and recklessly, amplified in the extreme) -- all this bailout does is pile on new debt. 

No federal spending cuts.  No new revenues.  Just new debt.

That's irresponsible.

Here's a condition for the bailout that NO ONE is proposing.  But politically, I have the freedom -- and courage -- to suggest it.

I propose a temporary income tax surcharge on the wealthiest Americans.

(The well-to-do have the most at risk in this mess, do they not?)

If you're in the top five percent of earners, pay an extra twenty percent for the next five years.

In other words, if your tax bill for year 2008 ends up at $50,000, well, it'll bump to $60,000. 

Thank you very much.  Have a nice day.

This is not the end of the mess.  I regret to forecast that there will be more bailouts.

But let's not stoically absorb them and endure them.  Let's seize on them as ways to force changes in public policy.

I was at a candidate forum in Rockford last night, and I was asked what I thought about the prospect of bailouts for the carmakers.

I told the crowd that I'd support them -- if, and only if, the manufacturers agreed to stop their decades of whining and procrastination and delay, and IMMEDIATELY cease making gas guzzlers.

Yes.  Make them manufacture all high mileage cars, and move expeditiously to hybrids and electrics.

If they want our help, then they finally, finally, have to do the right thing.  On our terms.

And now -- to the extent I can peer through murk -- the future.

Our lives are changing.  Our country is changing.  Fundamentally.  Precipitously.  Forever.

Let's start with government.

Our role as a dominant economic power is about to end.  No one is going to buy up all our debt anymore -- except at high rates of interest. 

You see, it's not just the debt that Washington is piling on.  There's way too much debt now.  Investors from across the globe are becoming skeptical.  So the interest we taxpayers have to pay will go up, too.

The federal spending priorities are being force-fed to us.  Defense.  And interest on the debt.  Figurative pennies for health and education and welfare.  No discretion at all.  The end.

Increase taxes across the board?  There's not a whole lot that average taxpayers can kick in anymore.  (Especially in our Congressional district, where unemployment in the Rockford area now is running at a spectacularly-awful nine percent.)

So we have to turn to the spending side.  Time for another brave (foolish?) Scott Summers pronouncement.

Cut defense spending.  Lots.

You know, our defense colossus isn't fighting a war on terrorism.  It's still fighting the Cold War (much to the benefit of a subspecies of fat cats, the defense contractors.)

We don't need all the aircraft carrier battle groups.  We don't need all the nuclear submarines prowling the oceans of the world.  We don't need all the thousands upon thousands of nuclear-armed missiles.

We don't need idiotic missile defense shields that don't work.  We don't need outrageous cost overruns on weapons systems of marginal usefulness (and dubious workability). 

But you see, in our new economic order, my tirade on this doesn't matter.

The time has finally come.  We simply cannot afford it.

What's about to happen to military expenditures in this country happened to the Roman and Chinese Empires.  And to the British Empire.  And even to the Soviets twenty years ago.

They all had to mothball their militaries.  They ran out of money to support them.

So now will we.

I don't mean to leave you on a down note.  Those of you who are coming to know me know that I'm outspoken.  But you also know that I'm also ...<< MORE >>

It's not a high profile issue.  But to me, it's just about the most important thing on Illinois ballots this year.

I hope that voters will call a state constitutional convention ("Con-Con") on November 4th.

Some say that a Con-Con could make bad matters worse.

Not likely.  (Springfield?  Worse?)

If anything, I'm heartened by the protections built into the process.

There is citizen participation at every step.  And voters speak three times.

Step One:  citizens choose on November 4th whether or not to call a Con-Con.  (A 60% "yes" vote is necessary.)

Step Two:  if it is called, then citizens will elect delegates some months hence (two per Senate district).

Step Three:  citizens ultimately vote on whatever the convention comes up with -- amendments to the present document, or an entirely new constitution.  (The convention also could choose to make no changes!)

And note well that Step Three is not necessarily "all or nothing".  The framers of the 1970 constitution had an elegant solution for the hot-button issues of the day:  they held them off to the side, for separate votes.

In other words, voters could vote up or down on the basic document.  Then they could vote individually about whether or not to include language on each of about a half dozen issues.  (Not to sound too flippant, but -- for example -- "Do you want merit selection of judges with that?")

We desperately need all sorts of fundamental change -- in particular, equity (and adequacy!) in education funding.

Is there risk?  Sure.  The hot-button-issues-off-to-the-side model might fail (in whole or in part), and we could end up with some not so terrific public policy enshrined in our state constitution.

But I'm okay with that risk.  I have enormous faith that common sense and fairness will govern the delegates -- and the voters.

I believe that a Con-Con represents grass roots democracy at its very best.

This opportunity comes around only once every twenty years.  I hope that the voters of Illinois seize it.

...<< MORE >>

Yesterday (September 3rd), Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass reported on a breakfast conversation he had with Republican U.S. Senate candidate Steven Sauerberg.  In it, Kass candidly told his readers about how Sauerberg had brought him up short:

"'But when you start seeing people...as donors
and voters rather than human beings, you know what happens?


"What happens? (asked Kass).


"'That's when you can lose your soul,' Sauerberg said."



Kass concluded:  "But this is about Sauerberg, the man whom Durbin refuses to debate, the
fellow I foolishly called Dr. Quixote because he dared challenge a
Democratic powerhouse in what is, for Illinois at least, a Democratic
year. And about what he taught me: that reporters can be coarsened by
politics too."

