“I don’t think any of us can do much about the rapid growth of new technology. However, it is possible for us to learn how to control our own uses of technology. The ‘forum’ that I think is best suited for this is our educational system. If students get a sound education in the history, social effects and psychological biases of technology, they may grow to be adults who use technology rather than be used by it.”
–Neil Postman (1931-2003)
In today’s “Washington Calling” section of the Journal Star, Scripps Howard News Service writer Lance Gay states, “As energy price increases soak through the economy, look for the Federal Reserve to change course to battle the horrors of stagflation, which last was seen during the Nixon administration.”
Um, try the Carter administration, Mr. Gay. Look it up.
I know this is old news, but I didn’t get a chance to comment on this at the time, and B.J.’s recent post about Ann Coulter reminded me of it again….
The Journal Star was all out of sorts on Thursday when syndicated columnist Leonard Pitts said in his column that Ann Coulter’s book “plays in Peoria.” They were so incensed, you would have thought the guy personally called up the editorial board and told them, “eh, your mother wears army boots.”
My advice to the PJS: let it go. He wasn’t talking about Peoria, Illinois, or the fine people who live here. The Miami-based Pitts probably can’t even readily locate Peoria on a map. “Does it play in Peoria?” is just a generic phrase that means “does it appeal to mainstream America?”
The JS said, “We tried to reach Pitts, without success.” Thank goodness! I hope they stopped trying. Can we please stop embarrassing ourselves by attempting to cleanse the English language of this phrase? Does the Indianapolis Star get incensed every time someone in Missouri uses “Hoosier” in a derogatory manner?
Pitts isn’t hurting Peoria’s reputation. Journal Star columnist Phil Luciano did more to embarrass Peoria when he appeared on the nationally-broadcast “Michael Feldman’s Whad’Ya Know” program on NPR in 2000 (“Peoria is 20 road houses and a strip joint”), but I don’t remember any hue and cry over that in the editorial page….
It only took me until the second paragraph of Clare Jellick’s story in the Journal Star to start shaking my head in disbelief:
The [Peoria Public School] district [150] has agreed to partner with the City of Peoria to identify a site of about 15 acres that includes [Glen Oak] primary school, U.S. Rep. Ray LaHood announced Monday at a press conference following a meeting between local officials.
What is it with the school board and their obsession with getting 15 acres for an urban school? This arbitrary standard is the single most destructive policy the school board is following — it is the reason they wanted to build next to Glen Oak Park in the first place, and if it is not abandoned, it will damage every neighborhood where they want to build a new urban school.
Any compromise the city makes with the school district must include a decrease in their minimum acreage standards.
Why? There are five main reasons: (1) Minimum acreage requirements have been officially abandoned by educational experts as of 2004, (2) the State of Illinois does not require any minimum acreage for school siting, (3) there is no evidence that the amount of acreage has any effect on student achievement, (4) acreage requirements are counter to the Heart of Peoria Plan, which the council adopted “in principle,” and (5) minimum acreage requirements have a negative impact on student health and the environment.
I see the city approved putting GPS tracking devices in city vehicles. Will they be putting one in City Manager Randy Oliver’s car as well? He gets a $575/month “allowance” for his vehicle, so it would be kind of nice to know where we can find him when we need him, too.
I know you’re all wondering when I’m going to write again….
I am back from my weekend in Ohio, but there are some medical issues in my family that are more important than blogging right now. I hope to be writing again soon, so stay tuned.
I’m blogging from Ohio, where my nephew is graduating from high school this weekend. I’ll get back to blogging in a couple of days, unless I see something really blogworthy and i just can’t stand to wait. Have a nice weekend, everyone!
Great Scott! I knew DSL would be faster, but I really didn’t expect it to be quite this fast.
For those of you my age or older, do you remember the old 1200 baud modems? Remember the first time you upgraded to 2400 baud and how screamin’ fast it was for getting on those direct-dial bulletin boards? That’s kind of what I expected.
This is nothing like that.
No, this is more like going from a rickshaw to a Lamborghini.
And just to raise the “cool” factor even more, I’ve got my wireless router hooked up, so now I can be anywhere in or around the house and access my smokin’ internet connection: porch, kitchen, bedroom, garage — you name it!
I know, this isn’t very exciting for you, you “haves” who’ve been taunting “have-nots” like me lo these many years with your speedy broadband. It’s all old-hat to you. But I don’t care. It’s new to me and I’m not ashamed to admit I’m ecstatic with the improvement over that old 56k modem I’ve been using.
I’m not a big fan of tax increment finance districts (TIFs). I’ve seen them used irresponsibly (Midtown Plaza, for instance), and I’ve seen them divide this community. People are soured on TIFs. However, when used properly, TIFs can be a good thing. Sometimes, some places, you really do need tax incentives or development really won’t happen.
The Southern Gateway — and specifically the Eagle View Biotech Business Park — is one of those places.
The amount of money it would take to rehabilitate this area is enormous ($125,000/acre) and enough to dissuade even the most committed urban developer. Jennifer Davis gives an excellent overview of the city’s plans in today’s Journal Star. You can also read the Request for Council Action (PDF file) on the city’s website.
There’s a rule for determining eligibility for TIF funding. It’s called the “but for” test. According to www.illinois-tif.com, “When considering an area for TIF designation, municipal officials must ask the question ‘Will the same kind of private investment occur here without an incentive?’” I think the answer to that question for the Southern Gateway is definitely “no.”
