The Journal Star reported today that Gov. Blagojevich deceived the legislature in order to get a budget item passed that would allow him to use the money for embryonic stem cell research:

The governor on Tuesday said a $10 million line item in the state budget for “scientific research” was actually tucked away for grants to study stem cells, including those from human embryos. Both Shadid and Demuzio last year opposed legislation for Illinois to promote embryonic stem cell research, which some liken to abortion because human embryos are destroyed.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich should be impeached. He has wantonly abused the power of his office and deliberately deceived the legislature — the people’s representatives — to push through legislation he knew would never pass on its own merits.

Further, he unabashedly defends his ends-justify-the-means methods. Here’s an actual quote from the governor reported on The Illinois Leader webpage: “[using $10 million for stem cell research was] the right thing to do, and however you get there is immaterial.” Oh, really? Try having your district attorney tell that to the court the next time the police obtain evidence without a warrant. Try telling that to the cop that pulls you over when you were speeding so you wouldn’t be late for work. Try telling that to the voters when you come up for reelection.

And that assumes that the end is indeed “the right thing to do.” Clearly, there is no consensus on that point. Basically what the governor is saying is that it doesn’t matter how he gets what he wants as long as he believes it’s the right thing to do. How arrogant. What else does the good gov’nuh believe is “the right thing to do”? Obviously integrity and honesty aren’t on his list.

His deception and moral equivocacy are bad for government regardless of the issue. That said, though, I’m especially upset because I’m opposed to embryonic stem-cell research, as I’ve stated in a previous post. Here’s another apt quote from the Illinois Leader:

“Though it’s commendable to want to help those who are suffering debilitating diseases and injuries, it is unconscionable to do so at the expense of other human lives,” said Dr. John Kilner, president of the Center for Bioethics and Human Dignity (CBHD) said Wednesday.

“This is an imposition of morally problematic research on the citizens of Illinois. The people have already spoken through the democratic process- legislation to promote this research failed in the General Assembly. Stem cell research can be pursued ethically by focusing research on adult stem cells, including cord blood cells.”

Imposition. Morally problematic. Ethical ways to pursue the same ends. These things mean nothing to our governor. Because of his deception, every Illinoisan’s tax dollars are directly funding human experimentation and destruction. That is outrageous.

Impeach Blagojevich.

There was a meeting scheduled last night from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. at Jameison School to talk about the upcoming cable franchise agreement. I admit I was late because my softball game didn’t finish until 6:30. So I got there at 6:50, and…

The meeting was over.

The news crew for channel 31 informed me that there was only one person there who came to give his/her input, besides councilmen and staff. So they adjourned. I didn’t note everyone who was there, but I did see councilmen Morris and Turner, city attorney Randy Ray, and city manager Randy Oliver. I’m sure others were there, but I can’t confirm or deny who they were. There were reporters there from all the major news outlets.

I’m a little miffed that I missed the supposedly two-hour meeting after being only 20 minutes late. But more than that, I’m disappointed that only one person showed up. I suppose it’s possible that everyone had a softball game tonight and were all going to come late like me, but that’s unlikely. So, I can only guess that everyone in Peoria is really, really happy with their cable TV service. Who could’ve guessed?

Of course, I’m being facetious. But why didn’t anyone show up?

One problem may be just communicating to Peorians at large when and where the meetings are. For instance, I didn’t see anything in the Journal Star yesterday about it (I could’ve missed it).

But a more likely culprit, I believe, is that people just don’t know what city leaders are looking for. What kind of information is the council hoping to get from residents? Are they just wanting people to come and complain about their cable service?

It would be helpful if city staff would give everyone some guidelines before the meetings. For instance, they could tell everyone what can and cannot be done with a cable franchise agreement — perhaps a shorter, simpler version (e.g., one page bulleted list) of this document from the Baller Herbst Law Group. Some of the things I learned were:

• Cities can only regulate the rates of basic cable (channels 2 through 22 in Peoria)
• Cable companies can “pass through” the cost of city demands to the consumer directly (not just with higher rates, but with a specific fee)
• Cities don’t have to demand PEG (public, education, government) access, and in fact, if no one is interested in this kind of access, the city could drop it in the franchise renewal. I know they’ll still want the government access (for council meetings), and ICC will want the educational access, but does anyone care about public access? If so, they should attend these meetings.
• Cities cannot regulate specific cable programming — however, they can “specify broad categories of programs and services and require that some programs be provided on designated channels.” That sounds to me like they can’t say “CNN needs to be on channel 2, and ESPN needs to be on channel 3,” but they could say, “there needs to be 24-news and sports programming in the 2-22 channel range.”
• It’s unclear at this time whether cities can legally make any demands of a cable company’s broadband services. Also, while the city can’t require “open access” to cable lines to provide cable TV content (like they do with phone lines to provide phone service), it appears they may be able to require “open access” to their cable modem system by non-affiliated internet service providers.
• Cities can make demands regarding customer service, including installation timing and arrangements, maintenance dealing with system outages, and billing (e.g., how pass-through fees and are identified on the bill).

Along with this document to give things context, they could ask the community for more specific input, such as:

• Do you watch or use public access television? Is that something you want to see preserved or enhanced?
• Are you satisfied with the categories of programming you receive on basic cable, classic cable, etc.?
• How satisfied are you with Insight’s customer service? Do you understand your bill or should it be reworded?
• Have you had any trouble with system outages? If so, were they fixed within a reasonable time?

And whatever else they want to know. But spelling this stuff out would be helpful for residents when seeking input.

One other note. According to Baller Herbst, the going term for franchise agreements is 7-10 years, but on the news last night Randy Ray said he was trying for a five-year franchise agreement. I can understand wanting to lower it from twenty (that’s too long). But five years seems a bit short to me, especially if the city wants the cable company to make any upgrades to the system. With such a short agreement, there wouldn’t be much incentive to put a whole lot of money into the system when the possibility exists that they won’t get a return on their investment.

I hope there is better turnout at the next two meetings: July 28 at Peoria High School, and August 18 at Woodruff High School. Both dates are Thursdays, and the meetings start at 6:30. Don’t be late.