Read Kass' entire column here:  www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-kass-sep-03,0,7802193.column

I was the eighty-second commenter on the column.  Here's what I said:

Mr. Kass, thanks to you and Dr. Sauerberg for your insights -- and for your candor.

Permit me to observe that there are five -- not two -- senatorial candidates on our November ballots.  Neither you, nor Senator Durbin, nor Dr. Sauerberg, nor the eighty-one "coarsened" pundits who have weighed in ahead of me on this comment thread even acknowledge that Kathy Cummings (Green), Larry Stafford (Libertarian), and Chad Koppie (Constitution) also are in the race.

By all conventional political thinking, Ms. Cummings and Messrs. Stafford and Koppie are in Bug-versus-Windshield circumstances.  But what, pray tell, makes them flutter and  buzz?  What the heck do they think they're doing out there among all those speeding SUVs?

Might they be standing up for democracy?  Might they have stand-apart public policy initiatives not being suggested by the Democrats and Republicans?  Might they, too, have searched their souls and have something very valuable to say?

Scott ("Bugsy") Summers, Green Party candidate for U.S. Congress, 16th District (Rockford and far northwestern Illinois)
Campaign:  www.SummersForCongress.com
Blog:  www.SummersTimes.com ...<< MORE >>

The following is my latest contribution to McHenry County's Lincoln bicentennial project, http://www.alincoln200.com

                                                           Thinkin' of Lincoln
                                                           by Scott Summers

The 150th anniversary commemorations of the Lincoln and Douglas debates are underway across Illinois.

I had the good fortune to be in Freeport on Saturday, August 30th for the second of seven re-enactments this year.

I don't know why -- but I was expecting a recitation of the words that were spoken on August 27, 1858.  After all, it's said that Douglas' articulation that day of what came to be known as his Freeport Doctrine -- the "popular sovereignty" premise of allowing settlers of the territories to decide for themselves about slavery -- probably cost him the presidency in 1860.

The presentation this past Saturday indeed harkened back to the famous debates.  But the event was smarter and more sophisticated than mere recital:  in a deft dramatic conceit, it was cast it in the hypothetical.

The meeting of two of Illinois' greatest politicians was suggested as occurring in a way that never was -- as if the pair were retired from public life, and as if they had come together to reflect and reminisce.  

And -- rather cleverly -- it was done in such a fashion that Lincoln and Douglas could speak to the present day:  at one point, the duo even took a few "press conference" questions from local journalists.  I was  taken by both the concept and the performance.

Joining perhaps a thousand people on Debate Square, I watched with admiration as George Buss (Lincoln), Tim Connors (Douglas), and Ed Finch (Navy Captain Silas Terry, as aide and moderator) adroitly drew out the the principals as cunning politicians, able statesmen, and gifted orators -- and also as vulnerable human beings, subject to pangs of sorrow and doubt and beset at times by bitterness and regret.

Catch it if you can.  And for a change of pace -- you needn't make it a road trip.  You can go by train, just as Douglas and Lincoln did.  From McHenry County, take Metra to Ogilvie Transportation Center in Chicago.  Then walk just a couple of blocks south to Union Station for direct Amtrak service to Galesburg, Quincy, and Alton.  (Charleston is just 12 miles from the Amtrak stop in Mattoon.  And Jonesboro is about 22 miles from the Amtrak stop in Carbondale.)

Here's the remaining schedule:

Jonesboro, September 13th
Charleston, September 20th
Galesburg, October 4th
Quincy, October 12th
Alton, October 18th

For more information, visit http://www.enjoyillinois.com

A postscript:  I would be greatly remiss if I did not report to you that distinguished Knox College professors Rodney Davis and Douglas Wilson have just released a meticulously researched and edited compendium of the debates.  The Lincoln Douglas Debates: The Lincoln Studies Center Edition, published by the University of Illinois Press, assesses and annotates the fragmentary and conflicting and highly partisan reports of 150 years ago and develops an authoritative account of what most probably was said by the debaters.  Not only that -- the professors have posted as podcasts illuminating and highly informative narratives on each of the seven debates.  Download them at http://www.knox.edu/debates.xml.

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license: 
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works   2.5 Generic




...<< MORE >>

On Thursday, August 28th, WIFR-TV (Channel 23, Rockford) graciously hosted a 16th district Congressional candidate forum.

It presented me and my opponents, Democrat Robert Abboud and incumbent Republican Representative Don Manzullo, in a discussion of issues.

The event quickly disintegrated into spectacle. 

Manzullo and Abboud brutally attacked each other.  They argued.  They shouted.  And they repeatedly ignored the direction of the news anchors to stop.

Thoughtful viewer questions were almost completely cast aside. 

Abboud and Manzullo -- and, I suppose, I, too, acquiescing to a certain extent, standing alongside them in silence -- did viewers a colossal disservice.

Voters are entitled -- entitled -- to informed discourse from their candidates. 

It's perfectly satisfactory for that discourse to be close and spirited at times. Candidates must articulate and defend their positions.  Decency requires that they be allowed to respond, clarify, and redirect their thinking on the issues of the day.

For four days, I've thought about what happened. 

We will never make progress in this country if candidates for election refuse to comport themselves with dignity. 

The scope of the problems facing us as a nation demand keen thinking and collaborative problem-solving on a multipartisan -- multipartisan -- basis. 