I couldn’t say that about Midtown Plaza. I think that area could have been redeveloped without a TIF. Whether or not a TIF was needed around the Sears block, it certainly didn’t need to be extended for an unnecessary underground parking deck. It’s because of these and other abuses that Peorians are gun-shy about another TIF. I understand that.
But the Southern Gateway is different. The city isn’t trying to bring in a shopping center or visitor’s center or touristy stuff here — it wants to attract industry. And industry means real, well-paying jobs. Peoria needs to attract more industry, and putting it in this area along the river makes sense. We don’t want to see this industry go to other cities, nor do we want to see it going in a suburban corn field.
TIFs get a bad rap in Peoria, and deservedly so. But this time, I’m for it. It’s for this kind of project that TIF laws were made.
Boy is Ray on the defensive! Check out this month’s Interbusiness Issues article written by our very own U.S. Representative, “Earmark Story Misses the Mark.” It’s essentially his rebuttal to this article, written by Dori Meinert of Copley News Service, which raised questions about the ethics of LaHood giving federal money to companies that contribute heavily to his campaign.
“I was extremely disappointed by the recent news story written by a Washington-based reporter regarding the earmark process for securing federal support for projects here in our Congressional District,” LaHood starts out, vowing to “set the record straight” and provide a “complete set of facts.”
Of the 41 projects for which I helped to secure earmarked funds in fiscal year 2006, the reporter focused her story on four—two for Caterpillar, one for Firefly Energy, and one for Proctor Hospital—and somehow tried to tie them to campaign contributions I’ve received.
“…Somehow tried to tie them to campaign contributions”? It wasn’t very hard:
To see a complete list of LaHood’s earmarks for fiscal year 2006, check out the State Journal-Register (Springfield), another Copley publication.
LaHood’s response: “Never have I asked someone for a contribution in return for funding we’ve secured or work my office has done.” He goes on to defend his procurement of earmarks for Caterpillar based on the fact that Cat is such a large employer and helping them helps the economy in the 18th Congressional District. He doesn’t mention the earmarks for Firefly or Proctor at all.
But he does bring up several other earmarks — things that can’t be attributed to a quid pro quo — such as emergency radio upgrades for Peoria County, a new sanitary sewer system for Pleasant Plains, and 9-1-1 enhancement for Logan County. And he brings up earmarks that he secured for projects Copley Press supported — like the new Lincoln Presidential Library and the Peoria Next Innovation Center.
He apparently didn’t read the end of Meinert’s article, because she did, in fact, mention Peoria Next and the $1 million earmark they received — they’re also represented by Washington-based lobbyist group Cassidy & Associates.
LaHood concludes by saying, “to somehow attempt to tie me to people like Jack Abramoff or Duke Cunningham is wrong, and it gives unfair license to a reporter in creating a perception that isn’t accurate,” and then asserting his professionalism, honesty, and integrity.
LaHood’s defense is filled with logical fallacies.
First of all, to bring up all the undisputed earmarks and not mention Firefly or Proctor or his association with Cassidy & Associates is the epitome of a red herring. This is like a person caught shoplifing some candy holding up a receipt for the all the other groceries he purchased and saying, “see, I’m innocent because — look at all the other stuff I did pay for!”
Secondly, it’s a non sequitur to suggest that because he agrees with Copley Press on, say, the Innovation Center that they should therefore endorse his means of funding it. I could give a million examples of this, but let’s just take a couple. We all want adequate fire protection in Peoria, but we don’t all agree that a garbage tax is the way to fund it. We are all in favor of urban renewal, but we don’t all agree on using TIF districts to fund that, either.
But most of all, there’s this tone about the article like he just can’t understand why people are questioning him on this. Is he really so out of touch that he doesn’t realize the electorate is cynical and jaded? Can he really not see that his earmarks at least give the appearance of there being a quid pro quo? In defending himself, he should at least acknowledge that much. He should say, “Hey, I know this may look bad in light of the Abramoff scandal, and I want to ensure voters that this situation is different…,” and then proceed to explain why it’s different.
He may even want to consider returning the campaign contributions he received from Cat, Firefly, and Proctor just as a show of good faith to his constituents. This wouldn’t be unprecedented since he states in his article, “we routinely return contributions my campaign receives that include a letter or note referencing assistance someone has received from my office or how I voted on legislation.” Since these contributions and related earmarks are causing so much controversy, why not just give up the campaign money? It’s not like he’s hurting for funds in his war chest, and no one is opposing him in the midterm elections.
In the end, the reason it’s so hard for LaHood to prove his innocence is because the earmark system is inherently flawed. Earmarks offer no checks or balances or any accountability for how funds are distributed. The best solution is the one LaHood rejects — abolish earmarks altogether.
LaHood says, “I believe the representatives of an area know their constituents’ priorities better than some Washington bureaucrat.” So, in LaHood’s logic, the two choices are letting him dole out the funds or letting a “Washington bureaucrat” dole out the funds. Hogwash. Why are these funds funneling through Washington at all? If they have all this extra money for our local needs, they should reduce our tax burden and let the local/state governments tax that money for their needs directly. In the case of military contracts, they should bid them out fairly, not have LaHood or other representatives choose the winners and losers. Any other projects that require federal funding should go through the legislative process as a separate bill, not be tacked on to an unrelated bill.
If LaHood were a real leader, he’d work for real reform.