The established political parties in Illinois -- for the moment, Democratic, Green, and Republican -- don't have to agree.  Their members don't have to like one another. 

But every candidate for office MUST be civil.  Every elected official MUST work cooperatively in order to get the nation's business done. 

Insults and invective in the fashions exhibited by my opponents on Thursday evening simply will not do.

Permit me to tie the desperate need for political civility today to a time exactly one hundred and fifty years ago.

This past Saturday (August 30th), I was in Freeport.  My little band of campaign supporters and I marched in a glorious parade.

It was Freeport's observance of the sesquicentennial of the Lincoln-Douglas debate in their community.  After the parade, I lingered to watch two splendid re-enactors, George Buss and Tim Connors, portray the duo.

As I stood off to one side, leaning against a post and watching, I couldn't help but think that I was observing precisely what I should have been participating in on Channel 23.

Sharp and pointed discourse, at close quarters.  Jousting.  Sparring.  Shrewd maneuvering.  A bit of veiled rancor.  But civility.  Always civility.

I suppose that that's my "takeaway" from the awful television spectacle.

If you elect me, I pledge to work cooperatively with my colleagues in Congress.  I will listen, speak, challenge and cajole.

But most of all, I shall be civil. 

You as voters deserve no less.












...<< MORE >>

The July, 2008 unemployment numbers are in.

Nationally, the rate is up to 5.7%.

Illinois is struggling.  At a seasonally adjusted unemployment rate of 7.3%, we're in trouble throughout the state.

Here in the 16th Congressional district, it's especially bad.

The
Rockford Metropolitan Statistical Area (Winnebago and Boone Counties)
has the dubious distinction of leading the state with an unemployment
rate of 8.5%. 

Eight-point-five percent.  That's nearly one in ten of us looking for work.

Helloooooooooooo, Representative Don Manzullo.

Ahem.  Ahem.  Mr. Manzullo?  Are you there?  Hello?

Perhaps he's not there.  Or perhaps he's not listening.

Memo to Manzullo:  WE LEAD THE STATE IN UNEMPLOYMENT.

So what's Mr. Manzullo doing about the worst unemployment rate in Illinois?  Nothing.  Zero.  Zilch.

Come to think of it:  Representative Manzullo is worse than nothing. 

At
the very time thousands of his constituents are hurting, and anxious to
find work -- Manzullo voted AGAINST extending unemployment benefits.   clerk.house.gov/evs/2008/roll412.xml  (Fortunately, he was outvoted.)

Let's
be clear about this.  Unemployment payments are not welfare.  They're a
lifeline for when we lose our jobs through no fault of our own. 

Mr. Manzullo, stop turning your back on your constituents.  Help us.

We're decent, hard working people.  We dearly want to take care of our families.  Help us.

Step
up job training programs.  Partner state and private employment
services with community colleges for jobs counseling and jobs
training.  Help us.

Get us set up in our own home-grown businesses, along the lines of the Scott Summers plan for "microcapitalism".  Help us.

Help us, Representative Manzullo.  Help us.

Stop
trying to cut off unemployment benefits.  Here in your Congressional
district.  Here in the Unemployment Capital of Illinois.

Help us, Mr. Manzullo.

Stop hurting us.






...<< MORE >>

I've spent a lot of time out on the parade circuit this year, campaigning all across the 16th Congressional District.

I've marched in a total of fourteen parades so far.  Harvard.  Davis.  Genoa.  Polo.  Scales Mound.  Davis Junction.  Lanark.  Belvidere.  Kirkland.  Mount Morris.  Rockford.  Rock City.  German Valley.  Pearl City. 

Several more parades to come.  Rochelle. Freeport. Shannon. Lena. Stillman Valley. Oregon. Galena.

Oh, and sustainable energy fairs in Elizabeth and Oregon.  And the Boone County fair.  And the Juneteenth celebration in Freeport.  Probably a few more events as I can fit them in.

It's been a whole lot of fun.  Weather's been uniformly great.  Crowds have been friendly.

Of course, running as a candidate of the Green Party has elicited all sorts of sentiment.  Everything from shouts of encouragement ("Go Green!  YES!") to, well, indifference.

If I could characterize the most common reactions -- and it's difficult for me to do so, because I'm always on the move, walking and talking and running -- I'd have to say that many people are either puzzled or surprised to see me.

Yes.  Three choices for Congress.  A bit of democracy this year in the 16th.

All of the communities and voters who have hosted me (or will host me) have my profound thanks.  I'm glad to have visited.  And I hope that you will think of me when you vote on November 4th.


...<< MORE >>

I believe that when the history of the twenty-first century is described a century hence, the scourge of HIV/AIDS will be writ large.  Poorly controlled -- or, worse, largely unchecked -- it will decimate populations.  It will cause unspeakable human misery.  It will ruin entire nations.

That's why I support concerted efforts -- worldwide efforts -- to contain it.  The USA must lead the way with institutional, public health, and financial support.

Today, I've signed a "Pledge to Provide Leadership in Combating HIV/AIDS in the US and Abroad", solicited of candidates for U.S. Congress by the Global AIDS Alliance Fund and the AIDS Action Council. 

The pledge provides, in part:  "I pledge to work with colleagues in the US Congress to ensure that US Policy helps the world rapidly reach the goal of universal access to all HIV/AIDS services.  ...I pledge to work with colleagues in the US Congress to support comprehensive, evidence-based HIV/AIDS prevention policies to reach all at-risk populations, as well as approaches to HIV/AIDS that fully meet the related health needs of women."

Unlike plagues of the past -- we know the causation.  And we know how to curb the transmission. 

Unless we act, I fear that the judgment of history will be harsh:  "They knew.  They knew.  And yet, they didn't act quickly enough, or do enough."

More information on the Congressional pledge is at www.globalaidsalliancefund.org.


...<< MORE >>

In recent days, I've received from residents of the 16th Congressional District sixteen emails asking me to support H.R. 6783.  My response follows:

Thank you for writing to me about the Pledge Language is English Declaration and Government Endorsement Act of 2008.

I believe that H.R. 6783 is both insensitive and poorly conceived.  For
example, does it consider the needs and abilities and requirements of
those who rely on American Sign Language (ASL)?  Are we to deny federal
funds to schools for the deaf merely because students communicate the
Pledge of Allegiance or the National Anthem through ASL rather than
English?


One's tongue is not dispositive of one's patriotism. Apart from the
indigenous peoples -- we are a nation of immigrants.  Wave upon wave of
us have come to America speaking languages other than English.  And
wave upon wave of us have become English speakers.  We always have. 
And we always will.

When newly-arrived immigrants recite the
Pledge or sing the Star Spangled Banner in their respective native
tongues, they begin their process of assimilation as future U.S.
citizens in a constructive way.  Recitation in English quickly follows.

If people are forced to recite the Pledge or sing the National Anthem in a
language they don't understand, then they cannot possibly comprehend
the content.  They're merely chanting.   And if they don't understand
the content of the Pledge of Allegiance or the Star Spangled Banner
because of the cramdown of a mindless and mean spirited law -- then
what's the point?  Exactly what will we have accomplished?  Nothing, say I.

Thank you again for contacting me.

Scott Summers
www.SummersForCongress.com

Candidate for U.S. Congress, 16th District, Illinois ...<< MORE >>

The following letter is self-explanatory.  I never received a response.

January 21, 2008

Mr. Daniel White, Executive Director, Illinois State Board of Elections
1020 South Spring Street
Springfield, IL  62708

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 >>

"The White House's budget
office on Monday estimated that next year's budget deficit will hit a
record $482 billion - and that doesn't even account for some $80
billion in war costs."   
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2008/07/28/ap5261851.html

In the 1960s, my Uncle Dave sputtered and fumed to me that Lyndon Johnson was going to ruin the country.  "Seven billion dollar deficit!" he hissed.  "Can you imagine that!  I can't believe how irresponsible the Democrats are!"

In the 1970s, Jimmy Carter clocked in with a deficit in the seventy billions.  "Outrageous!" roared the resolutely Republican uncle.

And now Bush -- by his own account, and for next year alone -- is gonna leave us with a little doggie-doo pile of  five hundred and sixty-two billion in new debt for all of us to clean up. 

When Reagan took office, the national debt was around one trillion.

As Dubya leaves, the debt pushes ten trillion. 

What would Uncle Dave have said to THAT?

You know, the last Republican president to have a balanced budget was Dwight Eisenhower.  Nearly fifty friggin' years ago.

Nixon, Ford, Reagan, and the Bushes couldn't do it.  Or couldn't be bothered.  Or didn't care.  Or all of the above.

My Republican opponent for Congress in the 16th district of Illinois is forever crowing about how fiscally conservative he is.

Oh, sure he is -- at the margins.  Myopic and silly and counterproductive and downright mean as his suggested cuts often are.

But on a macro basis -- the incumbent Congressman is as reckless as they come.

If my Republican opponent were a true fiscal conservative, he'd vote AGAINST war appropriations unless there was tax revenue to back them up.

But no.  He blithely votes for war -- pre-emptive war waged under phony pretenses, mind you -- and then shuns responsibility for paying for it.  And he compounds his arrogance by simultaneously shilling for tax cuts for the wealthy.

One of my sons sums it up wonderfully well:  "What's worse than tax-and-spend Democrats?  The borrow-and-spend Republicans!"

Friends, the past fifty years of wretched fiscal excess and depravity and irresponsibility -- exhibited by Republicans and Democrats alike -- have brought our nation to its knees.

They're exporting our jobs.  They're trashing our dollar.  They're ruining our way of life.

That's why I'm running as a Green.  I stand for fiscal responsibility.  I stand for job creation and economic development through a bottoms-up approach I call "microcapitalism".  And I stand for -- gasp! -- a balanced budget. 

The money medicine will be bitter, friends.  We face hard work and sacrifice in order to bootstrap ourselves back into good jobs, and to right the financial wrongs that have been left to us.

Uncle Dave was right about the budget-busting Democrats of yore.  And my son is right about the borrow-and-spend Republicans of today.

A $562 billion dollar annual deficit.  That's roughly eight times Carter.  That's roughly eighty times Johnson.

And we're all supposed to think that the tooth fairy will pick up the tab.

It's time -- way past time, in fact -- for "we the people" to put our financial house in order.  I am, friends, at your disposal for the hard work ahead.



 


...<< MORE >>

Officials in McHenry County are organizing a local observance of the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth.  Over the course of the rest of this year and on into 2009, I'll be contributing a column entitled "Thinkin' of Lincoln" to the McHenry website, www.alincoln200.com.  Here's the first installment:

Thinkin' of Lincoln
Insights on Illinois' favorite son

by Scott Summers

Here in McHenry County, Illinois, we'll be celebrating the bicentennial of Lincoln's birth during all of 2009.  I'll be writing a series of columns on our sixteenth president.

In my offerings, I intend to veer from traditional biographical and historical information about Lincoln.  Instead, watch for background and nuance and subtlety about the man from Springfield.

Some of it will be whimsical.   Some of it will be wistful.  Some of it will be enigmatic and puzzling.  Some of it will be absorbing and entertaining. 

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 educational and enlightening.

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 occasional guest authors.

Let's start "Thinkin'".

As it so happens -- Lincoln is out campaigning.  Right now, here in the summer of 2008.  And on into the autumn.  All across Illinois.

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 McHenry County will be in Ottawa between August 22 and 23; Freeport between August 29 and September 1;  and Galesburg between October 3 and 5.   Information about the programs statewide is at http://www.enjoyillinois.com/LDR/index.html.

Of the seven debate sites, only one remains in the original -- the Old Main building at Knox College in Galesburg.  Here's a bit of whimsy:  at Old Main, the platform erected especially
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. 

Lincoln, of course, had barely a year of formal
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 Lincoln going through windows.

"(L)egend surrounds Lincoln's jump from a window. Lincoln did jump from a window of Springfield's
Second Presbyterian Church, the temporary location of the House of
Representatives, in December 1840. The motive of the rash action, for
which Lincoln suffered considerable humiliation, was to break a quorum when Democrats called for a vote to cripple the Whig-favored state bank.

"No evidence besides oral tradition (claiming at least one notable Vandalian as an eyewitness to the leap) places a similar Lincoln jump at Vandalia. In the Vandalia legend, Lincoln jumped from a statehouse window in order to break a quorum when a vote was called to keep the capital at Vandalia." 
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 Lincoln's life.  And I hope that you will enjoy your gazes through it.

Original content available for non-commercial use under a Creative Commons license: 
Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works   2.5 Generic
...<< MORE >>

Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's
blood... 
Make big plans; aim high in hope and work.  Daniel Burnham, Chicago architect  1864-1912

Seattle has Boeing.  Wichita has Cessna. 

Why can't we have aircraft manufacturing in Rockford?

We have all of the ingredients.

Chicago Rockford International Airport is underused.

Companies like Acument (aircraft fasteners), Ingenium (aircraft systems testing), Woodward Governor, and Hamilton Sunstrand (which has done significant work on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner) all are here.

The Global Tradepark TIF district and the Rivers Edge Redevelopment Zone -- programs to encourage development near the airport -- are in place.

All sorts of manufacturing capacity is nearby.  For example, the massive Motorola facility in Harvard -- completely unused for five years -- is about 35 miles from the airport. 

Put it all together with the stark new reality of staggeringly high fuel costs, and what do you get?

I see a need for new niche aircraft for both passenger and cargo service.  Aircraft that sacrifice speed for sharply improved fuel economy.

Call it retro if you must -- but I see turboprops in our future. 

Yes.  Propeller planes about the size of a 737.  Short and intermediate range flights.  Capacity of about 150 - 200 passengers.

Are aircraft of this type being built anywhere in the world?  Perhaps I'm mistaken -- but I don't think so.

Why not here, in the 16th Congressional district?

Consider the example of Embraer, the Brazilian aircraft manufacturer.  They developed a niche market for fifty-seat regional jets.  No other company in the world makes commercial craft quite like them.  And the firm is swamped with orders.

To be certain, an aircraft manufacturing startup in Rockford will take an enormous amount of planning.  And money. 

And perhaps it won't be turboprops.  Perhaps it'll be a new generation of low-speed jets that optimize fuel efficiency.

Can we get these aircraft to run on biofuel that is not derived from food crops?  Plan for that, too!

Perhaps none of this will come to pass.

But unlike my opponents -- who seem to work only at the margins -- I "aim high in hope and work".

Don't get me wrong.  I am a firm believer in community based economics.  My "microcapitalism" plan for growing home and local-based businesses sets me apart from my two opponents for Congress.

But as you can see -- I also think macro.

"Make no little plans", friends. 

Build turboprops in Rockford? 

Why not?





...<< MORE >>

This morning, I received an email which reads in part:

Dear Mr. Summers:
I think I know the answer you will provide is "yes" but I'll ask anyway.  Will you commit to support a program that achieves the goal that Vice President Gore set out:  "...to producing 100 percent of our electricity from renewable energy and truly clean carbon-free sources within 10 years" (Al Gore, July 17, 2008)?  ...So, now the question is what should the plan for achieving the Gore plan be?  Do you have thoughts on this that you can share with me?

My slightly edited reply follows: 

Dear Sir:

Thank you very much for your thoughtful email.

Of course I support the Gore position: one hundred percent carbon-free electricity in ten years.

How shall we achieve it?

We'll
begin by imposing a steep carbon tax (including both petroleum and
coal) and depositing the proceeds into a special trust fund for
application to "energy retooling" projects.

For implementation, we'll start (of course) with our
public buildings.  Solar/wind/geothermal.  Insulation. 
Energy-efficient doors and windows.  And as we can, we'll step down the
colossal electrical grids and move to generation on a municipal basis.

But I also propose public policy initiatives that you'd not expect from most candidates for Congress.

We'll set up a Roosevelt-style "Civilian Conservation Corps" dedicated to
retrofitting homes and businesses across the nation for energy
efficiency.  And we'll put our youth and unemployed to work. The funding?
 Fifty-fifty private-public matches, with the public match coming from
the new carbon tax trust fund.

Public lighting of all kinds can
go hybrid.  For safety reasons, traffic lights probably will always
have to be on grid.  But why can't we have traffic lights and street
lights each equipped with tiny windmills and battery packs as their
principal energy sources, with grid backup?

How about sewage treatment facilities that use windmills to help aerate wastewater?  You get the idea.

We must completely revamp and strengthen building codes.  The Building Officials and Code Administrators (BOCA)
municipal code models and the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
program come to mind.  Groups such as the American Institute of Architects will
be instrumental.

Public works and smart building and design
standards will help point the way.  But make no mistake:  energy
responsibility is, at its core, personal responsibility.  None of this
will work very well in the absence of what I'm calling "Individual
Initiative". 

Specifically -- we all need to go on an "Energy
Diet".  Americans per capita use more energy than any other people in
the world.  Turn off the air conditioning and turn on a fan in the
summer.  Put on a sweater and turn down the thermostat in winter. 
(Ironically, this is precisely what Jimmy Carter suggested thirty years
ago.  He was, of course, correct!)

I'd like to take as much
energy production as possible off grid, and see people take the
initiative with developing what I'll call "backyard energy" consistent
with their living situations.  (This will not work for everyone, e.g.,
apartment dwellers.)

Education is critical.  Introduce
schoolchildren -- and hence their families -- to backyard energy
concepts AT THE OUTSET with simple demonstrations and experiments that
tie to science homework.  A flashlight bulb that runs off of a tiny
solar panel.  An FM radio that runs off of a tabletop windmill or a
handturned crank.  Homegrown demonstrations will help acclimate people
to the idea that "backyard energy" is plausible.

(Contrast what I've just
sketched out to the positions of my opponents.  The Republican
incumbent wants to drill aggressively for oil. And the Democrat wants
to build one hundred new nuclear power plants.)

In short -- we've all "gotta wanna" get to carbon-free electricity in ten years.  And me, well -- I wanna. 

I
hope you'll excuse a bit of personal swagger, but -- I'm especially
well suited to be a Congressman who truly will be a servant-leader.  I
really am a candidate who stands apart.  I am free to articulate bold
public policy.   Politically, I am beholden to no one. 

I hope
that this quick on-the-fly email is sufficiently responsive.  And I
hope that you will spread the word about my candidacy.  As you surely
can discern -- I'm in a decidedly uphill race.

Thanks again for contacting me.

Scott Summers ...<< MORE >>

The numbers are in for April 2008 -- and they aren't pretty.

Unemployment is up -- up sharply -- in all of the counties that comprise, in whole or part, our Congressional District.

At 8.1%, Boone has the second worst rate in the state.  Ogle and Winnebago are ninth and tenth worst, at 7%.

Statewide?  5.4%.  Nationally?  5.0%. 

We're falling behind, friends.  And my opponents simply don't have any good ideas about what to do -- except maybe throw more of our tax dollars around, and try a few things at the margins. 

The traditional top-down "solutions" -- grants and tax breaks and other incentives for companies large and small -- simply aren't working.  Our good jobs just keep melting away.

I say:  let's change the fundamentals.

Instead of trying to boost the economy from the top-down -- let's do it from the bottom-up.

Let's empower our families and neighbors and friends.

Let's raise up a whole new generation of capitalists.  A whole new breed of capitalists.

I call them "microcapitalists". 

It was the hard-working, bootstrapping, decent folks of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries who, one at a time, put their hearts and their hands and their backs and their sweat into the nation's hard work, and made America an economic powerhouse.

We can do it again.

I propose a program of microloans and microgrants for home-based and community-based businesses. 

Let's jump-start this with jobs and management training through our high schools and community colleges.

Add a volunteer corps of accountants and lawyers and bankers and retired executives to serve as coaches.

Offer reduced rents in "business incubators" -- shared office or shop floor space, with pooled administrative staff and office equipment.

The microcapitalist program will be rigorous.  And it will not be for everybody:  not all of us are cut out to be business owners and managers. 

But it's a bright new way of reinvigorating our communities, and creating new jobs.

The coaching teams will help develop business plans as a requirement for receiving microloan and microgrant consideration.  And the coaches will guide the microcapitalists, and help them succeed.

These businesses can be anything that demonstrably serves a community need:  a bed and breakfast, a beauty salon, a bakery, or a bicycle business.  A software startup.  Community agriculture.  Specialty manufactured items that fill niches, shipped to the nation and even the world.

Let's create work.  Let's create businesses and jobs.  Let's give one another the dignity of work.

And let's do it together, at the grass roots -- in our neighborhoods and in our communities and on our farms.

Do you know what else?

Home-grown jobs, and home-grown businesses, are ours to keep.  They won't be outsourced.

Friends, this is how I will perform as your Congressman.

I offer hearts-and-hands solutions.

Here is my heart.  Give me your hand.

Most truly yours,

Scott
...<< MORE >>

Remember "redlining"? 

Financial institutions used to discriminate against the poor and people of color by simply refusing to offer mortgages and insurance in certain neighborhoods, irrespective of a client's creditworthiness and ability to pay.  It was an unethical and abusive and predatory practice that has since been curbed through legislation such as the federal Community Reinvestment Act of 1977. 

In an article entitled "Student Loans Start to Bypass 2-Year Colleges", today's New York Times reports:  "Some of the nation’s biggest banks have
closed their doors to students at community colleges, for-profit
universities and other less competitive institutions, even as they
continue to extend federally backed loans to students at the nation’s
top universities."  www.nytimes.com/2008/06/02/business/02loans.html?ref=todayspaper

What makes this new redlining all the more disgusting is that student loans generally are very difficult to discharge in bankruptcy.  In other words -- lenders ALREADY have minimal risk of defaults on student loans!  They don't HAVE to resort to "student redlining"!

Attention bankers:  okay, credit is tight just now.  Ration if you must.  Exit the student loan market if you prefer.  But do not DARE cherry pick students!   Do not DARE "redline" community college students!




...<< MORE >>

It would be far too glib and simplistic to say that cluster bombs are heinous implements of war.

They're not ordinary weapons.  Broadcast from the air as if they were seed, they cause unspeakable carnage and terror among civilian populations. 

"Duds" -- or, more aptly, "dud-ettes" -- can lie dormant in much the same fashion as land mines.  Long after a conflict has ended, they kill and maim innocents.

Yesterday, in Dublin, one hundred and eleven nations signed a treaty banning cluster bombs. Principal manufacturers of the munitions -- Russia, China, Israel, India, Pakistan, and the United States -- declined to sign.

The State Department trotted out a low-level spokesman, Tom Casey, who blithely dissembled that cluster bombs are"absolutely critical and essential" to our military.  Uh-huh.

Today, the Associated Press quotes one John Pike of GlobalSecurity.org:  "Treaties like this make me want to barf.  It's so irrelevant.  Completely feel-good." 

(Shall we call this despicable bit of drivel "Pike's Pique"?)

Why?  Why would the US refuse to sign?  Because the Pentagon crowd thinks the expedient way to wage and win wars is through extermination?  Because a ban would cut into our immensely profitable weapons-export business?  

Friends, we need to join the rest of the world and curb armaments.  And for that matter -- we need to stop exporting weapons.   I solemnly pledge myself to these tasks.







...<< MORE >>

Just for fun.............

Did you know that three names -- Nixon, Dole, and Bush -- have been at the top of the Republican Party ticket in thirteen of the last fourteen presidential elections?

1952:  Nixon, vice president
1956:  Nixon, vice president
1960:  Nixon, president
1964:  The exception -- Barry Goldwater and William Miller
1968:  Nixon, president
1972:  Nixon, president
1976:  Bob Dole, vice president
1980:  George H.W. Bush, vice president
1984:  George H.W. Bush, vice president
1988:  George H.W. Bush, president
1992:  George H.W. Bush, president
1996:  Bob Dole, president
2000:  George W. Bush, president
2004:  George W. Bush, president

Not that I particularly care who the Republicans field for 2008, but -- looks like the string may be ending.  (Fresh faces!  What a concept!)



...<< MORE >>

Looks like my Congressional opponents, Don Manzullo and Bob Abboud, think they have found heretofore undiscovered crumbs at the bottom of the cookie jar.

Abboud and Manzullo and others -- John
McCain and Hillary Clinton for two -- want a "summertime gas holiday". 
Drop the 18.4 cent federal gas tax between now and Labor Day.


On May 5th, the Rockford Register-Star's Chuck Sweeny reported:  "...I wrote in Sunday’s column that Abboud was against the tax
holiday. I learned Monday that he actually is for the temporary repeal,
even though he doesn’t think it will do any good in the long term. I
stand corrected and puzzled. U.S. Rep. Don Manzullo, R-Egan, is for the
tax holiday, too. Like Abboud, Don says it’s a short-term thing."

Shall we revisit Economics 101?

A few bucks "saved" in gas taxes at the margin will only increase the demand at the margin.  Net effect on gasoline prices:  insignificant, if not zero.  (Actually, the overall effect is worse than zero, because the available dollars to fix roads will be at a standstill for three months.)

And, like, PUH-LEEZE!  We already have deficits out the wazoo, and we keep cutting taxes?????

Count on THIS candidate for Congress to tell it like it is.

Do we want decent roads on which to drive?  Guess what:  gas taxes need to go up.  Do we desperately need a capital program here in Illinois, in order to capture and leverage already-pledged federal dollars for roads and bridges and other infrastructure?  You betcha.  Gas (and not sales) taxes need to go up.

Do we want to have interstate highway bridges that don't suddenly collapse into rivers?  Our fairy godmothers aren't going to pick up the tab.

Do we need to refurbish mass transit in order to accommodate all the people who already want to get off the roads (at least some) in response high gasoline prices?  Yeah, and gas taxes are the best way to do that.  Do we need an accelerated program to tool up for alternative fuels for our cars?  Yessir.  Do we need to bring passenger rail service levels up?   Absolutely. 

Gas tax, folks.  MORE gas tax.  In fact -- we need to bring gas taxes up to world levels.

I was in Vancouver a couple of weeks ago, where gasoline was well over five bucks a gallon.  (And probably approaching six bucks by now.)  The Canadians with whom my wife and I spoke were grousing about it, of course.  Is there pain?  Anger?  Dislocation?  Discomfort?  Yes -- worldwide.  It's not just us.

Don't get me wrong:  the monster spike in petroleum prices affects us all.  And the oil giants should be levied a monster tax on their windfall profits. 

But cutting petroleum taxes as an election year gimmick only delays -- and magnifies -- our collective dislocation and hardship down the road (pun intended).

Folks, we need to swallow bitter medicine.  Increase gas taxes.  If saying that costs me votes, well........I don't particularly care. 

Oh, and permit me to introduce one of my campaign refrains for the coming months.  Personal responsibility. 

Personal responsibility, friends.  Cut back on car use, as you are able.  You know the drill.  Bundle your errands, carpool, walk, ride a bike, take a bus or train.  

And do you know what?  In our capitalist economy (and surprise!, I personally embrace capitalism as the "least worst" economic system), that's the best way back at the oily petroleum companies:  simply don't buy as much of their product.
...<< MORE >>

There was a news story late last week about the lease of vehicles by Congressional offices. 

Seems like Congressman Manzullo's staff uses an SUV.

WBBM Radio and the Northwest Herald carried the story.  See these links: www.wbbm780.com/pages/2193182.php  nwherald.com/articles/2008/05/18/news/local/doc4830593917c7d071219578.txt

Here's a response I emailed this afternoon to Northwest Herald reporter Kevin Craver:

Mr. Craver:

Thank you for your article this past Saturday on Congressional vehicle leases.

I
am on the November ballot as the Green Party candidate for Congress in
the 16th District.  (I will be in a three way race with Messrs.
Manzullo and Abboud.)

Common sense -- and good examples -- make a world of difference.

I
don't think anyone (including me) has an objection per se to reasonable
car usage by Representatives and their staffs.  But I do have some
observations in connection with this story.

First, elected
officials -- including Manzullo -- should lead by example.  For travel
throughout the district, a hybrid car would be a more appropriate
choice than a Mountaineer.  (And for strictly local trips in greater
Rockford, an all-electric car would set a wonderful example.)

Second,
Congressman Manzullo says in a recent press release that he supports
"...legislation that would increase or remove the cap limitations on
the tax credit of up to $3,000 for consumers who purchase alternative
powered motor vehicles."  As a matter of consistency, then, it just
makes sense that he and his staff should be using a hybrid vehicle
rather than an SUV.

And third, it would set another good example
to use the Rockford buses, if only on occasion.  (When I travel to McHenry County College
board meetings, I try to use Pace and Metra as frequently as I can --
usually an average of one in three meetings.)

Thank you for your consideration.

Scott Summers

...<< MORE >>

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 16^th
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
102. No more subsidies to the nuclear industry for (a) research (b)
construction and (c ) disposal. (See investor/stockholder
responsibility. Geez, whatever happened to capitalism in this
country?)

Reason 103.  No more federal insurance caps on nukes:  make the nuclear industry pay for its own insurance, at market rates -- if they can get it, that is.

Did
you know that the federal Price-Anderson Nuclear Industries Indemnity
Act caps government insurance for each site at $300
million, plus operator contributions per reactor of $95.8 million?
So in the event of an accident -- Three Mile Island, anyone? --
there's less than $400 million to go around. For an incident of such
enormity, that's chump change, folks. That's less than two days of
war in Iraq. And taxpayers – not operators -- are on the hook for
over three-quarters of that pittance!

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.

...<< MORE >>

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?

...<< MORE >>

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.”

...<< MORE >>

The Heartland Alliance's Mid-America Institute on Poverty has just released its “2008 Report on Illinois Poverty”.  It's highly sobering – for the midwest, for Illinois, and for the 16th Congressional District.

Here are just a few of the key findings:

• Between 2001 and 2007, real weekly wages (adjusted for inflation) fell in seven of eleven job sectors.
• In 70 of 102 Illinois counties, median income declined by $1547 between 2001 and 2005.
• Seniors, children, and the disabled account for almost half of those living in extreme poverty.
• In 2006, 12.3% of Illinoisans lived in poverty – up from 10.7% in 1999.
  

Five area counties are on the group's “Poverty Watch List”:  Boone, DeKalb, Ogle, Stephenson, and Winnebago.

Page 52 of the report breaks out statistics by Congressional District.  Consider these numbers for the 16th:

• Poverty rate, 2006:  10.2%
• Number of people in extreme poverty, 2006:  31,041 (a 6.5% rate)
• Children in poverty, 2006:  24,074 (a 13.2% rate)
• Total in poverty, 2006:  72,563  (That's approximately the populations of Belvidere, Freeport, and Loves Park combined!)

Heartland's report identifies six “Pathways Out of Poverty”:  education, employment, health, housing, nutrition, and assets.

We will not succeed in our corner of the state – nor in Illinois, nor in America – unless every single citizen has a chance to succeed.  The curse of poverty on some is a curse upon us all.

Alleviation of poverty is one of my top issues.  In coming posts, I will speak on each of Heartland's six pathways.

View the report in full through this link:  http://www.heartlandalliance.org/maip
...<< MORE >>

Let's Get Serious About Guns

News Item:  “Politicians Talk Gun Control”,
Friday, February 15, 2008:
www.chicagopublicradio.org/Content.aspx?audioID=18595

(Illinois Congressman Donald) Manzullo: “You know, we don't have
enough information, we don't know if something happened improperly in
obtaining the firearms, and I think it's speculative that stricter
firearms laws could have prevented something like (the Northern
Illinois University shootings).”

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.

_________________________________________________________________

Other politicans speak on gun control –
and Summers responds

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.

...<< MORE >>